Lords Sitting of 10 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 Southwark.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: THE MISSES PALEJA
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Miss Vasanti and Miss Shakuntala Paleja were transferred from Harmondsworth Detention Centre to Holloway Prison on July 20, because they refused to sign application forms for admission to India; and under what authority the Chief Immigration Officer on duty at Harmondsworth on that morning gave this to the Misses Paleja as the reason for their transfer.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, Miss Vasanti and Miss Shankutla Paleja were transferred to Holloway Prison because their behaviour was disturbing other people at Harmondsworth. Their unwillingness to sign Indian visa application forms had nothing to do with their transfer and I cannot trace that they were ever given reason to suppose that it had.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that both of these ladies have signed statements to the effect that they received threats of this nature before they were transferred to Holloway? Is it not a fact that this is a unique case and that no other detainees have been put into an ordinary women's prison like Holloway? Is it not also a fact that the Misses Paleja are debarred from reentering India because they were both ordered to quit that country and that that is the reason why they came here?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. I am not aware that they signed any such statements.
LORD AVEBURY: They have.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says is correct, perhaps he will be good enough to show me the documents later. They may or may not be unique; the point is that the Misses Paleja were removed because they were making a nuisance of themselves at Harmonds-worth in such circumstances as to make it impossible for the authorities properly to keep them there any longer. The reason why they cannot go back to India at the moment is that there are no visas for them, and they must have visas to get into India. That is the situation at present.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that both of these ladies tried to get an extension of their Indian visas while they were in that country but were refused extensions and that that is why they came here? For how much longer does the noble Viscount intend to keep these ladies in Holloway? Is he aware that they both have university degrees——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: So?
LORD AVEBURY:—and could therefore make a useful contribution to the economy of this country if they were allowed to remain here and take jobs?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there are queue jumpers—good, bad and indifferent. I am prepared to concede that personally these two ladies may be good. They are, nevertheless, queue jumpers.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, bearing in mind that the immigration officers already face considerable difficulties, may I ask my noble friend to agree that all the personnel of the Department involved in this work should receive the support of Her Majesty's Government in the difficult tasks which face them?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment; the immigration officers need our full support. I suggest with the greatest respect to the House that while Her Majesty's Government may not get support in a particular matter, I am entitled to ask, and I think the Government are entitled to receive, a

1269
certain amount of discretion on the part of those who wish to ask Questions.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There is a good deal going on at the moment, and I suggest that this is an occasion when we could do the best for everyone concerned, including the Asians in various parts of the world, by saying as little as possible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, what does the noble Viscount mean by "discretion" on the part of those who wish to ask Questions? Whether or not he likes this particular Question, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is perfectly entitled to ask it. I hope there will be no suggestion that noble Lords cannot use their judgment in these matters.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, should have taken me so amiss. I had no such intention in mind. What I was commenting on was not the propriety of the Question—it is beyond doubt correct, and of course any noble Lord can ask any Question. I was seeking to put a gloss on my noble friend Lord Gridley's comment on the present situation; and I was asking for the indulgence of the House in the asking of supplementaries.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I utterly repudiate the noble Viscount's implied criticism and I shall put down any Questions on the Order Paper I choose to table. In any case, if the noble Viscount was referring to the present situation in Uganda, then it might help if I were to remind him that these two ladies were born in Tanzania.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I look forward to seeing to-morrow's Order Paper.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the difficulties that the Government face in this matter, and while not wishing to make the situation more difficult, may I ask the noble Viscount to agree that his comment that visas have been refused to these two women to enter India emphasises the importance of the constructive suggestion that I have made—namely, that there should be discussions with India and the East African countries,
1270
including Tanzania, from which these women come, in order that a solution may be reached to this difficult problem?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I remember that he did make that point the other day. I also recall the endorsement it received from, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am glad to say that intensive diplomatic activities are going on at the moment with all the countries the noble Lord mentioned. We have therefore done our best to follow his most valuable advice.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves this matter, may I ask him to clear up one point? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asks in his Question:
"…under what authority the Chief Immigration Officer on duty at Harmondsworth…gave this to the Misses Paleja as the reason for their transfer"
to Holloway, and then,
"…refused to sign application forms for admission to India…"
I understood the noble Viscount to say that they were transferred because they had been such a nuisance at Harmondsworth. Will he clear this up and say what was the real reason for the transfer?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the real reason for the transfer had nothing to do with their application forms for visas at all. It was because the authorities at Harmondsworth found that their behaviour there was seriously disturbing not only the régime but the other inhabitants at Harmondsworth, and therefore they considered it right that they should be transferred away.

PIG PRODUCTION: THE "LUNDIN" SYSTEM
2.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making illegal the "Lundin" or "Protecta" system now being used for intensive pig production.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have considered this system very carefully. We consider that the system is acceptable under proper management, and the advice of our Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which was specifically sought by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, does not suggest that we should alter this view.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this system to all intents and purposes turns a sow into a live milk bottle in a crate where her slightest movement is restricted? And may I ask whether he is further aware that the system runs contrary to the whole spirit of the principles embodied in the recommendations of the Brambell Committee?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend that the animal's movement is entirely restricted, because in fact in many cases the sow has even more movement than she has in the conventional farrowing crate.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Earl indicate what is proper management in the use of these two systems?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, not without going into a great deal of detail. If the noble Lord studied the welfare codes for pigs he would gather what was proper management.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am asking whether the noble Earl would tell me, because I have not had the advantage of reading that document.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, perhaps I could give the noble Lord the advantage of reading the document. It would save him, me and the House a lot of trouble.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the sow, when confined like this, is completely at the mercy of her piglets and can have no rest periods? Further, may I ask my noble friend whether he knows that there are certain districts in Sweden where this system has been banned?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that the sow
1272
has no rest period. It has the ability to stand up, to sit down and to move about and it can prevent its piglets from suckling it. I would assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend was concerned about this method. He asked his veterinary advisers to look at the system, and they went to the 19 places where they located that the system was being used. He also inquired of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The results of those inquiries led him to believe that, as I said, under proper management this system is acceptable.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will ensure that the Ministry keeps an eye on this system and that it is inspected by veterinary officers on the various farms where it is practised, in order to see that it is not abused?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there can be few systems of husbandry management which would have quite such fulsome inspection as this has had, and my noble friend can rest assured that my right honourable friend has taken the best advice he can over it.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: CHARGES AND FREE DAYS
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following their discussions with the Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries, they are able to make a Statement about free days, if charges for admission to these institutions are introduced.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, The Trustees of the National Gallery, while they accept that the introduction of charges and the amount to be collected are matters of Government policy, wish to have a free day on Wednesdays. In order to maintain their share of the total to be collected, they would double the basic charge on Mondays and Fridays, raising it to 20p from September to June and 40p in July and August.

1273
I told the Trustees that we considered they were right not to risk the overcrowding that might result from a free day at the week-end. On the other hand, we wondered how much use a free day in the middle of the week would be to those who may be unable to afford 10p. It was a matter of judgment how the public would receive the wide variations in charges proposed by the National Gallery. In our view, two different charges on consecutive days before and after the free day would cause confusion and have divisive and undesirable results. The Trustees have not been persuaded by these arguments and the Government, despite their own reservations, have agreed to the Trustees' proposal for an experimental period. The Tate Gallery are proceeding with their scheme of two free periods a week. No other decision has been taken.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Arising out of it, and particularly the last sentence that no other decision has been taken, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Wallace Collection have recently written to the Department of Education and Science saying that they definitely intend to have a free day without extra charges on other days? Will the noble Viscount comment on that statement?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have asked the Chairman of the Wallace Collection to come and talk to me, because obviously to have a free day without any compensating increase in the charges would mean that the Wallace Collection was not collecting its fair proportion of the £1 million. It has always been our view that whereas Trustees might, if they wished, vary the system by having such a thing as a free day, it must not alter their share of the total amount to be collected.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as this free day, according to a Government Answer yesterday in another place, would amount to only £4,000 a year, cannot they grant this small concession?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it is not really a question of the amount in one particular gallery. It would set a precedent affecting the system of charges
1274
which was based on having only 10p as the basic charge. I have always felt that it was very much in the interests of the public to keep the basic charge as low as we could, and that means that the concessions that are possible if the £1 million is to be collected are very few.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask the Paymaster General whether he will convey to the Trustees of our great museums and galleries the sympathy of many of us that they should be put to such straits in asserting their independence, and assure them that all this nonsense in which the present Government are indulging, and which should never have taken place, will be short-lived?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, my impression is that as time has gone on the Trustees of the galleries have begun to realise that the public is not all that concerned about paying an entrance charge. After all, we have no complaints about those museums and places of historic interest where there has been an entrance charge for a long time and where the attendances have gone up at least as much as in the museums that do not charge.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, does the noble Viscount realise that he is in grave danger of going down to posterity as the author of the Eccles admission charges long after all his good works are forgotten; and will he not pause on the brink while there is yet time?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have never bothered myself about posterity when I am no longer here.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the Minister quite so sure that a free day at the Wallace Collection will lead to a reduction of takings? Is not the Wallace Collection visited too little at the present time? Does it not need some sort of stimulus; and might not a free day awaken more interest and even increase the takings on pay days?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the Wallace Collection does need some sort of stimulus, but it would take a long argument to decide what sort of stimulus.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is there not a grave danger that the rumblings of

1275
posterity may overtake the noble Viscount while he is still here?

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE PRIMARY SCHOOLS
2.54 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: 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 how many applications for the building of new primary schools in the county of Buckinghamshire have been rejected during the period January, 1972, to July, 1972, and the reasons for the rejection.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, of the 36 primary school projects providing additional places submitted in November, 1971, by the Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority for the 1974–75 building programme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave approval in March, 1972, to nine projects, providing 2,300 places at a cost of about £0·9 million. In the four years January, 1971–75, the number of primary pupils in the county outside Milton Keynes is expected to rise by about 14,500, and to meet this some 20,000 new places will be provided in first and middle schools. The programmes for Milton Keynes are keeping pace with new housing.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware—of course, I know he is—that his right honourable friend said that children should not be at the mercy of the geography of where their parents live and work, a sentiment with which we should all concur. But would he agree that Buckinghamshire is one of the more rapidly expanding counties, and that it is not right that little children should be unable to obtain education if they live in a small village like Holmer Green, which has rapidly doubled its population? In the next session many children will not be able to go to school because there is no school, and there is in fact no prospect of any school.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that Buckinghamshire are a very rapidly expanding authority, but I would suggest that my Answer shows that the places which have been provided in the last four years for the primary sector—that is, counting primary as first and middle schools, as Buckinghamshire are going to call them, enormously outstrip the population growth. Indeed the noble Baroness may wish to know that if one takes it on a wider span, say the ten years 1965 to 1975, the picture shows an even greater outstripping. My Answer also did not take account of minor works for 1973–74 and 1974–75, which in real terms are going to show a 10 per cent. increase over this year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he said that out of 36 projects only nine were accepted? He did not give me the reasons for the rejection of the extra 27. Though he has produced the total figures which we shall have in 1975, small children actually are compelled to receive full-time education when they reach the age of five, and if they are five in 1972 they will be more than five in 1975.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's Question is that the other projects did not have the same priority as the ones which were chosen. That is not as unforthcoming a reply as it sounds, in view of the Answer which I have already given to the noble Baroness. The number of places being provided throughout the county really do enormously outstrip the population, and the noble Baroness might like to know that by 1975 the places provided will mean that about three-fifths of primary age children in Buckinghamshire outside Milton Keynes should be in new places provided since 1965, and of course all the places in Milton Keynes will be new.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who represented a Buckinghamshire constituency in another place, may I ask whether it is not the case that in Buckinghamshire there was a very large proportion of primary schools which were condemned as unfit for children to be taught in, and if there has been an increase since it is overtaking that proportion. May I also ask the Minister

1277
whether it would not be possible to arrange a transport system whereby children in those villages are able to benefit from the admirable advance in education which has been made in towns like Slough?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am not sure that many people in this House, on all sides of the House, would agree that transporting rural children into urban areas is necessarily a good thing, although I entirely see the point of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps the noble Lord might agree that a better attempt is my right honourable friend's primary school campaign. The noble Lord might like to know that Buckinghamshire are about one-third along the road towards removing their stock of pre-1903 primary schools which need major work of improvement.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will not pursue this subject now, but this does not mean, of course, that I will not pursue it in the future. If you live in one town in a county it does not help to know that somebody in another town has a school if you have none.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is up to the local education authority, in consultation with my right honourable friend's Department, to decide where the priority should lie. If I can repeat it for the umpteenth time: if you have got an enormous increase in the number of places provided over the growth of the population in the county and, in addition, you have an enormously expanded—I am delighted to say—minor works programme, then really this is something which should be capable of being coped with in Buckinghamshire.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (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.]
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 2 insert the following clause:
Regional policy of the European Community
". For the purpose of reaching agreement within any of the Communities on all rights, powers, liabilties, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and on all remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, any Minister of the Crown shall be guided by the following general principles concerning the regional policies of the Communities—

(a) the principle of redressing the social and economic imbalance between the regions of the Community;

(b) the principle of ensuring that the Communities' regional policies pay full regard to the problems of the declining industrial areas;

(c) the principle of making the fullest use of the Communities' institutions and in particular the European Investment Bank and the European Social Fund for the purposes aforesaid; and

(d) the principle of the proper co-ordination of Community and national policies for the purposes aforesaid."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 on the Fourth Marshalled List. My noble friends and I have tabled this Amendment because it is clear that since 1967, at the time of the Wilson Government White Paper, the publication of the European Economic Community have tightened up considerably and seem likely to tighten up still further. In the view of many of us developments inside the Community on, for example, coal, steel and transport policy

1279
appear to threaten not merely our regional policies but also our whole freedom to plan the national economy of our country. To me there are three basic dangers in the E.E.C. concept. The first is that we shall have to make what amount to penal payments across the exchanges and, at the same time, lose big overseas earnings because Commonwealth preferences will disappear.
The second danger—and I think this is a generally admitted one—is that there will be a very strong pull attracting industrial development to the Rhine basin which will make the regional problems of peripheral areas like Northern Ireland, the North-East, South Wales and parts of Lancashire even more difficult than they are at present. The third danger is that British manufacturers will look more and more towards investing on the Continent. I do not think one can complain of that in the context of the new Community. Indeed, if directors were not now considering the possibility of investment on the Continent I think they would be failing the shareholders who have put their confidence in them. The problem I see is that the amount of capital which is available for investment is, unfortunately, limited, and if we step up the amount we invest in Europe there will be a correspondingly less amount to invest in those areas of our country which really need modernisation and bringing up to standards which are competitive and which the country will require them to achieve.
The question therefore arises, as I think many of your Lordships will agree, how far shall we be free to help areas of the country that need our help, and how far shall we be committed to propose solutions? We know from the Guardian and the Financial Times of yesterday, and from the Financial Times of July 31, that the Community at the moment are thinking out their industrial policies and will, in the fairly near future, be preparing a statement of commonly accepted policy about them. In the course of those discussions they will be defining the rules as to what can be done to help both the peripheral areas and to have effect over a wider range.
When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replied to the debate on Friday morning on the Industry Bill I
1280
listened with particular interest to the concluding part of his speech, because he was courteous enough to discuss the point as to whether the Industry Bill itself was compatible with our obligations inside the European Community. The noble Lord told us that Article 92 was being interpreted by the Council of Ministers and that central and peripheral areas would be defined, apparently early next year. Indeed, he said:
"It will be during the course of the first six months of 1973 that what is meant by central and peripheral areas will be settled in our case."
Then, as I think significantly, he went on to say:
"The importance of the maximum use of the Bill during the period of transition will not have escaped your Lordships' attention. Clause 8 brings this into relief by limiting the powers under that clause to the end of 1977."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/8/72; col. 674.]
So it is clear that Her Majesty's Government anticipate that there will be some reduction in our present power to help more depressed parts of Great Britain.
We know, of course, that Lord Drumalbyn's speech to the House last Friday really stems from the fact that the German Government had raised with the Community and with the Commission whether our Industry Bill was compatible with membership of the Community. Of course, the fact that Germany has raised this matter does, I think, raise somewhat disturbing questions in one's mind as to the extent to which the Government of another country can question the extent to which we are in a position to do what we believe to be right to help citizens in our own country. The attitude of the German Government—which I appreciate was a purely tentative approach, and they were entirely within their rights to raise this matter—only reflects what has happened in the Community from time to time. The Belgian Government, for example, passed certain measures through the Belgian Parliament and then found itself deprived of the freedom to implement them by the Commission, which threatened to take the Belgian Government to the court at Luxembourg if it did not rescind its plans. The Italian Government, too, has been treated in much the same way in respect of proposals it made to help the area of Trieste. As I drew your Lordships' attention during my Second Reading speech, France,

1281
too, has been ordered by the Commission to adjust regional policies because the Commission does not believe they are compatible with the general overall policy of the European Economic Community.
We find, too, if we look at the Guardian of a few weeks ago—indeed less than a week ago: August 4—that a report from Brussels says:
"The Common Market has agreed to a new directive, which will apply to Britain next year, limiting State aids to shipbuilding."
We find there that the Commission will graciously allow us to subsidise shipbuilding within prescribed ceilings for vessels of 100 tons and fishing boats of 50 tons. It appears that if we want to give help on a more massive scale it will not be compatible with our obligations under the Treaty of Rome, obligations which many of your Lordships are only too happy to accept.
I think another way in which membership of the Community may well impair the development areas and the policy that so far we have been able to adopt results from the changes which are going to be made in our quota and tariff policies. I want for a moment to refer to Lancashire. I am bound to say that my mind goes back to my early days as a Lancashire Member, when my noble friends Lord Rhodes and Lord Shackle-ton and I toured the County Palatine studying the cotton textile industry. Following upon that we saw the gradual draining away of the lifeblood of East Lancashire and the other textile areas. It was a painful dilemma that the country was in; it was a painful dilemma that the people of Lancashire were in. We had on the one hand to do what we could to help the developing countries; and the exports of textile manufactures and yarns from the developing countries is of course one of the easiest ways in which they can achieve some small measure of viability. On the other hand, we wanted to resist a situation in which we saw one of the greatest industries of the country dying a slow death, while at the same time seeing the slow decline of the whole social fabric of the textile areas.
I have always felt, looking back, that the people of Lancashire were remark-
1282
ably magnanimous in their attitude to this dilemma. In a way they repeated once again what I think was one of their most glorious times, when they refused to work at the time of the Civil War because they were not prepared to work with cotton which had been grown and picked by slave labour. The people of Lancashire have never been narrow in that respect. They were prepared to pay a price to help the developing world, but what they could never understand was why other countries in the world, particularly the countries of Western Europe, were not prepared to share some of the burden with ourselves. It took literally years of work inside Parliament, inside Lancashire, inside the Labour Party, for us to reach a position in which the last Government really did something to help the textile areas, and now I think that that whole structure is going to be demolished.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Rhodes will speak on this matter, because I always speak with hesitation on textile problems when my noble friend is at hand. One finds now that pressure groups have been formed in Lancashire. The Financial Times. for example, talks about one which has been formed around the Oldham and District Employers Association:
"To stop a flood of imports next April, when the U.K. will be a full member of the E.E.C."
It finishes up in this, I think, very pessimistic way:
"The British Government is in a tight corner. It would like to see Asian textile imports spread more evenly throughout the enlarged Community, but it knows the chances of that happening are slim. The present E.E.C. practice on cotton yarn imports makes it probable that the U.K. will become even more Asia's target market for textiles."
It is a gloomy future for a county and an industry which has suffered so much in the past, that a responsible paper like the Financial Times should be able to make such sad prognostications about what is going to happen in the future.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is not on the Government Front Bench this afternoon, because on Tuesday night my noble friend Lord Beswick advanced the arguments upon which democratic socialists have always relied. They have been the arguments that we have in this country

1283
something as nearly approaching the perfect democracy as I think we are likely to achieve, and that so long as democratic methods are available to people with grievances, well, then, democratic methods must be used. My noble friend Lord Beswick, in speaking of what we believe is the erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament under this Bill, said that the only people who would benefit would be the "Bernie Steers'. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said that he was wholly unable to understand what Bernie Steer had to do with Clause 2. If I may say so, that is the whole trouble with the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolack, and it is the whole trouble with noble Lords who sit on the Government Benches in your Lordships' House. It was the trouble with Lord North. Lord North could not understand what Burke and Fox were saying; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot understand what my noble friend Lord Beswick is saying. Throughout history Conservative Governments have failed to meet the criticisms that have been made by moderate and reasonable men in time to avoid having to capitulate at a later stage to extremists. This has happened in the field of industry; it happened in the Commonwealth as a whole; and I believe that this is one of the great dangers of the situation into which we are heading.
LORD ROBBINS: I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to explain to your Lordships a little further the analogy between Mr. Steer and Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: I am sorry that so eminent and distinguished an academic as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, should have also failed, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to understand the point that my noble friend Lord Beswick and I are making; that is, that if we destroy the confidence of the people in Parliament, and if they come to realise that this is a Parliament which no longer has the power in its hands to solve the problems that are affecting them, we believe that their confidence in Parliament and their confidence in democracy will be correspondingly reduced. If that happens, it is not going to be noble Lords in this House who are
1284
going to benefit; the only people who are going to benefit are those political Parties in this country which preach extremist methods. If noble Lords deny to their fellow citizens the possibility of remedying their grievances by democratic methods, I shudder to think what the long-term result is going to be. The cavalier treatment of a Constitution which our people have come to regard as the very bulwark of their freedom and the basis of their political thinking, combined with the scant consideration which can be given, once this Bill goes through, to our problem areas, means that we are giving a handsome gift to those who preach totalitarian solutions to the problems for which we are asking democratic and properly taken remedies at the present time. I beg to move.
3.19 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I could come in at this stage, if my noble friend would permit me, because I have a feeling that we may be debating this Amendment for some little time. When I read through this Amendment I found myself assenting in turn to each one of the principles set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the new clause. I know that noble Lords opposite have been concerned about circumstances which have arisen recently concerning particular questions of regional aid within the Community, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, mentioned the Italian case, the French case, and so on. In their Amendment the noble Lords who have put their names to it have rightly focused on policies and principles, and I welcome the opportunity at the outset of the discussion to confirm the Government's very firm adherence to the policies and principles embodied in the Amendment. We shall be glad to listen to the views on those policies and on those principles of noble Lords who wish to take part in the discussion on this Amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will reply. I would go further than that. I hope, at least, to demonstrate that not only the Government but also the Community itself subscribes to the principles of the Amendment, as indeed the provisions of the Treaty of Rome demonstrate.
I find it difficult, however, to believe that the movers of this Amendment are really serious in suggesting that the senti-

1285
ments embodied in it, admirable though they may be, should be incorporated into this Bill. Our responsibility as legislators is, I submit, to confer powers, to lay down obligations, and to provide for rights and remedies in as clear and precise a fashion as we are able to do. However admirable the sentiments qua sentiments which we express in our debates may be, we have a firm tradition of embodying sentiments qua sentiments only in the pages of Hansard and we stop short of writing them into Statute. Indeed, if we were to include all our aspirations, the sort of aspirations which are laid down in this Amendment, one might reasonably ask why the Bill should pot favour other matters, why other general provisions should not be written into it, why we should not declare ourselves in favour of economic growth, or social justice, or removal of barriers to trade, or high employment, or the enhancement of the quality of the environment—a matter to which the Community is, quite rightly, paying increasing attention or—political toleration—
LORD BESWICK: May I—
EARL JELLICOE: May I finish my sentence? It is rather a good one, I think—or racial equality, or equality before the law, or equality between the sexes and so on. I am now very glad to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
LORD BESWICK: I was simply going to caution the noble Earl. If he goes on with that lengthy list, we shall be very much inclined to write them down in Amendments for Report stage.
EARL JELLICOE: I am looking forward to Report stage, at least because it is in September. More seriously, I think we would endorse—certainly, I would endorse—the principles embodied in this Amendment, but I suggest to your Lordships that they are totally unfitted to be incorporated into Statute and, in particular, into this Bill.
When I spoke about regional policy on Second Reading, I made two points. The first was the general point that I believe that joining the Community will bring economic benefits to the regions. Secondly, I expressed confidence that the common rules of the Community would
1286
not inhibit the measures we are currently taking to intensify regional aid; measures which are embodied in the Industry Bill which has just passed through your Lordships' House. Returning to the first point, I must ask those noble Lords opposite who oppose entry at this time and possibly at any time, and yet who also express great concern about the future of the regions in the Community, what they really imagine the future of those regions to be outside the Community. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that at this point in history and in the development of industrial technology, long runs and all the rest of it, we are quite free as a nation to play the role we played in the 19th century. We all know how very strong is the fear of change in the human heart, not least I believe in the human heart which beats is these Islands. That is what I really believe underlies many of the fears which have been expressed about the impact of the Community on regional policy.
It remains my conviction, however, that unless we take the major positive step forward of joining the Community there is a very real danger that we shall fossilise our economy, and fossilise it not least in the regions. I cannot see how not joining will assist the regions. It was, I think, President Truman who coined the phrase, "If you can't stand the heat get into the kitchen." I want this country to get into the kitchen and I am not yet ready for us to be packed off to the attic. I think there has been a tendency on the part of some speakers, both here and in another place, to create the impression that the Community is hostile to regional policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me turn to each of the four heads of the Amendment and demonstrate why the Government and the Community are already fully committed in the sense underlying paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Amendment.
First, paragraph (a),
"the principle of redressing the social and economic imbalance between the regions of the Community".
As the noble Lords, Lord Gore-Booth and Lord Chalfont, pointed out on Second Reading, the very Preamble to the E.E.C. Treaty records the Community's commitment to reducing the differences existing

1287
among the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions. Paragraph (b) asks for full regard to be paid "to the problems of the declining industrial areas". The Government entirely accept that this is the major regional problem facing us. The Community, for their part, have the express provision in Article 92 of the E.E.C. Treaty, that aid to particular industries or areas with genuine economic or social problems is not subject to the usual restrictions which inhibit the unfair distortion of competition. Does any noble Lord suggest that these Articles have prevented the French and Italians, for example, from pursuing a wide range of vigorous regional measures? Can any noble Lord really claim that membership of the Community and acceptance of the obligations of membership have prevented the French, for example, from pursuing vigorous and effective policies of regional reinvigoration, of regional regeneration in, say, Brittany, or the South-West? A glance at Toulouse provides the answer. Can anyone claim that it has prevented the Italians from deploying a whole complex of measures to bring what was once one of the most neglected regions of Europe—the Mezzogiorno—into the main stream of Italian industrial and economic activity? I think one has only to ask the questions to know the answers.
Paragraph (c) of the Amendment puts the principle to the test by calling for the fullest use of the Communities' institutions and facilities. I would submit that that test has been passed by the Community. The European Coal and Steel Community, for example, has helped to retrain no fewer than 400,000 ex-miners and ex-steelworkers and has lent over 1,000 million dollars to modernise the coal and steel industries. I happen to have seen something of the Borinage, the old coal and steel area of Belgium, just after the War. That particular region has received a great deal of this type of assistance from the Community and it has managed—and, God knows!, it has its problems—as a result of Community policies, and as a result of the ability of the Belgian Government itself to operate its own policies within the Community, to achieve an extraordinary transformation without the attendant social and industrial problems which one might have
1288
thought would be there. Again, the European Investment Bank during the last year alone allocated 500 million dollars for projects of which no less than four-fifths were for regional development, and the European Social Fund has helped to retrain and resettle over 1,300,000 workers within the Community.
Finally, I was particularly glad to see paragraph (d) of the Amendment, which refers to the proper co-ordination of Community and national policies for these very purposes. This is indeed the key to understanding the recent individual cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has quite properly drawn attention. Of course there must be co-ordination of Community and national policies. Of course this is what joining a community means. From now on I have no doubt that we shall see the progressive development of a more comprehensive common regional policy in the industrial sphere; the sphere which means so much to us as a country. We shall be playing a full part in that policy, which has not yet gone very far and has still to get going. We shall be playing our full part in the development of that policy in the formative stage. The Commission consultative document, mentioned in yesterday's Financial Times article, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, is an illustration of the thinking that is going on.
But co-ordination, my Lords, also means that one country should not unfairly steal a march on its partners in the Community. You cannot have common principles, co-ordination and rules without some procedures for checking centrally the application of these rules; in short to see that the partners in this game play the game according to the accepted rules, a point which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale—I do not think he is in the House at the moment—was pressing for a few days ago. That is what these common rules are about. All I say is that Her Majesty's Government are confident that these rules and checks as they stand at the present time are both necessary and fair. They are also confident that in this area, in which we have great experience, in which we have most to contribute to the Community thinking—and, goodness knows! where we stand to gain a great deal if we can get Community thinking going our way—we shall

1289
have a big part to play in the formative stage. It will indeed be in our interests, as tariff barriers come down, to see that these rules are observed, and once we are members we shall doubtless be asking the Commission about regional aids in other member-States. This is a fact of life about belonging to an Economic Community and I have no doubt that we shall quickly adjust to it.
Those are the reasons why I can confidently assert that the principles of the Amendment are embraced not only by Her Majesty's Government, but also by the Community itself. Those, then, are the answers to the points raised in the Amendment. But my answer does not stop there. It is my belief that it is Community membership itself which will help the regions most. In our detailed study of the Bill it is only too easy to overlook the general economic advantages of the Common Market; the general economic advantages which will flow from giving our industries unrestricted access to a market of 300 million people. When we consider these matters—very important matters for this country—I hope that we shall not be too pre-occupied with looking at the negative and restricted aspects of regional aid. We do not want to concentrate exclusively on ensuring that there are no restrictions on what we from the centre can do to help the regions. At the end of the day, as our post-Second World War history illustrates, what we must do is help to provide the general context in which the regions are best able to help themselves; and the general context is the opportunity of economic growth which our membership of the Community will bring.
I remember very well, I think it was before the 1964 General Election, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Harold Wilson, was asked how his Party, if they were returned to power, would pay for the social policies which they were advocating. He replied simply, no doubt sincerely and also, I think, quite properly, "By economic growth". If I am asked by noble Lords opposite what we can best do to strengthen the sinews of our regional growth, I would reply, equally sincerely, "with economic growth in the United Kingdom as a whole". It is my belief, and nothing that I have
1290
heard in our debates in these last ten years or so has shaken me in this belief, that access to this Market of nudging 300 million people gives us a chance of sustaining a rate of economic growth as a nation which hitherto has totally eluded us for the past fifty years or so.
I would add to this general argument one further important consideration. Looking back over the last 500 years or so I find it very difficult to assert categorically in one way or another whether our geographical position to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, referred has helped to sustain us or been a factor inhibiting our economic performance as a nation. There may be those, especially perhaps those of us who come from regions rather remote from the industrial heartland of the Rhine or the Ruhr, who may fear that willy-nilly membership will magnetise economic expansion towards the heartland of Europe. This was the fear to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, gave expression. I would submit that we cannot change the geographical facts of our life, but we can change the artificial barriers which we impose upon ourselves.
We have managed for a number of centuries now to live with the facts of our geography, but in the last decade or so we have seen a growing tendency on the part of some of our own indigenous industries to leapfrog into Europe—or at least for parts of them to project themselves into Europe in order to jump the tariff barriers. That has not been a geographical jump over the Channel, but a commercial jump over tariff barriers. We have also seen a tendency for what I think has been termed foot-loose international capital to establish itself within the tariff barriers of the Community rather than within the United Kingdom, to be within the Common economic tariff rather than outside it.
All is here for the winning, and I am quite certain that we shall be in a much stronger position investment-wise, be it investment by our own indigenous companies on our own soil or be it by, for example, investment by American or Japanese companies, to stimulate or attract that investment as the case may be, if on top of our possible geographical disadvantages we do not pile tariff barriers as well. That, if I may say so, is the

1291
general reassurance—and I am thinking of what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said on Second Reading—which the Oldhams of this world are looking for. Certainly let the Oldhams be helped by specific measures. I know of none of our specific measures which will be inhibited by our membership of the Community, but would the noble Lord and other noble Lords, faced with the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, posed to us on Second Reading, deny the fact that given the right economic circumstances and the precious capital assets of skilled manpower it would mean that the Oldhams of the world will not only be keen to help themselves but be able better to do so in the context of the extra opportunities and the added opportunities which membership of the Community will give us if only we are prepared to seize those opportunities?
I would not seek for a moment to contest the principles embodied in this Amendment. They are principles with which I happen to agree, but they are principles to which the Community subscribes, principles which are in no way incompatible with our membership of the Community but, I think, principles which it would be totally wrong for us to write into the context of the Statute law.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Before the noble Earl sits down I wonder whether he would clarify, probably for the benefit of history, a statement he made in the second part of his speech. He alluded to what an American President had said, and stated it as, "If you can't stand the heat, get into the kitchen." My recollection is that the American President said, "get out of the kitchen". In view of the confusion in the noble Earl's mind about the meaning of the word "in" and the meaning of the word "out", are we to assume that when the noble Earl tells us to go into the Market his subconscious is telling us to stay out?
EARL JELLICOE: For the benefit of history and of posterity, which I think we are talking about here, I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is right in saying that the American President said, "If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I believe that we can stand the heat, and that therefore we should get into the kitchen—in this case the kitchen of the Community.
3.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: In moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, seemed to challenge whether these provisions really could square with the requirements of our entry into the Community. The noble Earl has made a powerful reply which should suffice to meet those points, and it will be interesting to see whether succeeding speakers from the other side can raise arguments which challenge some part of what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord also made other remarks of an economic character, on which I should like to make a few comments. First of all, he raised the point that there was doubt as to whether it was proper that we should contemplate a substantial or even massive investment of sterling in the Community, and that if we did it would possibly impair the volume of funds available for effective development and reconstruction in our own country. Now the Industry Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, was very fully explained to us and dealt with in Committee last Friday by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and he of course told us what very large sums of money the Government have committed themselves to for development under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, referred to articles in the Financial Times and the Guardian. I did not read those in the Guardian but I did read the articles in the Financial Times, and it is interesting that only last week there was the expression of definite concern as to whether or not, since we had so large a volume of "hot money still remaining in this country, and since the money supply was being increased at such a rapid rate of flow (which inevitably, with increasing supply, must raise the prices of everything in this country), it might well be that the hope of returning to a fixed basis on the exchange before we enter would be dangerous because if the pull on the total volume had been so great before we entered there might well be too serious a drain after we got in, and the exchange might have been fixed and there would be peril in holding it. That seemed to raise an important point, with which no doubt succeeding speakers from the Government Bench will deal.
But, beyond that, the noble Lord also referred to the concern which was held about the flow of merchandise into this

1293
country, and he happened to refer to the textile industries. It is that which prompts me to intervene, mainly because there undoubtedly is, as he explained, great concern, certainly in the textile industries, and possibly also in others, as to what may be the effects on our industrial employment of a greater inflow of merchandise. For myself, I take it that we can rely upon the provisions that the Government have made with regard to entry adequately covering that point, but it is one which is quite sufficient to cause anxiety. I look at it from a succeeding point: that of an industry which is very much affected by the terms of the Industry Bill and these massive injections of Government money on so large a scale, such as in the case of the ship-constructing industry, quite apart from the ship-building industry, which is in a rather different category. Now we know that the textile industries have seen a massive disposal of employment. I do not know what the position is in cotton textiles, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is here and I hope he is going to speak and perhaps make some comment on that; but recently in your Lordships' House I quoted the fact that the wool textile industry, with which I am more familiar, has already, in the last 12 years, I think, disposed of some 80,000 workers. That has to be considered in the light of all these arrangements with regard to the E.E.C. and the admission that vast subsidies for the shipbuilding industry are justified because our foreign competitors all over the world are doing the same thing. Such a massive disposal of labour as I have indicated is taking place largely as a result of the advance of science in all ways: a task once employing 100 operatives can now be done, because of the advance of science, with a very much smaller number.
What a curious thing it is that this country at the moment, in the eyes of the Continent as a whole and the rest of the E.E.C., should be under the influence of a demand from a section of the community, which is very small in number in comparison with the textile industries, and should be thrown into great economic chaos when again the cause is the advance of science—containerisation, and the inevitable development of it all over the world, as can be seen by anybody who goes to the new ports, quite apart from the old ports! For example, look at a
1294
port like Felixstowe, with vast acres covered by containers which may be emptied or filled very quickly. On a visit down to the West Country yesterday I passed a train loaded with these things. I do not know how many there were, but there was a great number of wagons with these 40-ft. containers on them; and one thinks that only two men are needed to move such a container. What an astonishing thing it is that the whole country can be disrupted by the charge that the same men who were employed before should be employed now, remembering that this reconstruction and the disposal of such vast numbers of people in the textile industries has been absorbed without the kind of disturbance that the present troubles are all about.
These are interesting points which the noble Lord has raised, and it is for that reason that I have intervened. I doubt not that there will be some reference by subsequent speakers for the Government to, anyhow, the financial investment side, because that angle, with regard to the exchange itself—the uncertainty of it as long as we float, which I do not challenge—is of course one thing which is causing a lot of anxiety.
3.50 p.m.
LORD RHODES: We have listened to a defensive homily from the Front Bench opposite directed to opponents of entry into the Common Market. Such a thing does not apply to me, because I want to go in. There have been enough remarks already to justify a few comments on some of them. The noble Lord who has just spoken said he presumed that the Government had made provision for the textile industry and its entry into the Common Market. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have done nothing of the kind. I shall give the Minister the opportunity—and stay with him to-day as long as he likes—to answer the question which I raised on Second Reading and which I am going to raise again now. Whether the occupants of the Front Bench opposite are assiduous in their reading of the Bible I do not know, but I happened to go to church the other week and the 28th verse of the 14th Chapter of St. Luke was read. It said this:
"…which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost … ?"

1295
I am doing a bit of cost estimating this afternoon, and I hope that by the end of what I have to say it will have sufficiently sunk in to prompt the Front Bench to go to the Box over there and get some answers for me.
It is true that we are the largest importers of textiles in the world. What is going on at the moment is more serious to our textile industry than when the President of the United States whacked on those massive quotas last year disrupting trade throughout the world. We know that to be true. In this country we know that we are hoping to go into an economic and customs union. As I explained before, the customs union of which we are members is a simple one. It is one which we have grown up to understand within the British Isles. We have come to accept the fact that goods can go over boundaries; we never notice it; it is not a problem with us.
Goods go over boundaries whether in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland or England. One would assume that a customs and economic union such as we are going to join would have a system whereby goods could also circulate freely from one country to another, but this is not the case. In his rhetoric at the end the noble Lord was saying that the Oldhams of the world will do this, that and t'other and that the Oldhams of the world will benefit from this and that. One Oldham that we know is asking the questions that I am going to address in a moment to the Front Bench and some answers are required. It is all right in a general way giving us the benefits of this, that and the other—we have heard all that ad nauseam. We want some facts and we want to be reassured.
The noble Lord who spoke at that Box talked about conferring benefits on our regions by joining. There will be no benefits to our regions by joining if some of the basic difficulties that we know of now are not resolved. I will give two examples why goods cannot go freely from one country to another. One is because of value added tax. As the matter stands it is necessary to repay value added tax to the exporter and to charge it to the importer in the receiving country. Another reason why goods cannot circulate is that there is no common textile policy throughout the union. Every
1296
country in the Common Market has its own set of rules, rules built up over the years to protect itself from the onslaughts that we have had to put up with from low-cost countries.
When I say that they have protected themselves and have their own rules, what is the situation when you have foreign goods going into Germany and they want to export them to France? If a German wants to export cotton goods to France, France will not have them. So there must be an agreed Common Market textile policy before we go in, if we are going to enjoy all these marvellous benefits. Any textiles which have entered the Common Market and paid the appropriate Common Market duty ought to be in a position to circulate freely right away through the length and breadth of the countries. What the Oldham of Lancashire wants to know—I cannot see the noble Lord; he keeps dodging behind the Clerk at the Table. I like to look at the chaps to whom I am talking. Let me ask first: how far have Her Majesty's Government got in the negotiations on our trade? Have they secured recognition by members of the Community of the fact that there is a real necessity for a viable textile industry within the Community itself? Secondly, how far have the Government progressed towards an understanding with the E.E.C. countries about the necessity for quota restrictions for hard-pressed sections of our industry and of their industry? Thirdly, if quantitative restrictions are in operation have they obtained acceptance of the principle of free circulation? If the principle of free circulation has not been accepted in the E.E.C. there will be grave difficulties for us in the textile industry in this country. Never mind all the high-falutin talk about benefits to the regions! If we "start wrong", we shall go on wrong.
My fourth question is this. What response is there to the proposal that there should be a new general agreement, similar to the long-term agreement for cotton but including man-made fibres? Has any attempt been made—and this is my fifth question—in the negotiations with the countries of the E.E.C. to persuade them, on the basis of averaging, to reach an appropriate level for imports to the Community as a whole? I will not say any more; I have said enough. I await the answers to those five ques-

1297
tions. Oldham awaits the answers to those five questions. The whole of Lancashire awaits the answers to those five questions. The whole of the textile trade, wherever it may be, needs the answers to those five questions.
I do not suppose that there is anybody in this Chamber who has not at some time in his life wanted to be associated with a cause led by bright-eyed visionaries to a promised land. I know that I have. I have wanted to throw my weight into various causes at various times in my life. I expected that to go into the Common Market would be such a cause. But instead of bright-eyed visionaries we have got glassy-eyed prevaricators. The Committee can amend that phrase and I will withdraw "glassy-eyed prevaricators" if noble Lords will come up this afternoon with the answers to my five questions.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: I have not engaged frequently in the debates of this House in recent years, mainly because of a physical disability of which I know some noble Lords have knowledge. I have taken no part whatever in the debates that have taken place in regard to entry into the Common Market and I have many times asked myself about the fundamental principles behind such an action which is bound to affect the lives of our people for many years to come, no matter what may be thought about repeal and that sort of thing. I am, as most people know, a trade unionist. I have held important offices in that organisation. One of them was the Presidency of the International Federation of Trade Unions. I held that office for 18 years, until the dissolution of the Federation and its replacement by a World Federation. I therefore can claim that in the sphere of trade union collaboration with unions of all countries I have tried to prove myself a sincere internationalist.
I cannot in those circumstances find myself in hostile opposition to everything that this Government have done. But that does not mean for one moment that I have felt that they have handled this matter with the tact and diplomacy with which they could surely have secured a very strong approval from the public of this country for going into the Common Market. Neither does it mean that I approve the arguments that have been
1298
so often raised in the course of the debates on the part of the Opposition. It is perfectly clear to me, as it has been in my trade union life, that whenever an individual organisation in possession of complete autonomy in regard to its own affairs has been considering an amalgamation with some larger body there arises a fear of loss of sovereignty. I have seen this so many times that it has become almost a tradition. I have no doubt at all that the root of the Labour movement's opposition to going into the Common Market lies largely in that fear as to what may happen in the Market to lessen the pace either at which social and economic reform can take place in this country or, possibly, of the inauguration of measures to that end. Obviously, the risk of the loss of some political sovereignty is involved in joining any kind of European or world organisation, whether it be the United Nations or any other body. I consider that on broad principle it is wholly anomalous for the Labour movement to occupy a position of solid opposition to measures of this kind. This opposition is based on distrust of those who are advocating and organising the entry. I feel quite sure in my own mind that had the Government used the normal statesmanship that a Government should possess and had they consulted the people of this country, as was proposed by the Opposition, much of this misunderstanding and fear could have been removed.
I say that I have been an internationalist and I remain one. But that does not mean for a minute that I am anything like what used to be described as a "little Englander" or anything of that kind. Indeed, I think it natural (and it certainly happened to me that when I was abroad) to feel prouder of one's own country and its institutions than perhaps is the case when one is at home. That did not mean that I was blind to the excellence of much that I saw, both in the political and economic spheres, of other people and other countries. Neither was I blind to the friendliness which, in this age of competition between nations in the economic sphere, international organisations alone can bring.
I find it extremely difficult to take up any position in opposition of entry into the Common Market. I say that for two reasons: not only the basic one that

1299
I have already stated but because—and I have stated this on more than one occasion in this House during the life of the Labour Government—I do not think that a non-elected Chamber such as this has, on any question of major principle, the right to reject the will of the Commons, and I preserve that principle with regard to this matter. I listened with the greatest attention to the admirably phrased and reasoned speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He is always very logical and equable and friendly, and that adds materially to the difficulties of those who want to oppose the views that he states. I was very agreeably surprised when he announced in broad terms—and in some cases in specific terms—his broad acceptance of the major principles in the Amendment. At one stage I wondered whether he would accept the Amendment, with which it is perfectly obvious he has no fundamental disagreement. His case was built up entirely upon administrative considerations—I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I notice that he shakes his head, so I must have said something with which he disagrees.
EARL JELLICOE: I hesitate to intervene, but it was more than administrative inconvenience. I think there are many precedents for not importing this type of general principle into a Bill specifically designed to enable us to discharge the obligations of accession.
LORD CITRINE: That is merely a misinterpretation of my use of the word "administrative". I understood fully the position which the noble Earl was postulating. I had hoped that he would have made—how shall I say?—some announcement of Government acceptance. True, he referred to the Government broadly agreeing with the principle but, if I may say so without offence, it is one thing for the Government to declare by a Resolution of the House and another thing to have to pick it out of the speech of a Minister.
If this Amendment is voted down it will mean in the minds of a great many people that the Government have adopted an extraordinary position. It will not be realised, even on the Continent of Europe, by millions of people that there are—how can I say?—no reasons of material difference between what the Resolution
1300
says and its acceptance. What is going to be the fate of the Amendment? I know quite well. I have seen it happen in this Chamber too many times. This is an non-elected House. Your Lordships' House may always be put in the position of an organised Conservative majority voting down any measure with which it disagrees. I have no doubt that that sort of thing will take place this afternoon. It is not the merits so much that count in matters of this kind. I have seen attending your Lordships' House people whom I have never seen before but who have been brought in. I suppose they could be put in the category of the "backwoodsmen" of whom we heard a generation or two ago.
I wish the Government could find it possible to make a declaration of these principles in some form of resolution that is tangible and which could be read easily and publicised. With respect, that would get a much wider circulation than the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. So I am in this dilemma. I believe in these principles; the Leader of the House believes in them: the Opposition believes in them; yet, apparently, we are going to vote them down. Why, in the name of goodness? For these are instructions to our own representatives. I am not a prophet, but I have seen that happen so often and therefore I am very much concerned that on matters such as this there should be agreement. These are going into our own Bill. They are not an instruction to the Community generally; they are an instruction to the people who will represent the British Government in the Community and to other representatives. I regret very much that in a measure of this high importance we are in danger of fighting a sham fight; that is all it comes to. I am sorry that my inadequacy—I did not intend to engage in this debate—has prevented me from developing this case in the way in which I should have liked.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure that we should all wish to welcome back my noble friend Lord Citrine and to say what a great pleasure it is to hear him speak again with all his old vigour. I agreed absolutely with what the noble Lord said about the fact that if the Government had gone about this business in a rather different way and had consulted the people

1301
rather more fully, the position to-day would have been different. I think the position to-day would have been very different indeed, had the Government really endeavoured to tell the people what was involved in the matter before us.
I also agree with my noble friend about the admirable phrases used by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his speech. The noble Earl made a great speech. It was not quite so great as one I heard many years ago from Mr. Fiorello La Guardia, then the Director General of UNRRA. Speaking before the United Nations Economic and Social Committee and appealing for the extension of UNRRA, which I suppose was, after all, a form of regional aid, in the greatest speech I think I have ever heard in my life, La Guardia said he would not be with us much longer and that he hoped the resolution he moved would be accepted. But, he said, there are as many ways of killing a resolution as there are of killing a cat, and one of them is by agreeing with it in principle. That is what the noble Earl has done to-day. He has agreed with every principle we have put forward but he says he cannot accept the Amendment.
The noble Earl advanced the two classic arguments against those of us who try to suggest that regional aid will be more difficult after we go into the Market. The first point he made was that there is nothing we can do now which we shall not be able to do after joining. He made the point, quite rightly, that Italy, like us, has done a lot, as a member of the Community, by way of regional aid in the southern part of Italy; although Italy, like us, still has a serious regional problem. But the noble Earl advanced the theory that there were no techniques which we could apply now that we could not apply in the future.
The second point which those who oppose us on this put forward is that in any case it is possible to do far more for the weak regions if we have a strong centre. It is those two points with which I should like to deal. I accept absolutely that it is impossible to be dogmatic about what machinery we shall be able to use on entry. It is impossible to be dogmatic because, for one reason, the machinery is not yet decided. As I
1302
understand it, in the Treaty of Accession we are given until July of next year to work out and discuss and negotiate the machinery by which we shall implement Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome. Therefore one cannot be dogmatic one way or the other as to what will be possible by way of regional aid. But the overriding fact is that no matter what agreement is reached before July of next year, no matter what machinery may exist, we shall not have the essential power to operate it. We shall not have the essential central power here to operate machinery to help our regions. When we lose the power to control the movement of capital we lose the power to help the regions of our country.
I will not go into the arguments about the I.D.C. again, but everyone will know—I referred to the argument in earlier debates—that it used to be possible to say to an industrial company in this country, "You cannot set up a new business in the place you propose. You will get a certificate only if you agree to go to one of the regions." That used to be a very potent instrument, but it will be useless if the company can say, "If you do not want me to set up an extension in the South-East I will go to Belgium, France or Germany. "We cannot stop them. Once one has free movement of capital it is quite impossible to control the location of industry and it will therefore be quite impossible to implement any serious machinery to assist the regions.
My noble friend referred to the centrifugal forces, as he called them (I think the noble Earl referred to the "magnetic forces"), of the industrial centres, which will of course be the centres of markets on the Continent. If we have this attempt to restrict growth in the South-East of England because we want to see development in the North-East or the North-West, industries will move to the Continent, partly because they cannot go to the South-East but also partly because the greater part of this 300 million people market about which the noble Earl is talking is on the other side of the Channel. There will then be this great incentive to go and expand there.
The House may recall the exchanges that I had on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, in an earlier debate. At that time I tried to make the point

1303
that as food prices here go up (and they have gone up tremendously since we had that debate six months ago) and as wage claims come in—as they inevitably will as a result of increasing food prices—the cost of production will also go up. When that happens the temptation to open factories near the centre of the European Continental market will be tremendous. Having had the pleasure of getting to know the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, a little better since that exchange, I do not believe there is a more patriotic industrialist in the country than he.
But it is interesting to read what has been happening in the motor car industry. In an article in the Financial Times on August 7 of this year there was a very penetrating study of that industry. It was pointed Out that:
"Ford of Great Britain, when still a partly independent company, built up these markets, and thus it was British Anglias and Cortinas rather than German Taunus which were sold. But with the establishment of Ford of Europe, British or common designs were adopted by both German and British operations. So German Capris and Escorts replaced the British cars. With the introduction of the Consul/Granada, the pendulum has swung right over. British output, running at 1,000 cars per week, is destined for the British and a few minor export markets. German output, at 1,000 cars per day—five times the British level—is exported to all the major Continental markets. The estate and coupé versions of the Granada are being built only in Germany."
Then take General Motors, the other great concern in this country. The same article says:
"General Motors already had a much more successful German subsidiary, in Opel, than Ford. In the past few years, as the German car market has raced upwards and Opel has pushed ahead in the French, Dutch and Swiss markets, the disparity in scale between GM's German and British operation has become marked.…The German company alone is permitted to export to the valuable U.S. market, while Vauxhall is allotted Canada instead."
As for Leyland, the article continues:
"GM and Ford have favoured Germany either consciously or automatically. British Leyland, too, has been forced to balance its extensive European sales with investments in Continental production. It has now bought Innocenti in Milan and a half-share in Authi in Pamplona, which builds Minis for the Italian and Spanish markets. The plant at Seneffe, built by the enterprising Belgian concessionaire has been bought and significantly expanded. These three operations will build 300.000 cars by 1974–75, or roughly one-third of British Leyland's total."
1304
There we have the position in the largest single exporting industry in this country where the inevitable pull is towards the centre of the market. That process is going to be more accentuated when we have the free movement of capital.
The situation will of course become even more aggravated when we have a common currency. During our earlier debates on the White Paper nothing was said about the Werner Plan. I will guarantee that not a single noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite has even read that Plan. I doubt whether there are more than a dozen people in the whole House who really understand the significance of a common currency. There may be some—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is undoubtedly one of them—who understand it and who say that it is a good thing. That I respect. It is a matter for discussion; one can say that it is a good thing or a bad thing for the economy of Europe as a whole. What one cannot say—and I beg noble Lords to face up to this fact—is, "I am going to have a common currency and I am going to control my economy in Britain separately from the rest of Europe". That just cannot be done; it is a contradiction in terms. Any attempt to control the regions is absolutely out of the question.
Again the Financial Times has something to say about this. In passing, I would say that although the editor of the Financial Times is one of the most assiduous troopers through the Lobbies in support of the Government, all of the facts which his staff produce controvert the fact which he uses to support the Government. This is what the European editor said on June 26:
"Before the crisis, it seemed possible that the Summit would have to be postponed because of a dispute between the French and the Benelux countries over the creation of a new political secretariat, and over the democratic evolution of the Community's institutions. If to-day the chances of a postponement seem greater than ever, it is for the more serious reason that the Six embarked upon their plan for economic and monetary integration with totally inadequate forethought…
"The reasons for this state of affairs are familiar, obvious and regrettable. The Germans don't trust the French, and the French don't trust anybody."
As we keep saying, Her Majesty's Government are proposing to hand over economic control without trying seriously

1305
to set up an adequate form of political authority.
LORD GLADWYN: Does the noble Lord maintain that a common monetary policy is totally incompatible with a sensible regional policy?
LORD BESWICK: I am simply saying that once there is a common currency we in this country will lose any chance of controlling our economy. There will be a laissez faire economy and we will no longer have a nationally planned economy. Eventually there may be in Brussels an economy controlled by the economists which will be more advanced in the way of an economically controlled economy than anything thought of so far. Indeed, in ten years' time one may have in Europe a Communist form of economy, but one will not have in this country, for the benefit of the people of this country, a democratically established form of control. It is a contradiction in terms.
LORD HANKEY: If the noble Lord is so sure about that, may I ask him to explain how it is possible for Her Majesty's Government to operate a type of regional policy with only one type of currency in the United Kingdom?
LORD BESWICK: Because we have in Westminster a democratically elected Parliament which governs these matters. They do not have in Brussels a democratically elected Parliament to control the economy of Europe. That is what I have been trying to say all along and I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I do not say that this Amendment would put all these matters right. It would, however, go some way to meet the points made by my noble friend Lord Citrine. It would represent what the lawyers call when justifying other Parts of the Bill "an evidential clause". It would be some indication that we are serious in our desire to do what is possible in this context. This is one occasion when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, could say to his Government colleagues, "We are doing absolutely no harm by accepting this Amendment because we agree with everything it says. Let us accept the will of the Committee in this one particular and write this into the Bill."
4.32 p.m.
BARONESS ELLES: I intervene to comment briefly on the question of regional policy in general. There seems to be among your Lordships a great desire to quote from our favourite "pink paper", the Financial Times. In to-day's edition of that newspaper is an article concerning regional policy. It states:
"The European Communities' Executive Commission have proposed a new kind of help to retrain workers leaving both the agriculture and textile industries to the tune of 60 million dollars this year, and the fund will reach 540 million dollars by 1975."
This is relevant to the discussion we are having and I should like to add that quotation to the many that have been given. I have never had the privilege of being a trade unionist or an employer but I have seen the effects of low earnings on many families and the effects of young people leaving school and having to queue up for jobs which are not there. I have also travelled widely in Europe over the last twenty years. I therefore speak from personal observation and knowledge of the rapid and remarkable changes that have hapened in the economies of the six Community countries. One can only deduce from this that they must have something that we do not have.
Much has been said about Italy and their regional policies. I listened with interest to one noble Lord referring to the magnetism of money going to the centre of the Community, but the whole purpose of Italian regional policy is to draw money away from the centre. When populations from Sicily and elsewhere were going to Turin and Genoa, crowding out towns which did not have the infrastructures to meet a vast influx of people, it was clear that a new policy had to be found. The E.E.C. regional policy is based on bringing wealth to the regions rather than drawing capital to the middle of the Community. The whole point of their regional policy is to encourage investment and capital to go to the regions.
I do not claim to be a capitalist, but I understand that people with capital invest their money in areas where they will get the most return; and this is the basis of the regional policy in terms of capital investment. Anyone who has been to Brussels and the European Commission

1307
can only have been impressed by the real intellectual integrity of the people working in the Commission. They are seeking to achieve regional policies which will solve the problems not only of the Six in the Community. When we ask, "What do you think about Britain's entering the E.E.C.?", they reply, " We are waiting for you to come in. We are not a Community of Six any more. On January 1, 1973, we shall be a Community of Ten." This puts a completely different light on the problem.
I conclude with what I thought was a touching remark made to me by an old age pensioner. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships are also old age pensioners, though not living on supplementary benefit. This pensioner said, "I realise that in my lifetime I shall probably not see the benefit of our country joining the Community, but I want you to go in for the sake of my grandchildren. If you do not, with your Government, go into Europe you will be betraying the youth of this country."
LORD SHINWELL: Having listened to several speeches of a Second Reading character, I will address my remarks to the Amendment. To comprehend fully what the debate is about I feel it necessary to repeat a little of what the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, said in support of the Government's case. It was natural and inevitable that he should have taken some time to argue the case on behalf of the Government, but in my view that case can be stated in a sentence or two. It is that the Government regard the principles embodied in the Amendment as impeccable and to those principles they offer no objection. The noble Earl's objection is based on the fact that it would be unwise to incorporate those principles in the Bill.
Much of the argument adduced by the noble Earl was of a Second Reading character. A good deal of it was the pocket fluff, so to speak, which one is bound to get when arguing the sort of case the noble Lord had to adduce. If what I have described in a sentence is the case which the Government have against the Amendment—as my interpretation of what the noble Earl said has not so far been challenged I take it that I am correct—then I go on to ask the noble Lord a simple question. If he
1308
objects to the principles of the Amendment being embodied in the Bill, may I ask him what view he takes of the principles which are already contained in the Bill?
It might be helpful if I were first to try to define the word "principle". There will be varying views of what a principle embodies, but I think the Committee will find acceptable my theory that a principle is an idea, a somewhat amorphous idea, lacking detail, but a notion which is suggestive. It is possible to embody a principle in a variety of detail and it is something of a philosophical character. If your Lordships accept that as a reasonable definition of a principle, then the Committee must accept that quite a number of principles are already embodied in the Bill. I will direct your Lordships' attention to a few of them. First, early on in the Bill we find a reference to the duty imposed on the Commission, or whoever will be responsible for implementing the Statute, to impose customs duties. There is the principle relating to the imposition of customs duties. That is a principle with nothing in detail as to whether it should be based on this statistic, that statistic, or percentages of varying kinds. The duty is laid on the Commission, or whoever is responsible, and is embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, to impose customs duties.
Moreover, on page 6 there is another reference to what I regard as a principle; namely, the imposition of tax relief. It does not specify the nature or volume of tax relief but there is a principle contained in that part of the Bill. There are other principles of an even more fundamental character. Take, for example, the agricultural policy on page 9; perhaps Members of your Lordships' House might direct their attention to it. The principle of a Common Agricultural Policy is clearly embodied in the Bill. Again, there are no statistics associated with it. There are no facts or figures, it is simply a statement of a principle. I find principles scattered all over the Bill.
Perhaps I had better read one of them It is on page 10. This ought to be read because if this is not a principle then I do not know what is a principle. Subsection (5) states:
"Except as otherwise provided by or under any enactment, agricultural levies of the

1309
Economic Community, so far as they are charged on goods imported into the United Kingdom, shall be levied, collected and paid, and the proceeds shall be dealt with, as if they were Community customs duties, and in relation to those levies the following enactments shall apply as they would apply in relation to Community customs duties,"
and so on. There is nothing there about figures, statistics, volumes or percentages. That is a declaration of principle which has to be clothed in a variety of ways. Without the clothing there can be no implementation, but the principle is embodied in the Bill.
There is much more so far as principles are concerned. There is one on page 11 about the Sugar Board and the duties that are to be imposed on it. But I shall leave that out because I am not quite sure that that embodies a principle, except that on page 12 the reference to sugar beet is in the nature of a principle. I had better read it so that noble Lords can chew it and digest it. It states:
"If as regards the home-grown beet crop for the year 1973 or any subsequent year it is made to appear to the Ministers by the processors of home-grown beet or by a body which is in their opinion substantially representative of the growers of home-grown beet that the processors and that body are unable to agree on the prices and other terms…"—
I had better not read any more because it is quite clear that that is a principle. I do not want to weary your Lordships but if ever there was a principle that is one. There is a principle on films. In the reference in the Bill to films in Clause 8 there is no suggestion about the kind of films and whether they should be of the "X" or "blue" quality—what-ever they call them. I am not an authority on that subject so I leave it alone, but there is a definite directive to the European Community in connection with the production and distribution of films. That is a principle. Again, it is not a question of finance or anything of that sort; it is a principle embodied in the Bill.
I shall now see if there is anything else in the nature of principles in the Bill. Yes, what I am about to direct to the attention of your Lordships is really a principle. It is on page 14 in relation to contracts and I had better read it. Subsection (2) states:
"Where a contract purports to be made by a company, or by a person as agent for a company, at a time when the company has not been formed, then subject to any agree
1310
ment to the contrary the contract shall have effect as a contract entered into by the person purporting to act for the company or as agent for it, and he shall be personally liable on the contract accordingly."
That surely is a statement of principle. It does not relate to the kind of contract nor to the terms of the contract; it relates solely and exclusively to the principle upon which the details of implementation are to be applied.
Having interpreted what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has argued, I want to say that as for the rest it was an excellent speech, remarkably well delivered and impeccable in that respect. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Citrine here and I wish he came more often. I have had a long and very friendly association with him. As he said, "You have the backwoodsmen here." They do not hear the debates but just appear when the vote is taken. The assumption is that they know all about it by intuition and that they understand everything that is going on. Again I put it to them that the Government case is simply that, these principles stated in the Amendment are excellent. Every right-thinking person would accept them. Indeed, that is what the noble Earl said, and he said it with such eloquence that no one can take exception to the way he put it. He said that you cannot incorporate these excellent principles into the Bill. Yet consider the principles that are embodied.
There is one further point. In the course of the negotiations for which Mr. Rippon was responsible on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, what happened? He discussed all kinds of principles with the other countries of the Six—the agricultural policy, fishing rights and even regional policy; all these matters that have been referred to by my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench. But I think it will be conceded that there were many principles which were never discussed at all, that if they were discussed they were only considered in part and that there was no definite action taken on any of them. It must be conceded that there exists a whole host, a great variety of principles that at some time or other in the future will have to be considered by those responsible for administration and which were not fully discussed. Indeed some of them were not discussed at all. Surely in those circumstances if it is suggested that certain principles

1311
which are regarded as unexceptionable are contained in an Amendment in your Lordships' House there should be no objection to them unless the noble Lord will now say that all the other principles contained in the Bill will be excised. Then we understand where we are; then we go forward into the Community, with a lot of principles but nothing alongside that. That I understand; but for heaven's sake! let us be logical about this. I repeat, unless the noble Lord is ready to challenge what I have said; and to say that none of these references in the Bill has anything at all to do with principles, then I cannot understand for the life of me why he does not do one of two things. On the one hand, he could say that the Government, while they cannot accept the Amendment, will reconsider the position and, perhaps consistent with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Citrine, introduce some declaration and publicise it. He could let the people of this country understand where we are going and what is likely to happen; he could state principles of that kind, make them public, even if they are not incorporated into the Bill. He could give a declaration on behalf of the Government that they accept these principles and are prepared to treat them as guidelines for those who will be responsible for entering into discussions and further negotiations with the countries of the Six. He could do that, or, as I venture to suggest, he could excise all the principles embodied in the Bill and depend merely on the good will of those with whom we are asked to associate in the future.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I rise to ask two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, talking about years of working inside the United Kingdom, particularly in Lancashire, to help developing countries in the textile trades, said that if we went into Europe our imports of raw materials would be taxed. Is this correct? I do not think it is. I am sure that the imports of raw materials, such as cotton, sisal and jute, would not be taxed. Where we could gain by going into Europe is that we should cease to have a high import duty placed on our products when they are exported in their final manufactured state; that is, as jumpers or jerseys, or linoleum, or whatever it might be. My second question
1312
concerns the use of the word "principle". I cannot remember reading any Act in which the word "principle" was actually incorporated in the Act. I well remember reading the word "principle" last year, when we debated the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, but I cannot remember reading anywhere the sort of drafting adopted with this Amendment which uses the word principle ". But I may be wrong.
LORD HANKEY: I should like, if I may, to bring the discussion back to this Amendment, in spite of the very interesting debate we have had on regional policies. After holding a number of diplomatic posts over the years where I have been mixed up in economic negotiations, I must say that I should regard it as a tremendous embarrassment if my instructions were enshrined in an Act of Parliament so that they could not be altered by our Secretary of State without Parliament being consulted. I think it would be a very great embarrassment. I do not think that wording such as this, which would constitute guidance for our diplomatic representatives as to the way they handle our own applications for regional assistance and our own atitudes towards the proposals of other countries for regional assistance, are usefully embodied in an Act of Parliament. Therefore I greatly hope that this Amendment will not be accepted, although I personally agree with everything it contains.
LORD GLADWYN: Not having been present at the beginning of this debate, perhaps I ought not to intervene at all, more especially as I unfortunately did not hear what I understand was the very brilliant speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House opposing this Amendment. But I understand from him that the point I am going to make, if I may, very briefly, was not fully developed by him, although it may have been touched upon. With the permission of the Committee, I should therefore like to say a word in regard to it. I have been rather puzzled by what I have heard so far in this debate about the necessity of this House's passing an Amendment which, if passed in another place would result in laying down certain principles which must be accepted by any Government of this country before we actually join the European Economic Community.

1313
If we are pursuing that line, there are all kinds of principles which we ought to elaborate and therefore to lay down, and, I imagine, assume that our partners in the Common Market are likewise going to agree to, before we sign. That seems to me a rather odd procedure if we are going to abide by a Treaty which we have already signed, and which we certainly should not have signed unless we had thought that it embodied the very principles which are now recommended by the Opposition for incorporation in the Treaty itself, by, as it were, unilateral act.
As regards these particular principles—and no doubt as such they are very good; I would not dispute that—you have only to read the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome, the fifth paragraph of which reads as follows:
"Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions."
That is surely a broad way of saying exactly what is contained in this particular Amendment in the way of principles, and it was presumably because it embodied these particular principles that we signed the Treaty.
When we hear the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, say that this is all very well, but, for instance, the Common Monetary Policy is incompatible with any regional policy unless (I understood him to say) there is a directly elected Parliament which can take decisions in this regard, I approve of his apparent wish that there should one day be a directly elected Parliament. But even before then the Ministers, when they take these decisions on the advice of the impartial Commission, are nevertheless bound by the principles which have been elaborated and which we all signed in the Treaty of Rome. Therefore, even in the continued absence of a directly elected Parliament they are bound to—and there is no particular reason to suppose that they would not—develop a sensible regional policy; and indeed up to now they have been fairly successfully applying one. Therefore I do not understand what the fuss is about; why it is necessary to pass this Amendment to salve our conscience in respect of eventual help for the regions in this country which may or may not be slightly underdeveloped in the future. For
1314
those reasons, I shall unhesitatingly oppose this Amendment.
4.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As we have drawn towards the close of what has been an extremely interesting debate, we have got back to the core of the problem we have to deal with; that is to say, what action we are going to take on this particular Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked us to be logical about this, and the logic of the present situation is surely this. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has just said, the principle here to be followed is already contained in the Preamble to the Treaty. Perhaps I might add in parentheses that if we had a Preamble to this Act it might perhaps be useful to incorporate in it some principles in the same way. But it is many years since we ceased to have Preambles to our Acts of Parliament, for the very good reason that they are not effective in the law. They are general guides to conduct and general guides to indicate the reason why particular legislative measures are being taken. The principles here, as my noble friend has said, are accepted. They are in the Treaty of Rome, either explicitly or by implication. They are accepted by the present member States and they must be accepted by us in the same way if we are to enter, and if noble Lords want a general statement they have one already, in the White Paper. The White Paper reads as follows:
"Because of the new opportunities for the economy as a whole, we shall be able as members of the Community to deal more effectively with our problems of regional development. All our experience over the years is that measures to stimulate such development work best within a wider framework of expanding trade and investment.
"The Community recognise that regional policy has a vital and continuing role to play in economic development."
and so on.
So this is the general situation. I hope the noble Lord will not intervene because I should like to develop my argument in my own way. This is the general situation: the principles are accepted. They are explicitly or implicitly in the Treaty of Rome and these are obviously the principles on which we shall have to work if we are to play our part as a member State. There are no sections, it is true, or Articles in the Treaty which deal

1315
specifically and exclusively with the subject of regional policy, but Article 92, section 3, recognises its importance and provides for aid to particular industries and areas with genuine economic and social problems. It is not subject to the usual restrictions which prevent unfair distortion of competition. Articles 92 and 93 together establish the machinery for examining such aid. We cannot complain that there should be machinery for examining what separate member States do if we are aiming at a real Common Market. The only way in which we can achieve it is by some system of ensuring that member States are acting generally on the same basis.
The Commission has, therefore, powers to decide that aids are not compatible with the Community's policy, but there is also recourse to the Council. As my noble friend said in opening—and I do not think that sufficient notice has been taken of this; there has been a certain dilemma that noble Lords opposite have not always accepted—the fact is that the Articles have not prevented the member States from pursuing a wide variety of vigorous regional measures. The Government, like the previous Administration, take the view that we shall be able to do the same and such contacts as we have had with member States and the Commission have reinforced this view. On the other side of the dilemma, undoubtedly, is that a particular member State may pursue a policy with vigour which carries it a little past the rules. That is what has happened in one or two cases, and no one can complain when they are reminded that they have gone beyond what the rules provide. The Community sees regional policy as primarily a matter for individual Governments. What I think some of the noble Lords who have spoken have not sufficiently realised is that the Community policy on regional matters has been building up relatively slowly. A major step forward was taken in the communication of October 20, 1971, from the Commission of the Council—a programme which was adopted by the Council and the Governments of the member States in February. This sets out to emphasise the need to put an end to outbidding in regional aid and to achieve co-ordination of these systems of aid at Community level.
1316
There is one paragraph I should like to quote. It says:
"Aid with regional purposes, when it is adequately and judiciously applied, forms one of the essential instruments of regional development and enables the member States to follow a regional policy aimed at a more balanced growth between the various regions of the same country ",
and of course also within the various regions of the Community as a whole. One of the first questions this communication seeks to deal with is the definition between central and peripheral areas, and what this particular communication did was to define "central" areas as "the most highly industrialised regions of the Community" and to place a 20 per cent. limit on regional aid given in those areas. It is necessary of course to define the difference between central and peripheral areas, and this is a matter we shall be discussing with the Community before July 1, 1973.
I have been asked a number of questions. I was asked about my previous reference on August 4 during the debate on the Industry Bill to the maximum use of the Industry Act during the transitional period. My reference here was intended to highlight the need for the modernisation of our industry as we go into the Common Market—that was the purpose of it—and to ensure the maximum use of the facilities in what is now the Industry Act, in view of the fact that investment is not going as fast at present as we should like. It is also a fact that what is now Section 8 of the Act comes to an end at the end of 1977, so it is important; we have only a relatively short time to make the most of this and we should get on and do so in order that we may take our place to our own maximum advantage within the Common Market.
I was asked a number of questions by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and I hope I have the material with which to answer him. He asked, first of all, whether we have got acceptance on a textile policy. The member States of the Community recognise the need for keeping—I think he called it—an indigenous textile industry, and they do so for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord indicated, and, if I may say so, indicated with such force. The restrictions on imports he referred to bear this out with no doubt at all. The second question he asked was about the

1317
need for quota restrictions for hard-pressed sectors of our industry. Quota restrictions are exercised by member States of the Community, though these are effected by commercial policy negotiations of the Community. Negotiations on the adaptations of commercial relations between the Community and third countries that will include such adaptations have not yet been concluded. The interests to which the noble Lord referred are being taken into account in these matters. In saying this, I can assure him that it is not a matter of glassy-eyed prevarication but rather stony-eyed national self-interest that make it difficult to say a great deal about this at the present stage. I am sure he will understand what I mean.
Thirdly, he asked about the need for acceptance of the principle of free circulation; and with this, I think, goes the fifth question about the averaging of imports. Her Majesty's Government have taken an initiative with the Community, and also with its present and acceding member States. I cannot go into the details, though I think none of them would surprise noble Lords. Obviously, I cannot disclose what might be called our negotiating position in this matter. I think it will take a considerable time to make progress on this. The noble Lord's fourth question concerned the need for a long-term agreement for cotton, including man-made fibres. There will have to be some settlement of the terms of the long-term agreement on cotton textiles, and I am sure that our ability to get all our interests, including our regional interests, looked after in the negotiations will become far greater when we become a member of the Community. I do not think that the noble Lord will expect me at the present time to go further than I have done on that point.
We had a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, to whom for many years I have always listened with very great pleasure. He spoke of the merits of the Amendment. He said that it is the merits of the Amendment that count. I hope he will accept from us that we believe, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said, that it is very important here that the Bill should do all, but not more than all, that is necessary to be done in order to make possible our entry into the European Community. The noble Lord, Lord
1318
Shinwell, talked about principles in Bills. There is a clear distinction between principles that are set out in a Bill for the guidance of the actions of Ministers in the course of negotiating or reaching agreement with the Community, and the actual words setting out all rights, powers, and liabilities, and so forth, and the provisions in a Bill which may enshrine or apply certain principles and are directed towards achieving certain executive action. This is what we have in the Bill itself: legislative and executive action placing duties in law upon a number of people and bodies and the like. This is what legislation is all about.
LORD SHINWELL: That is precisely part of the language of the Amendment. There are guidelines laid down in the Amendment. May I make quite clear that I was not arguing so much for the Amendment? I was merely pointing out that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had argued very succinctly—apart from a great deal of other words contained in his speech—that one could not incorporate these principles in a Statute. All I was arguing was that there are any number of other principles contained in the Bill, so why not accept these. That was quite clear.
LORD DRUMALBYN: All I was trying to argue was that there are principles and principles. There are principles which in legal form impose legal obligations, rights and the rest, and there are principles intended only as guidance to Ministers in carrying out their duties towards reaching agreements, and so forth. I should have thought that these are totally different matters, and that the Committee would accept that that was so.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, if I may say so, ranged far and wide on this matter, but he had something to say about the effect which he feared on the regions of our going into the Common Market through the common rules for the movement of capital. It is still true, as my noble friend said, that capital has moved freely within this country.
LORD BESWICK: Within the country?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Within this country. It has been free to move within this country. Regional encouragements and inducements have been applied to

1319
enable capital to go here and there; and this it has done in many cases.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. Really!
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; if it can do so within this country, what reason at all is there why inducements and encouragement should not operate equally in the Community as a whole as it has been doing? As has been pointed out, for example in regard to the Mezzogiorno in Italy.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord really should not try to get away with that. If one wants to set up a factory in London and invest £1 million or £2 million, one could not do it without the permission of the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Our industrial development controls will remain, that is quite true.
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble Lord accept my point when I said that, although they will still remain, they will be meaningless because the capital will just go to the Continent?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not accept that for one single instant. My noble friend dealt with this extremely adequately in his opening speech. The mere fact that the duties on the entry of our goods into the Common Market are going to be removed, coupled with the incentives that we give for American industry to come here, is likely to restore the position that existed some ten or fifteen years ago when American industry was coming here because it found that this was the best and most convenient place for it to operate from. I believe that this will happen again. The advantages of moving to the Continent will disappear from that point of view as the Community's tariffs disappear, whereas the attractiveness of the United Kingdom to foreign investors, both within and outside, will be increased.
I really cannot possibly accept the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has put forward. I think I ought to tell the noble Lord that the assistance that is being given by the Community to regional development pro
1320
jects of one kind or another within the Community is very considerable. Up to the end of 1970 the European Investment Bank had lent out about 1,800 million dollars, of which about 1,100 million dollars was for regional development projects within the Community. Nobody can say that the Community is not interested in regional development. I would say that by entering the Community now we shall be enhancing the prospects of regional development in this country for the reasons that I have given, and because of the general encouragement, the general stimulus that our entry should give to our economic growth.
5.18 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: We have tabled a large number of Amendments to this Bill in order to try to make it more acceptable to what I believe are the vast silent majority of people in Britain who dislike the idea of the European Economic Community. Those of us who do not object in principle have tried to make it more acceptable and more effective in practice. I have never encountered so stiffnecked and obstinate a Government as the present Government appear to be. Not one of our nearly 100 Amendments has apparently been on the mark at all. Noble Lords opposite have got four answers, one of which they trot out in reply to every Amendment. The first is that they say that the Amendment deals with a technical point which is a wrong one, and they cannot accept it; secondly, they say that it involves a point of principle so they cannot accept it; thirdly, they say that it is incompatible with the Treaty so they cannot accept it; or, fourthly, they say that it is entirely covered by the Treaty, is wholly consistent with it, and therefore they cannot accept it. History has fallen into the habit of attributing various rather disparaging names to Parliaments at one time or another. In the hope that perhaps I can help to save this Parliament from going down in history as the "rubber stamp Parliament", I shall ask the Committee to divide.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 147.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Pargiter, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips. Bs. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Citrine, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

McLeavy, L.

White, Bs.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Willis, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gage, V.

Perth, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Platt, L.

Airedale, L.

Goschen, V.

Polwarth, L.

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Barnby, L.

Hailes, L.

Rhyl, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

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

Ridley, V.

Belstead, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hankey, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hastings, L.

Roberthall, L.

Blackford, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bourne, L.

Hemingford, L.

Rothermere, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hewlett, L.

Rothes, E.

Brecon, L.

Hives, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Brock, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hurcomb, L.

Seear, Bs.

Burnham, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Selkirk, E.

Byers, L.

Ironside, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sherfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kindersley, L.

Simon, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Limerick, E.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Crathorne, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Croft, L.

Mar, E.

Suffield, L.

Daventry, V.

Masham of Ilton. Bs.

Swansea, L.

Davidson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swaythling, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

May, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Meston, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Dulverton, L.

Milverton, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Vernon, L.

Elles, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elworthy, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Young, Bs.

Forteseue, E.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Relations between the European Communities and the less developed --countries
". For the purpose of reaching agreement within any of the Communities on all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and on all remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, any Minister of the Crown shall be guided by the following general principles concerning the relationship between the European Communities and all those countries accorded preferences under the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order 1971–1971, No. 1882)—

(a) the principle of promoting a mutually beneficial division of labour with a view to enabling countries accorded preferences to increase their exports to the Communities of primary products and manufactures;

(b) the principle of reducing by stages the non-economic production within the Communities of agricultural products available from countries accorded preferences;

(c) the principle of increasing the scope of the generalised preference scheme by means of the progressive elimination of quotas on imports into the Communities from countries accorded preferences; and

(d) the principle of increasing aid, and in particular untied aid, by means of grants and loans free of interest."

The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: As one who objected to the suggestion once mooted that this House might sit into next week, and as one who would on the whole prefer not to sit all night to-night if that can be avoided, I hope to move this Amendment as briefly as possible. As I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is likely to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I am satisfied that I shall receive from her a succinct reply. I say that with the greater assurance, because we have traversed the ground covered by this Amendment in previous reasonably recent debates in your Lordships' House. We have had a debate on the Commonwealth and its relationship in these matters with the Common Market; we have had a debate on the UNCTAD Conference at Santiago; we have also had the Statutory Instrument which is referred to in the Amendment itself. Therefore it might be taking unnecessary time from other Amendments, important as I regard this one to be, if one went into it at too great length.
1324
Nor do I wish to traverse again the comments which were made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and others on the form of the Amendment. We have already had a fairly good discussion on that, because the present Amendment takes a somewhat similar form to the one which we have just been debating. But we make no apology whatsoever for that. On some other occasion I might like to cross swords with noble Lords opposite on the remarks made both by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
The noble Earl said that aspirations were not appropriate to a Bill; that they should be embodied in Hansard. Of course we expect our own Ministers to read Hansard, or at least we expect their civil servants to digest it and mark it for them. But we hardly expect the Ministers of all our colleagues in the Six to read our Hansard. Therefore we are in some difficulty if we want to give an indication to our colleagues in the Community of the lines which we would expect our own Government to take. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to the fact that Preambles to legislation have now fallen into disuse. Maybe in our new situation in the Community we shall have to resurrect the Preamble, as a way of indicating to the other nine members of the Community the kind of aspirations which we entertain in this country. It may not be possible to embody them in full legal form.
However, leaving those considerations for a moment on one side, I should like to put this Amendment into perspective. Whatever may be said in the Treaty of Rome, I do not think we have any ground whatever for being unduly complacent about relationships between the developed countries in Europe or elsewhere and the under-developed countries. We all know the difficulties that arose at Santiago. We are very glad that the noble Lady, rather towards the end of the conference, was able to make her way there. I wish that she had been there a little earlier when these important matters were discussed because the general effect of Santiago was to reinforce the belief of the under-developed countries that the developed countries were not prepared to make any real concessions to them. The psychological result of these difficulties which arose at Santiago—some of them

1325
substantial—might have a significant effect in the next few months when important consultations take place over the GATT and, of course, the negotiations, which are more germane to our debate to-day, between the E.E.C. and the countries—38 in number—which are associable and may have already entered into association, as well as other countries which are in the process of negotiation.
Of the countries to which association in some form or other with the E.E.C. is open, some 20 are within the Commonwealth. I think they would have our particular regard, but, as we know, there are other countries which are of very great concern to all of us, I would hope, to which the offer of association has not been extended. If I may again take the Commonwealth position, the 20 countries which may enter into some form of association if they so desire, and some have already done so, comprise a population of probably 120 million, but the great countries of Asia to whom such a relationship has not been offered, although they may have some trade agreement, have a population of probably 700 million. In our discussions it is very important that we should recognise that there are these two different groups of countries.
If your Lordships suppose that one need not worry too much because there have been general expressions in the Treaty and by members of the Community of good will towards the underdeveloped world I should perhaps point out that since the formation of the Community the level of trade between members of the Community has, of course, increased vastly—in very round terms four-fold in the last decade—but the total share of external trade of the E.E.C. countries with the less developed countries of the world has in fact fallen. Looking at the advantages of association for those who have become associated with the E.E.C., I would quote a passage from the speech made recently in London by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Arnold Smith, in which he said:
"In practice trade statistics suggest that the developing countries have not gained as much in trade as they may have hoped from association agreements with the Six. Most of them have been given special orivileges as far as trade with Western Europe is concerned,
1326
but the expansion of their exports to Europe has been limited and in fact the exports of the present associated States with the rest has increased less than it has with other developing countries."
This is rather startling for those who are prepared to put their entire confidence into arrangements for association. I will not go into detail—I am not sure that I would be competent to do so because these are complicated matters—but it is a little startling when one reads statements of that kind supported by statistical evidence.
We have already of course in the United Kingdom adopted a system of generalised tariff preference, as has the E.E.C. under the general guidance of UNCTAD, but, as we said in an earlier debate on this subject, we shall have in 1974—unless we can persuade our colleagues in the Community otherwise—to adopt the Community pattern. We have the authority of the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Noble, at the Department of Trade and Industry for saying—as is evident if one examines the position—that our own system of tariff preferences adopted earlier this year is more generous in many respects than that adopted by the E.E.C. We therefore felt that we were entirely right to put on record in the Amendment which is before your Lordships some guidelines which we would hope might influence our representatives in this very important matter of deciding in a very brief period of time after our formal entry whether we should follow the precise lines of the E.E.C. agreement or should persuade our colleagues in the E.E.C. to adopt some more generous arrangements.
As I say, I do not wish to weary your Lordships by going into some of the details. If one looks at the tariff preference arrangements at first glance they may appear very generous. There is a considerable list of commodities in agriculture and even some manufactured ones, both in our list and in theirs, which would enter duty-free. One might suppose that this is fine. We have a very impressive list of our own. I was delighted to find, for example, in Chapter 96 that brooms, brushes, feather dusters and sieves would be admitted free. I find the definition of sieves after the other grouping rather odd, but it does not end there because there is the matter of ceilings, of maximum amounts of

1327
quotas, and those quotas are divided in the most complicated fashion. They are divided between the different countries: at the moment, of course, the Six. When it becomes the Ten, the arithmetic will have to be done again. But this allocation of tariff quotas between the members of the E.E.C. is all worked out at Community level.
There are also further restrictions. If you are trying to export from a developing country into the Community, you have to be sufficiently knowledgeable to know whether, for your particular product, the country to which you are hoping to export has or has not already had its tariff maximum for the period in question, because if it has then you are not going to get in tariff-free. You also have to work out some further sums as to the total of particular commodities, and you have to work them out by reference to what happened in 1968 plus an addition of 5 per cent. of the value of imports of those goods from all extra E.E.C. sources since 1968, and so on and so forth. In other words, it is going to be a very difficult matter, it seems to me, for the producers in many of these developing countries to understand the complexities of the E.E.C. arrangements as between the different member countries of the E.E.C. and the kind of tariff quotas which will be allocated to each of them, and also the cut-off point—where, if a certain quantity of that particular commodity has already been imported, further amounts cannot he imported tariff-free. The commodity can still be imported, but the full tariff duties will have to be paid.
As I say, I do not think it would be desirable on an occasion of this kind to go too far into all these details, even if I were able so to do. But I hope I have already said enough to show that the E.E.C. has adopted a very complicated scheme. I quote an economist far more learned in these matters than I am, who says:
"'The schemes proposed by all the other participating developed countries "—
that is to say, other than the E.E.C.—
"except Japan, are simpler. Japan's scheme is basically the same as the Community's except that it is more generous ".
And he goes on to explan why. We, on the whole, have in the past had a
1328
relatively simple scheme of Commonwealth preference we have not gone in for all these complexities. We have had dutiable goods or non-dutiable goods, as the case may be, but generally speaking (there are some exceptions, I know, for agricultural products and one or two other matters) we have eschewed quotas, and we have not had these particular difficulties of limitations on tariff-free quotas.
The real question before us of course, as I tried to indicate earlier, is whether or not we shall be able to persuade our colleagues in the Six to adopt what are, on the whole, our more generous, simpler and more open attitudes. I say all this with the fullest consciousness that in certain sensitive areas we ourselves have in the past safeguarded our own interests—and no doubt will wish to do so again in the future. We have just been discussing this very matter, on the previous Amendment. It arises more particularly, of course, in the case of textiles, and also in footwear, where special arrangements have been made for each of them. There are other commodities of very great interest to some of the developing countries—jute, for example. Raw jute is tariff-free, but in the Community there are very tight quotas indeed on any type of manufactured jute. This is of great importance to some countries in South-East Asia. We do not wish to take on an undue burden, as to some extent we have been doing in textiles, as various noble Lords indicated in the earlier debate. That would not be fair or equitable. Therefore can we really use our influence and powers of persuasion to see that we are generous to the developing countries and also that we in Britain, take our fair share but are not expected to shoulder an undue burden? That is the gist of these Amendments that we have put down.
I believe it is absolutely right that, in discussing the legislation which will take us into the Community in full legal form, we should have some discussion on this matter. I do not, as I said at the outset, apologise for the form of this Amendment, although apparently it does not appeal very much to the Government. The alternative would have been to spell all this out in mandatory terms, which would have been better legislation but

1329
rather less satisfactory. In our Amendment, we have tried to set out the things which we feel matter most in this developing relationship. In the first place there is the matter that I have just touched upon: that we should like to work out "a mutually beneficial division of labour " between ourselves and the developing countries who are primary producers, and also, in some cases, manufacturers; and that we should do it in a way which would both benefit them and not be an unfair burden on this Kingdom as compared with other members of the Community. Again, on the whole in this country we have not used the kind of device which is used in the Community of reverse preferences, and various other methods by which the more developed countries make very certain that they get a very good quid pro quo for any concessions they may make to the developing world. The developing world is now, I think, seeing through some of these devices, and is resenting some of them. So again we hope very much that our representatives will bear this in mind, and will not go in for some of the elaborations that have been attempted in the past.
If I may refer again to Mr. Arnold Smith—who, after all, as the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, is in a position to know what are 'the feelings in the Commonwealth in general—he said this in his speech to the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the Commonwealth a few weeks ago:
"At present, such reverse preferences do exist in practice to come extent within the Yaoundé and Arusha associations. I hope they will be eliminated. Commonwealth develop-in countries … should not be asked to undertake to discriminate against other developing countries"
which would not be in association; for example, India, Singapore, Malaysia or Ceylon. Mr. Arnold Smith went on:
"Nor should the Commonwealth Caribbean he asked to discriminate against North America as a price of not losing its British market, nor Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa to discriminate against India, New Zealand, Australia and Japan."
Those of us who have had a very long interest in the Commonwealth will echo the hopes that Mr. Arnold Smith expressed in that speech. We hope very much again, therefore, that our representatives in Brussels will make sure that
1330
we do not endanger very longstanding Commonwealth relationships by accepting terms of reverse preferences from people who are not in association with the E.E.C. in such a way that such relationships would in fact be damaged.
Then our Amendment refers to:
"the principle of reducing by stages the non-economic production within the Communities of agricultural products available from countries accorded preferences."
I think we can all understand the relevance of this, and I do not wish to elaborate upon it. Paragraph (c) deals with the matter of quotas, and I have just been speaking of that.
The final matter is:
"the principle of increasing aid, and in particular untied aid.…"
which we suggest should be by means of grants and interest-free loans. Again, we have had a number of debates in your Lordships' House on this matter. I think those of us interested in this subject are fully aware of the great and increasing problem of indebtedness in the developing world, and I know that the noble Baroness herself is well aware of this problem. On the whole, the aid from the Community to its associated countries and to other countries is by way of reasonably soft loans. But again one must be on the alert—and this is intended as a further warning, to our representatives—to make it clear that this is the attitude we hope they will adopt. I repeat that in my view it is entirely appropriate that in discussing the form of our entry into the European Community we should not forget our associations with our own Commonwealth partners and with other countries in the developing world, and that we should make that clear, as we do in the Amendment which I have the pleasure now to move.
5.50 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I had hoped that the serried ranks opposite would have been prompted to take part in this discussion, in view of their long association with the Commonwealth and the extent to which they had claimed an almost proprietary interest in the Empire at a time when we on this side of the Chamber were regarded as being hostile to the best interests of the Commonwealth and the Empire.—I should like briefly,

1331
in view of the silence on the other side of the Chamber, to support very strongly what my noble friend has said, putting I think, three points to the noble Baroness who is to reply and whose interest in the Commonwealth I do not for a moment impugn or question. I hope that she will be able to say something about the proposals which Mr. Arnold Smith has made. They seem to me to be perfectly reasonable principles to have enunciated, and I should like to feel that Her Majesty's Government, when they represent us at Brussels, will do everything in their power to ensure that the criteria laid down by Mr. Arnold Smith are met.
Secondly, my Lords. I should like to raise with the noble Baroness the question I put on Second Reading that is, that the achievement of associate status is of only limited usefulness to many of these countries because all agricultural products which are subject to a common organisation of their market in the Community are excluded from the terms of the Yaoundé Convention. That seems to me to minimise the help that these countries will get from the association which many of the African countries, and some of the eastern Caribbean countries, have already sought and, indeed, in many cases obtained.
The third point I would put to the noble Baroness is in respect of India, Pakistan. Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore, because if I am right the enlarged Community's relations with those countries are to be arranged in accordance with the joint Declaration of Intent after Accession, and application of the generalised scheme of preferences of the Community is governed by Protocol 23. If my information is correct, that is not likely to bring any great comfort to the countries I have named. To give one example, I take India. I understand that a professor at Delhi University recently forecast that application of the generalised scheme of preference to India would increase her export earnings by 24 crores of rupees, but the abolition of Commonwealth Preference would involve the loss of 75 crores of rupees of export revenue. It looks as though the situation for India could be a serious one in the light of our accession to the Community, and I should like to have from Her
1332
Majesty's Government some assurance that they are aware of the serious problems that are going to be created for these vast areas of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will to-night give us some earnest of their determination to safeguard the Commonwealth interests involved.
5.54 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking, I hope, for the serried ranks of Liberal Peers, I intend to oppose this Amendment for the same reason as I had the temerity to give in relation to the preceding Amendment; that is to say, that the announcement of principles governing our entry to be embodied in the actual Act is wrong, and wrong in principle. We cannot be at all certain that these principles, admirable as they may be, are literally shared by our colleagues with whom we are obliged and committed to work. The Treaty of Rome, in the sixth paragraph of the Preamble, says:
"Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
Then we come to the principles of the Treaty of Rome, and in Article 3 we read:
"For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include "
among other things:
"the association of overseas countries and territories with a view to increasing trade and to promoting jointly economic and social development."
That is what the Treaty says, and that is the Treaty which we have signed and to which we are committed. It seems to me that those general principles are all that is necessary. How they are applied is a matter for ourselves and our colleagues to work out when we join. We have to do it when we enter and no doubt we shall do our best to apply the principles as we see them.
As regards the principles recommended for inclusion in the Act by the Labour Opposition, we find that the first one is:
"the principle of promoting a mutually beneficial division of labour with a view to enabling countries accorded preferences to increase their exports to the Communities of primary products and manufactures;"
That, I should have thought, was implicit in the general principle of which it forms

1333
part, of the Treaty we have signed. The second principle says:
"the principle of reducing by stages the non-economic production within the Communities of agricultural products available from countries accorded preferences;"
I am not sure how literally that is to be taken. If it is to be taken literally I suppose it means that we must progressively reduce our production of sugar beet in this country with a view eventually to eliminating it, because it is, presumably, uneconomic.
BARONESS WHITE: If I might interrupt the noble Lord, there is a case for suggesting that we might decrease our own sugar beet production because we can grow some things which sugar producing countries cannot.
LORD GLADWYN: That would be very good in principle, but I am not sure that the Labour Government, if it came to power, would reduce substantially the production of sugar beet in this country. That would be a brave thing to do, but I think it is rather rash to commit yourselves to these principles in advance. What is going to happen when you come to power? The third principle is that increasing the scope of the generalised preference scheme, of which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has spoken, is an excellent thing in itself, but / do not see what is to be gained if we said that that was a principle we were going to abide by at this stage. I cannot see the advantage of proclaiming in advance exactly what we are going to do in the way of a principle in that regard.
Finally, the principle of increasing aid, and particularly untied aid, by means of grants and loans free of interest. If the Government of this country said that that was their principle it would be greeted with slightly hollow laughter by our colleagues in the Common Market, because if anything is clear (I have not the figures by me but I have seen them recently) it is that the amount of official and unofficial aid which we grant, expressed as a percentage of the G.N.P., is substantially less than that given by our Common Market colleagues, including not only the Six but the Ten. If we came out with a statement like that, it would be regarded by our colleagues as rather unfortunate to say
1334
the least. For all those reasons I cannot see the advantage of this Amendment. I see certain considerable disadvantages in it, and I shall certainly ask my colleagues to oppose it.
6.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TwEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): I am very glad indeed that the noble Baroness has moved this Amendment. I think it gives us an opportunity to consider for a while some of the major problems which will confront the associated territories overseas, or those who choose to have trade agreements, or those who choose to have an agreement on the lines of the Arusha Convention, and also what the attitude of the Community is to these particular problems.
I should like to say first that the noble Baroness, who always moves her Amendments with great clarity and ability, did accept, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the Treaty of Rome already incorporates certain general principles. But she suggests to us that as well as the principles which are already incorporated both in the Treaty of Rome and in the Treaty of Accession, we should also incorporate the principles in Amendment No. 46 as guidelines to Ministers when they are considering how they should act in the negotiations with the Community. As was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House on a previous Amendment, this particular Bill, short as it is, is intended only to give effect to those changes that are really necessary in order to enable us as a country to accede to the terms which were negotiated under the Treaty of Accession.
This clause, although it is framed in terms of principles, is really more a declaration to be followed by Ministers on trade and aid for the developing countries. I would say to the Committee that I think it is out of context in this Bill. In any case, all the members of the enlarged Community—and this was referred to by Lord Gladwyn—are committed to helping the trade and development of developing countries. I would suggest to noble Lords that a general declaration of this nature in this Amendment does not distinguish between very different and very

1335
difficult problems affecting trade in primary commodities and in manufactures and in development aid. It is really for these main reasons that I would not recommend to the Committee that this Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.
But I should like to refer to each principle and I will do so as briefly as did the noble Baroness and Lord Greenwood. Let us take the first principle, (a). I submit that it does not recognise the difficulties there are in trying to achieve a true balance between the need of developing countries to increase their export earnings and the interests of our own industry, not only in this country but in all those of the enlarged Community, and the great problem of employment. All the developed countries granting generalised preferences do have safeguard provisions to enable them to protect their own industries against injury which is too great. This was recognised by the noble Baroness when she spoke.
It is true that from the beginning of 1974 we shall have to switch from our present safeguard mechanism, which allows us to withdraw completely a preference at any time and for as long as we think fit and because we are acceding to the Community we shall instead have to apply the techniques of the Community. This guarantees a fixed amount of duty-free quotas each year even on manufactured goods in which the developing countries are competitive with us. But once the annual ceiling is reached the developing countries can of course continue to export to the Community but only on payment of the full rate of duty. A new duty-free ceiling is fixed at the beginning of next year. The Community scheme provides for automatic increases each year in the size of these tariff quotas. Most of their quotas in 1972 were considerably increased on those that were available when the scheme was introduced in 1971.
Let us look at the second principle, (b), in the Amendment. I think it is difficult to define what is non-economic; because agricultural support is recognised for all agriculture both in this country and under the C.A.P. I think it would be difficult to put a formula such as (b) into effect. But if it was in the minds of those who put forward this Amend
1336
ment that they wished particularly to refer, for example, to processed agricultural products and to tropical products available from developing countries, here the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, was perfectly right; it is true that more of these have been included in our scheme of generalised preferences than in the Community's present scheme.
But, as is put in the third principle, (c), in the Amendment, we can all expect that an enlarged Community will be able to increase the scope of their scheme and have said that they would do so; but we still have to accept that generalised tariff preferences on these kind of products might be at the expense not only of domestic producers if they were temperate products but also of producers in the associated developing countries or in those Commonwealth countries which were offered association, if you consider certain manufacturers or semi-manufactures.
If you look at the fourth principle, (d), there are certain principles put forward on development aid which, if read, one would think unacceptable; but there are a great many difficulties in applying this particular principle (d) as it stands. I would say that it is put forward too soon; because, as everybody knows, we are not at this moment a member of the European Development Fund. In fact, we will not accede to it until 1975 when the third fund comes to an end. The extent of our Community obligations to which we should become a party when we accede is still under negotiation. I would also say that I think it is a little restricted; because it is surely too early to decide how much Community aid will be needed after 1975, particularly since most Commonwealth "associable" countries, as I believe they are called, have yet to decide what form their relations with the enlarged Community will take. I would suggest that it is unwise to try to put down absolutely detailed guidelines of this kind.
Lord Greenwood in particular asked about the Declaration of Intent on the Asian countries. I think one cannot go further than this Declaration of Intent as it is set out on page 117. I think it shows very great determination to try to meet the problems of Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Singapore. I do not think one could go further than that

1337
at the moment. I personally should say (and I do not want to try to influence the arrangements) that association of the three forms open was the best form for those countries who are considering whether to have an association agreement, which involves being able to have the advantage of the European Development Fund, whether it is a kind of Arusha Convention which has less reverse preferences (which I think was one of the problems which troubled Lord Greenwood) or a straight trade agreement which was offered to the Asian countries. I myself think that in the circumstances a form of association which brings together the French- and English-speaking African countries with access to the Development Fund but also access to our aid, too, might in the end be of the greatest benefit to them and might ensure that, because the Community as a whole would be so wide in its extent, it would in fact be very much less restricted than I think many of us might feel.
Opening this short debate the noble Baroness, Lady White, talked about the level of trade betwen the Community and the developing world. If you take the whole level of imports from the developing world, it increased in value to the Community by 45 per cent. between 1966 and 1970. The corresponding figure to the United Kingdom was 26 per cent. and I suggest that surely these figures imply that if we could get the right arrangements, and if those who still have to make up their minds by the middle of next year would, for example, choose association agreement, the levels of trade will continue to develop, which is part of the principles of the Treaty of Rome and part of the Treaty of Acession to which we hope shortly to accede.
In closing, I would only say that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we want as negotiating partners to try to achieve more open attitudes and to influence by our powers of persuasion so that those countries with which we are so much concerned shall have a valuable and continuing treaty arrangement.
6.11 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I intervene because, for the second occasion, we have had arguments which strike me as entirely unsound from a Parliamentary point of view and I am getting a little tired of Parliamentary procedural and legislative
1338
arguments being used as principle reasons for preventing the insertion of material into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the last occasion and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, on this occasion—though with less detail—prayed in aid the argument that you do not put principles into legislation, and particularly not in this Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a very busy and overworked Minister but the fact is that he was responsible for a measure which started off by laying down a number of principles of a kind analogous to these; namely, the Industrial Relations Act. If noble Lords compare the principles contained in this Amendment and previous Amendments, and the principles as set out in Section 1 of the Industrial Relations Act, they will find that the argument the Government are using against these Amendments could have been applied equally well to Section 1 of that Act. The section reads:
"The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say,—(a) the principle of collective bargaining freely conducted—"—
et cetera—
"and with due regard to the general interests of the community—"—
one of these inprecise phrases which the noble Baroness attacks in this Amendment. Then,
"(b) the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry … (c) the principle of free association …"—
and—
"(d) the principle of freedom and security for workers, protected by adequate safeguards against unfair industrial practices, whether on the part of employers or others."
Because the Government are not able to accept Amendments or even to attempt to redraft them we ought not to have such arguments in this Committee to justify the rejection of Amendments moved by the opposition. I am bound to say that it does not do much credit to your Lordships' House and I do not like procedural arguments of this kind being used against Amendments. There may be other arguments; indeed, the noble Baroness gave them. I happen to be one who believes that the Community will do its duty in this respect; but

1339
equally, I see no reason why we should not put into an Act of Parliament guidelines to our own Ministers, because this is what this is; and I regret that we are having this sort of argument simply because the Government are not prepared to accept any Amendments.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If I may speak again, I would say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is usually very fair. But I think he came into the Chamber about half way through the debate. He did pay me the honour of saying that I had sought to examine each of the four principles on their merits, which indeed I did. But before the noble Lord came into the Chamber I was in the process of arguing that, quite apart from the merits of the principles which I sought to examine in details, there are also certain principles already embodied in the Treaty to which we accede. For that reason I do not see why we should repeat them in a short Bill which is meant merely to carry out those matters which are necessary for our acceptance.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree that I did not hear the whole of the debate, but I heard rather more than the noble Baroness thinks, as I was listening although I was not actually sitting in the Chamber. I have already said that I happen to believe in some of these principles as contained in the Community. What I am saying is that this is an instruction to Ministers and is a great deal more justifiable than the principles as set out in the Industrial Relations Act.
BARONESS WHITE: I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Shackleton; frankly, I think that he has scored a bull point in reading from Section 1
of the Industrial Relations Act. That does precisely what the Leader of the House told us we ought never to do in legislation. Therefore I do not think that we can allow ourselves to be misled by the most eloquent speech of the Leader of the House on the earlier Amendment into refusing to accept the Amendment which is now before the Committee. After all, we are not the Senate of the United States; we do not have to ratify treaties; and it appears to me that it is entirely proper, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, that we should express in a Bill of this kind the kind of general principles which we would wish our representatives to follow in carrying out the purposes of this Bill.
There may be one or two points of detail which could be improved, and they could be redrafted if I had the slightest hope that the Government would be less than completely impervious to any kind of Amendment to this Bill. In other circumstances one might be disposed to say, "All right, we will withdraw this particular Amendment and have further consultations and bring it forward, somewhat revised, at a later stage." But what is the use? It has already been perfectly clearly indicated to us that nothing we say will have the slightest effect on this Bill. In those circumstances I do not think the normal procedures are applicable, I therefore have no intention of withdrawing the Amendment, and I propose to ask the Committee to divide on it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 148.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood, of Rossendale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, Bs.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Willis, L.

Cowley, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gage, V.

Moyne, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Alport, L.

Garner, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Glendevon, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Perth, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Polwarth, L.

Boothby, L.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bourne, L.

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

Rathcavan, L.

Brecon, L.

Reay, L.

Brentford, V.

Hankey, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rhyl, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Burnham, L.

Hawke, L.

Robbins, L.

Camoys, L.

Hemingford, L.

Roberthall, L.

Carrington, L.

Hewlett, L.

Rochdale. V

Chelmer, L.

Hives, L.

Rothermere, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Lv.

Coleraine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hurcomb, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L, Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Kindersley, L.

Simon, V.

Crathorne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Latymer, L.

Somcrs, L.

Croft, L.

Limerick, E.

Stamp, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, Bs.

Stonehaven, V.

Davidson, V.

Lothian, M.

Stradbroke, E.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Luke, L.

Suffield, L.

Dulverton, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Swaythling, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trevelyan. L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mar, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elles, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

May, L.

Vivian, L.

Elworthy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley V.

Falmouth, V.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Wolverton, L.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Young, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 [Decisions on, and proof of, Treaties and Community instruments, etc.]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON had given Notice of an Amendment (No. 48):
Page 4, line 45, after first ("copy") insert ("in the English language").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: Because of the time factor and the way in which the equivalent of the guillotine is working we will not move this Amendment.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to any other ground of jurisdiction, from the date of entry the High Court in England and Wales, the Court of Session in Scotland, and the High Court of Northern Ireland shall have jurisdiction to entertain actions against the Commission of the Communities as if the Commission had a place of business in each of the said countries; and service shall be sufficiently effected by registered letter at the office of the Commission in Brussels.")
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble

1343
friends. It is self-explanatory and I should like to hear the Government's reply.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: There is in fact an answer to this, and I hope that my brief remarks will satisfy the noble Lord. Under one of the Articles of the Treaty the Community is a legal body. This is a matter of directly applicable law, so it is a legal body for our purposes, as it is in every other State. There is a division of responsibility as to jurisdiction. Some of it goes to the European Court and some to the national courts. Of course if the actions in question referred to matters over which jurisdiction is reserved to the Luxembourg Court they would never have come before the British courts at all. On the other hand, there are a number of things for which the Commission could be sued—things like contracts in relation to proprietary rights or other interests; actions for the recovery of property, or to establish title to property; proceedings concerning land or involving trusts. The British courts could be involved in these proceedings and could sue the Commission, or the Commission could sue individuals in this country, and there would be a law suit here, or in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland.
The only question that arises on this Amendment is whether we could serve due process on the Commission. Under the existing law there is a variety of ways in which this could be done. In England the Rules of the Supreme Court lay down a number of circumstances in which one can serve writs and other documents on bodies whose headquarters are overseas. One can either get leave to serve the process directly on the body overseas or, in some cases, one can serve it on their agent in this country. There is absolutely no doubt that the existing Rules of the Supreme Court cover all possible circumstances which might arise where the Commission would be a party to a law suit. The law in Scotland is a little different, but they too have both substantive law and rules. In the brief that I was given there was a beautiful passage relating to the Scottish jurisdiction and how it is done, but perhaps for the sake of brevity I had better cut out even that choice passage. It is perfectly possible for writs and other docu
1344
ments, in relation to something which the Commission had done and which was not reserved for the European court, to be served if the law suit arose in Scotland as well. Therefore we have the powers under existing legislation and the Rules of the Supreme Court in England and the Acts of Sederunt in the Courts of Session in Scotland. This particular Amendment would not add anything to our law, because the whole substance is already covered, as it is indeed in the case of any other juridically recognised body with which you may have to deal and which is based overseas.
LORD BESWICK: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that explanation. We shall want to consider what he has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.31 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, to put some questions to Ministers which are designed really to enable companies and individuals carrying on business in this country to ascertain how they stand in regard to the various clauses of the Bill. I think the Committee would agree that this is probably the appropriate clause upon which to put the questions. It is Clause 3, dealing with the interpretation of Community instruments and the question of the evidential method of bringing them before court. May I begin by saying that obviously in due course a comprehensive case law will be built up—in fact, it has already been in process of coming into being and there are already a number of volumes of the decisions of the European Court.
The first question I should like to ask is this. I was wondering how soon one can hope that the case law really will cover most of the types of questions which confront persons affected by this body of law. My reason for asking that question is this. The European Court, after all, is the supreme court; it is the court of highest authority within the region of the matters with which it has concern of a community of 300 million people. One would have anticipated in those circum

1345
stances that it might be loaded with an immense body of work with all the questions which will arise in the relationships within the field of the Treaty of Rome. This may result, one would have thought, in a very heavy burden devolving on the court.
If one takes the equivalent of our own Supreme Court, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, one finds that questions of the greatest importance do not actually reach the House of Lords for perhaps years and years after they have first arisen and have been dealt with by the inferior courts, whose judgments have been followed in relation to those matters. If I may give a simple example, it is the famous case of Lloyd v. Gracesmith, dealing with the question of agency. That decision must have affected an enormous number of transactions of various sorts in this country. Yet it took years before the case arose which precisely resolved the question on agency to which the judgments in that case were directed. I was wondering whether the same sort of situation might not arise with regard to the European Court, having in mind, as I say, that it is the supreme court and it has to deal in the ultimate resort with juridical questions arising in this vast Community of some 300 million people.
If it were going to take a long time before one got a decision from the European Court, or a decision which by implication laid down principles which would give the answer to questions of that sort, one can foresee that a number of, I will not call them inconveniences, subsidiary questions would arise. What system of law should one, in the intervening period, follow in determining those questions? One would have thought that the domestic courts, not having the guidance, in the assumed circumstances, of the European Court, would have to follow their own jurisprudence and determine those questions accordingly. The ultimate result, when a case ultimately got before the European Court, might show that the view of the domestic courts was mistaken.
In those circumstances, I submit that it would be of great help to a large number of people if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I think is going to reply, were able to give some approximate idea as to how long it takes now, in the existing circumstances,
1346
for a decision to be arrived at by the European Court, say, after a case which it is designed to bring before the European Court has first been initiated. If it is a matter of months, of course, that would be an answer which I am sure would give the greatest satisfaction to large numbers of people. But I wonder whether "months" is the right word, or whether it takes years. I just do not know and I should be grateful for any information that the noble and learned Lord might be able to furnish on that score.
My second question is this. Subsection (1) of the clause provides that Community instruments are to be determined in accordance with the European law. That is perfectly natural and intelligible. But it also contains this provision: that the validity of the instrument shall be "treated as a question of law". My question to the noble and learned Lord is: what is the intended results of those words? I apprehend—and I should be grateful if he would indicate whether I am right or wrong in so supposing—that the object of those words is to achieve in rather fuller form what we sought to achieve by Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act that we passed earlier this year.
If I may expand on that a little, foreign law—and European law in that context would be qua the English courts foreign law—has always been regarded as a matter of fact and when a relevent question has arisen before an English court the English court hears evidence, if evidence is tendered, as to what is the effect under the foreign system of the foreign law in question. That has given rise to inconvenient consequences. You may get a court which, having certain evidence as to foreign law before it in one case, comes to an affirmative conclusion, and another court perhaps years later, not having that evidence but considering precisely the same foreign law, might theoretically at any rate—and I believe a case has actually arisen—come to a contrary conclusion.
It was that situation, as I know the noble and learned Lord would agree, that we were trying to put right by Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act. If I am right in my interpretation of these words would the noble and learned Lord tell me whether they are designed to produce in a full sense precisely the same result in

1347
regard to European law? It is to be a question of law and not of fact. It is to be a question not of evidence but a question for the English courts to determine once and for all, and a court sitting ten years' hence could in those circumstances have regard to the view that a court took now as to what that European law meant, and would not have to ask for evidence to show that it meant precisely that. I think that is what the intention is but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would let me know.
The next set of questions really pertains to the position of the English company trading in this country which may have had the misfortune to conflict in its trading methods with a provision of the Treaty of Rome. My question would be: in what position does that English company find itself and what might happen to it as a result? I apologise for wearying the Committee again with a quotation, but I believe that your Lordships would agree with me that this is a matter of vital import to industrial and commercial concerns planning their operations over a period of years in the light of the fact that on January 1 of next year we shall be full members of the Community. On previous occasions I have taken as an example Article 85. Some of your Lordships may remember it. I did so because it seemed to be a very convenient Article for that purpose. This is the Article of the Rome Treaty which prohibits as incompatible with the Common Market, broadly speaking, trading practices which distort trading operations between member States.
In particular, one finds that paragraph 1(d) prohibits the application of unequal conditions to parties undertaking equivalent engagements in commercial transactions, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage. In other words, it is the Article which forbids discrimination against one customer in the terms which a company trading with that customer and other customers affords to its customers. If a company trading in this country has customers in Europe the effect of this Article is that it must offer to each of them, broadly speaking, the same terms of business. There is an encroachment on the prohibition if the company ill this country for some reason
1348
discriminates against one of those customers.
For the sake of my example may I call the company trading in England "the English company and the customer who claims to be disadvantaged the disgruntled customer"? Supposing a question does arise with regard to the company's operations as to whether it has in that sense discriminated against the disgruntled customer, what may happen to the English company? Regulation 17 was enacted by the Council in order to give effect to Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. Again, at the risk of wearying your Lordships I should like just to direct your Lordships' minds to one or two features in the Regulation. It begins with a number of recitals, and one recital is—
"Whereas in order to establish a system ensuring that competition shall not be distorted in the Common Market, it is necessary to provide, 'for the balanced application of Articles 85 and 86 in a uniform manner to member States."
That is the recital in the preamble to the Regulation. Then there follow a very large number of paragraphs, with which I need not trouble your Lordships in any detail but which stipulate a policy which is procedure to enable any party which is affected by contraventions of Article 85 to be represented and for his case to be put and considered, and so on.
Article 16 of the Regulation provides for the imposing of penalties. It enables the Commission by decision "—a decision which your Lordships will remember is referred to in the terms of Article 189 of the Treaty, to impose on undertakings a penalty and periodic penalty payments of from 50 to 1,000 units of account per day calculated in accordance with a formula with which I need not go into now. Regulation 17 also enables the Commission to issue decisions to companies telling them that they must stop contravening the provisions of Article 85 by the method in which they carry on their business. So that the English company, a question having arisen, might find itself faced in the first place with a "decision" issued by the Commission under Regulation 17, which is designed to implement Article 85.
Of course it might or might not comply with the decision. It might think the decision was just or unjust. If it thought the decision was unjust and insisted on

1349
carrying on with its method of business then it might find itself with a penalty imposed upon it, a penalty perhaps first and then a continuing periodic payment. In those circumstances the company could appeal to the European Court under Article 173 of the Rome Treaty. The European Court might of course reverse the decision or affirm it. If it affirmed it this company would find that it had a monetary obligation to perform, and if one then looked to see how that could be enforced one goes back to Article 192 of the Rome Treaty. One finds that the penalty provision can be enforced by procedure in the domestic courts of the company. In other words, the company could be brought before an English court and the English court could have placed before it the decision for imposing the penalty, and the English court could be asked, in accordance with English procedure, to enforce that penalty.
That is one thing that could happen to the company. It is not clear from Article 192, nor is it clear from any provision of Regulation 17—or indeed from any other Article of the Rome Treaty that I have been able to discover—whether the disgruntled customer receives the penalty or whether it goes into some public coffer or treasury. I have looked at the financial provisions of the Rome Treaty and they do not contain, unless I have missed it, any provision to the effect that the penalties imposed from time to time for breach of provisions are to go into a public exchequer. Article 192 seems to provide in a contrary sense, because what it says in its third subparagraph is:
"The party concerned may proceed to enforcement by applying directly to the authority which is competent according to domestic law."
If that language does have the result which at first sight it might seem to have, then the English company, in the circumstances I have assumed, would find that it had to pay the disgruntled customer the amount of the penalty and a continuing penalty payment which could be imposed under Regulation 17.
I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could let me know whether I have correctly understood that situation or whether I have completely misunderstood it. In particular, I should like to ask him whether he is able to say if the penalty is in a true sense a penalty which goes into the public purse
1350
or whether it is really a form of compensation which is received by a disgruntled customer. It is an odd situation, because if one looks at the next Regulation, which deals with competition in transport, one finds also in that Regulation that there is a provision enabling a penalty to be imposed, but the provision contains odd wording—I will not trouble your Lordships with the exact words—to the effect that the procedure under which it is enforced is not to be regarded as a criminal procedure. That seems to suggest that in that case at any rate this is in the nature of a civil procedure giving rise probably to a claim for compensation.
That is one series of adventures with which the English company might find itself confronted, but would I not be right in thinking that the English company might also find itself with a writ issued against it in the English court? Article 85 becomes part of English law, and in using that language I have in mind the distinction that the noble and learned Lord drew between directly applicable European law becoming part of the English law and remaining in a sense a system of law outside it. For practical purposes the English company would have to say to itself, "The letter of Article 85 is as a result of Section 2 of this Act" (when the Bill is passed) "to be read as if it were part of the English law". If that is right that would give the disgruntled customer the right to issue a writ against the English company claiming damages and saying, "I have been disadvantaged by your discrimination against me. That has lasted for a number of years and I want a substantial sum in damages from you."
Suppose the customer said, "Your misbehaviour has lasted many years and I want compensation in respect of those years." Could the English company plead the English Statutes of Limitation so as to limit the amount of damages which could be awarded against an English company? I would have thought the answer was "Yes ". Once a writ is issued against the English company in respect of a breach of Article 85 the English company could say, "You cannot sue me in respect of any wrongdoing—if there was a wrongdoing—beyond the period of six years back from now ". I would have thought that the letter of Article 85 would be on the same footing

1351
as a statutory duty, and that just as an action can be brought for breach of a statutory duty, say a failure to take safety precautions in a factory, so on the same footing can an action be brought against the English company for breach of Article 85.
I should like to ask the following question. I am sure that this will be decided in due course by case law and it may be difficult at this stage to know with any certainty what the answer will be. Supposing the Commission has taken the view on a complaint by this disgruntled customer that the English company has transgressed Article 85 and has issued a decision against the English company. Supposing having achieved the result that it gets a penalty out of the English company, or that the public exchequer of Europe gets penalties out of the English company, as the case may be, the disgruntled customer then issues his writ in the English courts asking for damages. It is perfectly possible for the English court, looking at the terms of Article 85 and bearing in mind any implication which it thinks it is right to draw from any relevant decision of the European Court—or no decision may be available from the European Court—to take the view that Article 85 does not bear the meaning that the Commission put upon it, and that the English company have a perfectly good defence to any claim brought upon an assumed breach of Article 85.
I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would give me his prima facie reaction to this. I would have thought that the English court would have to decide in favour of the English company and dismiss the claim. The decision is not part of the directly applicable law in the sense in which one is looking at it in terms of Clause 2 of the Bill; it is only binding on the English company and nobody else. You might get a situation where there is a conflict of view between the Commission and the English court. Admittedly the Commission could not go to the European Court in that situation because there would be nothing for the European Court to decide. Equally there is a provision in the Rome Treaty that an English court must in certain circumstances refer questions to the European Court, but that is only in
1352
the case where there is no appeal from the English court. If one is thinking of the Queen's Bench Division that would not apply. The only English court which could be within that category would be your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity.
I am afraid that that is a bundle of questions. If the noble and learned Lord says that the answers have to be worked out in due course I shall understand perfectly and not complain. But to the extent that he feels able to answer my questions I feel his answer would be of considerable value to large numbers of English companies who are now thinking how they should project their programming in the coming years in the light of the great change of situation into which they and all of us—I say happily—will be entering. Those are the questions that I should like to put.
6.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): Before I am asked any more questions perhaps I had better deal with this examination paper as well as I can, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, with his customary unflagging zeal and unfailing courtesy, has put to me. I must warn the Committee that instant law is very often bad law, and although I shall do my best to reassure the hypothetical English company, I advise them not to take my advice without consulting a solicitor.
The first question in the examination paper was factual: how long will it take to get an answer out of the European Court? The only answer I can give to that is also factual: at the moment it is taking about five months. I am referring to a Community of Six, with the judges appropriate to a Community of Six, and also with the regulations which at present exist. Obviously with a Community of Ten there will be more references; but equally there will be an appropriate increase in the number of judges. It is possible that with a Community of Ten there will be a number of new regulations. Therefore this is not a prediction, it is an answer of fact: at present it takes five months for a reference from a national court to get an answer out of the Luxembourg Court.

1353
This does not apply to the other kind of proceeding which can be brought before the Luxembourg Court where it has an original jurisdiction of its own, normally at the instance either of a member State, or of one of the institutions of the Community itself. My answer relates to references under Article 177.
The next question was a very interesting one about Clause 3(1). If I may summarise it, broadly speaking, it was: why have we said that a question under subsection (1) is to be treated as a question of law? The noble and learned Lord is, in substance, quite right. The reason is that in English law, foreign law is a question of fact, which means that it has to be proved. There is no presumption that an English court knows what foreign law is, although the burden of proof in these cases is that the English court, in the absence of evidence as to what foreign law is, will assume that it is identical with English law. This is not always a presumption that is borne out by experience. It is, none the less, a presumption which English courts are bound to apply. The reason why we have introduced this is exactly what the noble and learned Lord thought. I am not necessarily applying or accepting his analogy with the relevant section of the Civil Evidence Act, but the fact is that the object is to make the courts of this country take judicial notice, without further evidence, of what Community law is. They must read the Treaties, they must look at the regulations as published in the Community's official gazette and read the reports in Common Market Law Reports or other documents. They must treat it as if it were a question of the law to which they are accustomed and decide it accordingly. As a matter of fact it also affects the avenues of appeal, because there are statutes which give to parties before tribunals of particular jurisdictions in this country a right to appeal on a question of law, but not on a question of fact. Quite clearly, therefore, one of the effects of this subsection is that it will alter the avenues of appeal. It will also mean that in those cases—although I do not imagine there will be any—in which there is both a judge and a jury the judge will decide what the law is, as he does in questions of English law, and not the jury as if it were a question of fact.
1354
Another subordinate result will be that if a bench of magistrates, for instance, have a question of Community law before them it will be appropriate for them to ask the advice of their qualified clerk as to what the law is and not treat it as a question of fact. It means also that the court can look at what law reports it likes for the purpose of ascertaining what the law is. It will affect, as the noble Lord divined, the question of precedent although one must bear in mind in this connection that the doctrine of precedent is less rigidly applied in European jurisdictions, and therefore also in Community law, than it is by our courts. We have a rather rigid doctrine of what we call Stare decisis, and European law on the whole does not follow that. I think I have answered question No. 2.
Question No. 3 was: who gets the money if the Commission, or thereafter the European Court, imposes a penalty? The answer is that the disgruntled customer, as the noble Lord called him, does not get a penny of it. I am told that the Commission gets it in its public purse.
The next question was about a writ issued in an English court. Here again I must be rather careful of giving instant opinions about law. It may be that the noble Lord has slightly misconceived what the effect of the two Regulations and Articles, to which he has referred, may be. I do not visualise a right of damages arising either under Article 85 or under the Article which deals with discriminatory transport practices.
One could argue at some length about this, but, broadly speaking, Article 85, in one of its subsections, or the following section (I forget which) provides that the result of a breach of the law is to make the contract void. It is therefore comparable to our own restrictive practices law. The noble Lord will want to look at Clause 10 of the Bill which seeks to harmonise our own restrictive practices law with Common Market restrictive practices law as covered by Article 85, but I do not visualise a right of compensation arising under it.
The same, broadly speaking, although for rather a different reason, would almost certainly be the result of the other Article about discriminatory transport practices. That gives rise to a penalty but not to a right of damages. It is conceivable that

1355
the English courts, extending the doctrine of Groves v. Lord Wimborne might invent a doctrine of their own. But I think that extremely improbable. In the absence of such an action by the English courts I do not see an action for damages arising in them. On the other hand, an action for a declaration or for an injunction might easily arise. What the result would be I should not like to predict. What I can predict with certainty is that the Limitation. Acts, which are procedural, will apply to proceedings in the English courts. I am told that in the European courts a regulation is currently under examination, but has not yet been promulgated, which will impose a different period of limitation but which will still impose a period of limitation.
I do not think it is likely that there can be a conflict between the English court and the European Court of quite the kind which the noble Lord visualised in his next and, I think, last question. The English court, at whatever level, may ask for a reference under Article 177 of the Treaty. It is only in the highest court, which must be the House of Lords, or in certain cases, certainly criminal cases, the Court of Appeal, that the Court is under an obligation to refer. For various reasons I think that until we get to the highest level—that is to say, the House of Lords or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be—an English court of first instance would be wise to try to tackle the question of European law itself, because that would still enable the parties to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal. There will probably be other issues, and it will probably be easier and more desirable for the Court of Appeal to make the reference, either within its discretion or in discharge of its duty, than for the court of first instance. But it will not be possible to deny the court of first instance the right under Article 177 and within its discretion to make the reference on its own; nor would I seek to do so.
When the reference is made, the European Court does not formally pronounce judgment on the proceedings. It simply gives an advisory opinion as to the interpretation of the Treaties and regulations. That advisory opinion must be followed by the English court, but there may be other issues of fact and other questions of law of a domestic kind, or even of a
1356
European kind, outside the ambit of the reference which would determine the actual result of the case. It would be left to the English court to apply the opinion, loyally accepting its interpretation.
The question of a fine or a monetary penalty imposed by the European Court is an anomalous animal, if I may so describe it, because it is a civil penalty and not a criminal penalty under Community law. It will be enforced under rules of court in this country, probably promulgated under Clause 2 of this Bill by the English courts, almost exactly the same as under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. At any rate, it is very close to that analogy.
In conclusion—I am afraid that I have been a little time on this series of questions—I should like to say that my own broad impression is that nobody who practises law in England will notice much difference after we have acceded to the Treaty. I do not think that in more than one case in very many a question of Euro-Law will arise. As the noble Lord has rightly divined, it can arise in relation to restrictive practices and monopolies and in relation to discriminatory practices in transport. More commonly, individual litigants will find, not that they have new and unexpected obligations, but that they will have additional and, to them at least, rather welcome rights. What will happen more often than the kind of case which the noble Lord has envisaged is that the customs and excise will seek to recover a sum levied by way of tariff and the ingenious lawyers on behalf of the subject will say that this is contrary to the Treaty and that the customs levy is irrecoverable. This, at any rate, has been very largely the experience in other countries where many of the cases relate to ingenious subjects not paying the customs dues on the basis that the levy by the national State was illegal, which will be good news to some people in the future.
There will of course be no difference at all in our criminal law procedure. This is governed entirely by our own procedure. I have seen some fantastic documents—not of course reproduced in your Lordships' House—which suggest that in some way we shall be interfering with the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, Magna Charta or habeas corpus. The

1357
noble and learned Lord has of course not given the smallest authority to that, but it is worth while repeating that none of this is affected at all. I think I am right also in saying that the way the thing works will be that the doctrine of res judicata, estoppel by record, will continue to apply between individual litigants in the English courts, whatever the subsequent decision of a European Court may be between different parties or even between the same parties. I think also, but with less confidence, that the more complicated doctrine of issue estoppel per rem judicatum will also apply as it does at the moment. But I hope I have done my best to answer that examination paper. Whether I shall get my answers right and get a degree in Euro-law will be seen as time goes on.
LORD STOW HILL: I rise to thank the noble and learned Lord very sincerely for his full and comprehensive answer, which I feel sure will be of great interest and value to many people in this country. The only slight question I would put on what he said is this. I realise that Article 85 produces the result that an agreement which offends is void. What slightly disturbed me, however, was the opening words: "The following practices shall be prohibited—". It is difficult to know what the answer is, but I wondered whether the words" shall be prohibited added a claim in damages in the event of the prohibition being contravened. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to answer now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a perfectly fair point and I think the answer is this. The Treaty and the regulations themselves apply the remedy in money which is the penalty, and therefore I should think, again without predicting what the English courts will do, that the English courts would be tempted to say that the true construction of the Treaty is that the remedy in money is provided in the form of the penalty which goes to the Commission and that the purpose of the Article is not to give a remedy to the individual.
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely obliged. Again, I rise only to thank the noble and learned Lord very sincerely for what he has said.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: I beg to move that the House do resume for half an hour to take the Northern Ireland Order.
Moved, That the House do resume for half an hour.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I thought the noble Lord had agreed that it was going to be only until 7.30 p.m. That is what he told me three minutes ago. I know that the Government change their policy every moment.
LORD DENHAM: I am afraid there is a slight misunderstanding again. I think the agreement through the usual channels was that, at whatever time the House resumed, there should be half an hour before we resumed consideration of this Bill again, and that half-hour should include the time taken on the Northern Ireland Order. I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not do it intentionally.
LORD SHACKLETON: Obviously the brilliance of the recent exchange between my noble and learned friend and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has so totally confused the Government Chief Whip that he has forgotten what he said to me five minutes before. But if he wishes to have half an hour, it is all right by us.
House resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having resumed the Woolsack prematurely.

FINANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
7.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on July 28, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. This Order is a purely financial measure which makes certain changes in taxation and financial administration in Northern Ireland. It might be helpful if I were to explain shortly why

1359
it is necessary for Parliament at Westminster to consider a measure dealing with taxation for Northern Ireland alone in addition to the Finance Bill which relates to taxation over the whole of the United Kingdom. The reason lies in the distinction between those matters 'which were reserved to Westminster in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and subsequent legislation, and those which were transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Thus, a number of specified forms of taxation are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, while the remaining powers of taxation are transferred to Stormont.
The reserved taxes include all the main ones, such as income tax, surtax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, purchase tax, and now value added tax. They also include other Customs and Excise duties which are levied on goods: in particular, the duties on drink, tobacco and hydrocarbon oils. For these taxes Northern Ireland is in no different position from any other part of the United Kingdom. They are imposed by legislation at Westminster and are collected by the same United Kingdom revenue departments; that is to say, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. The annual Finance Bills at Westminster therefore apply to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom so far as the reserved taxes are concerned. The transferred taxes include estate duty, motor vehicle duties, stamp duties, betting duties and S.E.T., including refunds. These are significant taxes, but they amount to very much less than the reserved taxes to which I have just referred. To put the matter in perspective, I might mention that the entire net proceeds of the transferred taxes amounted to less than the reduction in reserved taxes effected by this year's Finance Act.
The basic principle guiding the financial relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is what is known as the policy of parity. This means that people throughout the United Kingdom should so far as possible receive the same level of benefits and services provided by the State, and pay the same level of taxation. Thus, it has been the practice of the Northern Ireland Government to present
1360
its Budget shortly after the United Kingdom, and to follow this with a Northern Ireland Finance Bill which makes any necessary changes in transferred taxes and deals with other matters of financial administration.
This year, because the Parliament of Northern Ireland was prorogued at Easter, the White Paper entitled Northern Ireland: Financial Arrangements and Legislation (Cmnd. 4998) served a similar purpose to the normal Northern Ireland Budget Statement by the Minister of Finance at Stormont, and the Order which we are considering this evening takes the place of the Northern Ireland Finance Bill. It will be seen that it deals in the main with estate duty, stamp duties, Excise duties on mechanically propelled vehicles and with betting duty. Each of those items represents a coming together, a parity, in that they bring Northern Ireland taxes into line with what already applies in Great Britain.
Article 16 and Article 17 (that is, Part V of the Order), however, on selective employment tax, represent a new and exceptional provision for Northern Ireland. On July 27 an announcement was made of a series of measures designed to support and to expand the Northern Ireland economy in the present very difficult circumstances. One of these measures, and one that could take immediate effect, was the refund of S.E.T. in so far as it is not refunded under existing arrangements. These refunds, which take effect from July 31 this year until the tax ceases at the end of the financial year, will cost about £3½ million and will have a widespread effect through Northern Ireland. They will benefit the whole range of service industries, in particular building and construction, which are very important providers of employment, and also the retail trade which has suffered severely in many areas from the present disturbed conditions. The injection of this cash into the economy should have a general stimulating effect and, by reducing the cost of employing labour, should tend to encourage employment.
Before closing, my Lords, I might just mention two further provisions in the Order concerned with financial administration. These are contained in Part VII of the Order. The first is that the

1361
Road Fund will be abolished on April 1 next, when roads will become a Government responsibility and the Fund, which is concerned mainly with grants to local road authorities, will then have no further purpose. Secondly, in Article 20 power is provided to make a temporary increase of up to £10 million in the Civil Contingencies Fund. This Fund is similar to the United Kingdom Contingencies Fund. It is used to finance expenditure pending grant of Supply by Parliament in cases where the public interest makes it impossible to postpone expenditure until the necessary funds have been voted. In the case of Northern Ireland, civil disturbances have led to greatly increased claims for compensation for personal injuries and for damage to property. In addition, the existence of a contingencies fund enables the Government to make special provision for additional assistance to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole, as and when it is necessary to do so. My Lords, I think on a financial measure of this sort that is all that it is necessary for me to say in moving the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on 28th July, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLE'FON: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Lord I think I am bound again to make a comment on the procedure under which we are working at the moment. We have been receiving a lot of extremely bad procedural advice from the Government in relation to the European Communities Bill, but now I find that they cannot even manage the procedure in your Lordships' House. A few minutes ago the Government Chief Whip moved that the House be resumed for half an hour. It is really not possible for a Committee of the House to instruct the House as to what it should do, and if by any chance this debate were to go on for longer than half an hour we should then be in a position of disobeying an order from the Committee which the Committee anyhow had not the power to give. I only mention this now because unless noble Lords wish to speak on this subject we may end very soon, and before the next procedural Motion is moved by the Government I hope they will know precisely what it is. As I was saying
1362
to the Government Chief Whip, it is not possible in Committee to move that the House be resumed for half an hour. The House can decide, but the Committee cannot tell the House. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord—the noble Lord wishes to comment?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, and from his great experience I am sure he is much better on procedure than I am. I will certainly look into this point and if he is right, as I somewhat suspect he may be, I will make sure that such a mistake is not made again. If he is wrong I shall take very great pleasure in telling him so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I really made that point only because we ought not to do that sort of thing. We had the satisfaction of seeing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack when the House was still in Committee, and it is a measure of the total confusion which the Government—and indeed Parliament—are in, owing to the enormous overloading of the Parliamentary programme. It is a remarkable thing that, thanks to the Opposition, the House keeps such a good temper. if I may say so, it bears out—and I am really only doing my best to fill in this half hour, and I admit that I am nearly getting out of order—the fact that we have had some bad procedural advice earlier. Does the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, wish to advise us?
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said I must clearly keep my question very short indeed. I think some of us laymen feel a little dazed after the legal exchanges which took place between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. However, if I can recover my thoughts sufficiently may I ask this question of my noble friend Lord Windlesham? I seem to remember that years ago there was an Instrument called the Imperial Contribution, being the means by which a subsidy——
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I had not actually finished making my speech, and since I have the right to speak only once I should like to finish. I

1363
thought the noble Viscount wanted to advise us on procedure.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I apologise. I thought the noble Lord was inviting me, if I was going to utter at all, to utter then and there. I do apologise.
LORD SHACKLETON: No, my Lords; I just thought that the noble Viscount might be going to produce some new, vague procedural point.
Since I can speak only once I merely wanted to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his usual clear explanation. This particular Order is more closely analogous to a Finance Bill than any other Northern Irish Order we have had, and, in the same way, although in theory we have power in this House to debate a Finance Bill it is usual for us instead to have a general debate on the economic situation. Sometimes, as this year and as your Lordships will recall (and it must be a subject for great envy in the House of Commons) we actually pass the Finance Bill "on the nod". It would therefore be inappropriate for us to go much further than the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has explained the effect of the Order. It is just worth commenting, with some interest, that the amount of the transferred taxes is a small proportion in comparison with those which—I do not know whether they are called Imperial taxes——
LORD WINDLESHAM: Reserved taxes.
LORD SHACKLETON: The reserve taxes, and again I think this perhaps suggests the extent to which Northern Ireland depends a great deal upon the support of the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not wish to make a point in criticism, but it has a bearing on the impossibility of a U.D.I. approach. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, feels that.
It is interesting to see that the Road Fund has just been abolished. It is normal, of course, for Northern Irish taxation to remain pretty much in line with ours, and I was interested to see that the subject of the Road Fund has reappeared, and that it is dealt with in this legislation. It is satisfactory also in connection with the measures that we
1364
took in the field of artistic and other inheritances that there is the same provision in Northern Ireland for the waiving of estate duty under the same conditions as in this country. I think we must welcome the provision for further funds for compensation, and the possible speeding up, which I gather the Government are anxious to ensure, of payment of this compensation. Although we are now discussing dry figures, none the less we have to recall all the time that it is against the background of the present tragedy of Northern Ireland, and I do not think anyone in your Lordships' House would be disposed to query what is essentially a piece of Northern Ireland legislation.
If I had known that the Government Chief Whip was going to be so generous in the provision of time for us on this Order I would perhaps have asked the Government to provide some further information on the situation in Northern Ireland, but I take this opportunity of telling the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that he, like Mr. Whitelaw, has the support, I would say, not only of the great majority of the House but of the whole House in the work that he and Mr. Whitelaw are carrying on. I recognise that they are in for a hot and, in a political and perhaps other sense, difficult summer and autumn. We wish them luck and we are anxious to encourage them to persevere with the patience and determination they have shown.
I urge the noble Lord to take the opportunity of reporting to your Lordships' House. We are at present the only House sitting in Parliament, and I hope that the public are aware that the House of Lords is looking after their interests, just as we shall do in September when the other place is further afield. The fact that we shall be rising in time for the Twelfth is entirely coincidental, in that it meets the wishes of the Labour Opposition. If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will bear in mind the possibility of making a Statement, he may think it desirable to make one in Parliament, and if he has some news perhaps he will make a Statement tomorrow.
Meanwhile, this Order, which is clearly within the vires of the emergency legislation, can, from our point of view, be passed without difficulty, and I hope that this is the last time that an Instrument

1365
of this kind will come before the House—this is an exceptional case because of its financial nature—without our having the sort of new procedure which I hope will be agreed in another place and which we and the noble Lord are anxious to see put into effect.
7.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I once again apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton? The last thing that I would wish to do is to interrupt him. I think it happened because he gestured towards me and referred to me as " learned—a designation which he instantly withdrew. I thought for a moment that he was anxious to help to fill up the interval which has occurred.
I wish in the main to make two points. First, I cordially and strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my noble friend. The whole House wishes them well. Secondly, the compensation figure that one understands has already been reached is a reminder of the scale of damage that is being done. Although the figure in itself is very serious, it shrinks into insignificance compared with the human damage that is resulting from the present troubles. I rise simply to ask a minor technical question of my noble friend. There used to be an Instrument known as the Imperial Contribution. It was a balancing figure. Am I right in assuming that in the present circumstances the Imperial Contribution has become a rather meaningless phrase? More than likely it has dropped out of use.
7.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his statement, may I add my hope that the compensation will be paid with extreme urgency, for I know of several cases where people are in dire straits, having had their premises destroyed. The position is particularly difficult for some small traders. I implore my noble friend to do everything he can to speed up the payment of compensation. My experience has been that the civil servants, who have my admiration, are not always the most speedy of people when it comes to paying funds that are due. I hope that in this instance there
1366
will be no such delays in the payment of compensation.
7.35 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which is being given to this Order. The flexibility of our procedure enables us to discuss quite a wide range of matters, which is one of the advantages of our being able to conduct the business of this House in our own unique way. The main point of substance to arise is the question of compensation. I assure your Lordships that this is a matter of great concern to people in Northern Ireland who have received personal injuries or whose property has been damaged. The amounts involved are now very substantial indeed. When the Co-operative Store in York Street was blown up the approximate value was £1 million. That was exceptional, of course, but it gives some indication of the amounts that can be involved.
The legislation is under two main heads. The Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 provides statutory rights for compensation for physical injury or death, and over £1·8 million has already been paid under this Act. In addition, grants in aid of £20,000 and £30,000 were made by the Government of Northern Ireland in 1971–72 to the Army Benevolent Fund in respect of members of the Armed Forces and Royal Ulster Constabulary Widows' and Dependents' Fund respectively. Compensation for malicious damage to property is provided for under the Criminal Injuries Acts (Northern Ireland) 1956 to 1970. A number of Acts have been made necessary by the events of the last few years. Since 1968 payments for damage to property under these Acts have amounted to over £15 million.
Claims lie against the county borough councils concerned and are adjudicated by the appropriate court, the recorder's court or the county court. The volume of claims has caused great difficulties for the local authorities but considerable progress has been made in building up staff and machinery to meet the situation. Special courts are sitting and extra statutory arrangements have been made to enable small claims to be settled without recourse to the courts and for special advances of financial aid to be made

1367
pending an eventual award through the courts. The difficulty here, of course, lies in arriving at an agreed valuation, particularly with small claims—claims of under £1,000—and every effort is made to agree a claim without having to go through the county court. But if the claimant is not satisfied with the proposed figure he has the right to go to the court and obtain compensation for an agreed sum. The delay between submission and settlement of a claim now varies between two and six months, which is a great improvement. At one time it was anything up to eighteen months between the incident which gave rise to the claim for compensation and the settlement in the court. If I have a few minutes left till 7.45 p.m. it might be convenient——
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, might I interrupt the noble Lord to inform him that he has as long as he likes? The House will ignore the entirely improper Motion which was moved by the Government Chief Whip and which was accepted by the Committee but not by this House.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be most rash of any member of the Government Front Bench to ignore anything said by the Government Chief Whip. Perhaps, as an aside, I might say to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that I had the pleasure of visiting Antrim recently where I noticed that his former family home will shortly be converted into public gardens and a public park. I am sure that this will bring great benefit to the people of Antrim and that his family name, in the form of Massereene Park, will be on everybody's lips.
The slight delay between the first and second contributions to the debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, enables me to give him an even fuller and more accurate answer than would otherwise have been the case. He asked about the Imperial Contribution, and I understand that this is the amount of Northern Ireland reserved revenue which is retained in the United Kingdom Exchequer as a contribution towards national expenditure such as defence, the national debt, and so on. In present circumstances and for some years
1368
past the contribution has been reduced to a token figure. In fact, even that token figure can be paid only after Northern Ireland has received substantial assistance over and above the revenue raised there.
What I could perhaps commend to the noble Viscount, which I think he would find of general interest, is the White Paper published by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in June, 1972. That was titled, Northern Ireland: Financial Arrangements and Legislation, Cmnd. 4998, to which I referred in moving the Order. On pages 5 and 6 of the White Paper there are paragraphs under the general heading "Supplements to Tax Revenue". These total approximately £133 million, and although in many ways it is difficult to find an actual figure for the amount of additional financial assistance which goes from the United Kingdom as a whole to Northern Ireland, that figure, which covers the items listed in the White Paper, is not a bad one to work on.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whom I should like once again to thank very much indeed for his kind words to the Secretary of State and those of us who are working with him, commented on the significant fact that during September this House will be the only House of Parliament sitting. I shall be answering a Question on Northern Ireland tomorrow but I do not think it would be appropriate to consider a Statement at such short notice as that. I would, however, like to take note of what he has said about the latter period next month when the House is sitting. If there is any information which should be brought before your Lordships and if I can provide an opportunity to answer Questions and explain the Secretary of State's policy and the progress made, I shall be happy to do so.
My Lords, that covers fairly fully all the points that were raised in this short and interesting debate, and if the Order now has the consent of your Lordships, as I hope it does, and if other noble Lords are ready to resume with the other business, I beg to move that the Order be now approved.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do adjourn until 7.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.43 p.m. until 7.45 p.m.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
7.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [The common agricultural policy]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 22, after ("with") insert ("bodies representing the interests of consumers, the interests of farmers, and the interests of agricultural workers, and with").
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. Probably of all the Amendments on the Order Paper this is the most straightforward, and if I argue in a very uncomplicated way I apologise to your Lordships who, by this time in the Bill, have become used to very highly complicated arguments. This does not mean that I am any the less hopeful that Her Majesty's Government might accept this and incorporate it in the Bill. Clause 6 tells us:
"There shall be a Board in charge of a government department, which shall be appointed by and responsible to the Ministers, and shall be by the name of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce … "
and so on. I turned for some information on the Common Agricultural Policy, and indeed the intervention price, to the original White Paper and there I learned that
"Under the common agricultural policy the level of market prices for the main agricultural commodities is maintained in two ways. The price of imports is kept up to a minimum or threshold price by means of variable import levies; and the internal market is supported at an intervention price, slightly below the threshold price, at which any surpluses are bought by the Community's agricultural fund."
I am sure this is very straightforward and very simple but I do feel that to the
1370
average consumer it would be practically unintelligible. What she does know, however, is that the cost of agricultural produce is going to increase very substantially.
I turned for current prices to a survey undertaken by the Sunday Times where they took a certain number of items which one would have to purchase week by week. They made all allowances for the fact that there was a movement of prices and that sizes were different, but nevertheless the figures were quite electrifying. The total of the products purchased in the United Kingdom cost £2·55; in France a comparable number of items would cost £5·08; in Belgium £4·18; in Italy £4·28; in West Germany, of which we have heard so much to-day, £6·44; and the Netherlands, which comes nearest to us, £3·89.
I see from the White Paper that it is estimated that membership will affect food prices gradually over a period of about six years, with an increase of about 2½ per cent. each year in retail prices; and even the White Paper admits that food accounts for about a quarter of total consumer expenditure. I would have said that it was very much higher than that. The final statement which seems alarming to the consumer is that there is no harmonisation of retail prices in the Community; the consumer, therefore, is very much at the mercy of forces which she is unable to control. But, nevertheless, the agricultural policy will probably be the thing which will lean most heavily upon her.
We see here that the Minister can set up
"after consultation with any body created by a statutory provision and concerned with agriculture or agricultural produce …"
Left in this way, it appears to me that this body will most certainly be one of producers, and I should like to make a straight plea to Her Majesty's Government to recognise that in this instance particularly there are certain interests to be considered: the interests of the agricultural worker—who will be very much influenced by the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy—and the consumer, who, as I have said, will rely very heavily upon agricultural produce for her everyday shopping. I listened a little while ago to the Chairman of the National Farmers' Union speaking at a big meeting

1371
of the Women's Institutes. He indicated very clearly that prices would rise.
I notice that one compensation we are offered in the White Paper as consumers for entering the Common Market is that other consumer goods will, of course, be lower in price. I would suggest that to the retirement pensioner who wants to buy a piece of cheese it is very poor return if he is going to be given the opportunity to buy a refrigerator, which he cannot afford in any case. I understand from a little leak—I hope that it is a leak—in the Sunday papers that we are going to be given a Ministry of Consumer Affairs. I am delighted to know this. I am taking advantage of the flexible rules of the House, but it is relevant to this Amendment. If we are to have some protection at Ministry level which will enable consumers to get education, to get representation, it becomes doubly important that they should be part of a board of this kind. Consultation is good with a body concerned with agricultural produce. Consultation with a body made up of the three prongs totally concerned with the use of the agricultural produce, I would suggest, would be even better.
I feel that we have been offered on each Amendment reasons why they cannot be accepted, under the four headings which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, gave us. I can hardly think that my simple Amendment is too technical. I do not think it interferes with a point of principle. I cannot believe that it is written already into the Treaty, because I looked and I could find nothing which appeared even to resemble this. And I do not think it would in any other way impinge on the terms of the Treaty. I await with great interest to see whether I may have the great record of having the first Amendment accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: Before the noble Lord replies, may I call attention to the fact that when my noble friend started to give the reasons behind this Amendment there was one Back-Bencher present; there were later two Government Back-Benchers. I think there are now three. It may well be said that we have not any more on our Back Benches. On the other hand, it is also true, before the noble Earl grins so much, that when
1372
the matter is put to a Divison we do not bring up from down below something like 100 or 150 peers to vote for the Government. I have not seen anything so undemocratic, anything quite so frustrating or anything quite so shameful as the way in which this business has been carried on in this House.
7.55 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of her Amendment, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said he did not think there were many noble Lords behind us. As he knows, they are having their dinner. I think the reason why the noble Lord is there is because he had his dinner first and did not hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom others were hearing while the noble Lord was at dinner.
LORD BESWICK: I do not mind noble Lords' having dinner; I wish them well. What I do mind is their coming up and registering a vote before they have even heard the argument.
EARL FERRERS: Well, I think we will leave it there, as the noble Lord has made his point.
The noble Baroness said this was a simple Amendment, and she explained that her concern was for consumer and other interests which ought to be concerned with the particular clause with which we are dealing. Of course, in the Community there are organisations which can represent consumer interests and matters upon which consumer interests may give their views. The agricultural and consumer interests are in close touch, in fact, with the Agricultural Departments, both in this country and in the European Community, which will be responsible under their respective Ministers for policy in relation to E.E.C. agricultural regulations. There was a Contact Committee for consumers which represented consumer organisations at the E.E.C. level in the member States. It was set up in 1962 and has been the main body consulted by the Commission on consumer interests. The Committee published, in collaboration with the Commission's specialised service, a periodical review. It was the Contact Committee which nominated the consumer representatives, who number anything from two to four, depending, on

1373
the sector, or the commodity advisory committees which the Commission set up to advise it in the agricultural sector. We have no information about the extent to which consumer problems are discussed at meetings of the advisory committees. Our latest information is that the Contact Committee has just been dissolved, and in future the Commission wil consult the five organisations which were members of the committee on all consumer matters.
With regard to inserting this particular Amendment in the Bill at this juncture, I think it would be easiest if I explained exactly what this clause does and how in fact the inclusion of this Amendment would not fit. Clause 6(1) sets up the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, which is to carry out, under the direction of Ministers, the detailed operation of the Common Agricultural Policy. For the sake of economy and efficiency provision is made for the Board to use other agricultural bodies as its agents for particular purposes. The noble Baroness will see this spelled out in subsection (2)(a), which says:
"after consultation with any body created by a statutory provision".
The Home Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission will in fact carry out certain functions which relate to the support buying of cereals and meat. Your Lordships will realise, therefore, that statutory bodies like the two which I have mentioned will not necessarily have the powers to enable them to act for the Board, and it is for that reason that this particular subsection has been incorporated, because, by this clause, it will empower Ministers to resolve any difficulties which these bodies at the moment may have in view of their new roles.
Your Lordships will readily see the force of the requirement that Ministers should consult with the body concerned, for example, with the Home Grown Cereals Authority, but there is no reason why the Minister should consult consumers, farmers or workers in relation to the jobs which will be carried out by those bodies which will be undertaking work done by the Intervention Board. What will be discussed by the Minister with these bodies is the powers they will have to carry out the work they will be given. The purpose of consultation is
1374
to ensure that a statutory body has the legal capacity to carry out properly any function it may be called upon to undertake, and to ensure that such a body's activities do not prejudice the activities of the Intervention Board. In other words, the question will not be what should be done but how the Community obligations can best be fulfilled. These will be matters which will concern the bodies in question but they will not engage the interests of consumers, or the producers or workers. It is for that reason that this Amendment would be improper in this place. I would stress that the process of consultation in the Community on developments in the Common Agricultural Policy is very extensive, arid I have explained to the noble Baroness what arrangements there are at the moment for this. In fact, this kind of consultation will be done with the Commission before it makes its regulations. Once it has made the regulations it will be up to the Intervention Board to see that all these other statutory bodies carry out the regulations which the Commission will have made.
8.2 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: When I saw the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rise to speak on this Amendment I thought we might get something of a new approach of course it was foolish of me to be at all optimistic. It seems to me that what the noble Earl has given was a pretty carefully prepared brief; before my noble friend had said one word, every word of reply had been written. I think it is reasonable to expect that from time to time (and I should have thought this would have been an ideal example) some noble Lord will rise from the Front Bench opposite and say: "My Lords, we will give further consideration to this matter; we will have another look at it." One wonders exactly what we are engaged in. Noble Lords from the Front Bench on this side and the Back Benches behind me get up and make speeches, but absolutely no impression is made on the Front Bench opposite. One appreciates that they must, as it were, be acting under instructions, but it would be extremely helpful if some indication could be given that this matter would be further considered. The case made by my noble friend deserves much more examination than it has been given, and

1375
it would be helpful if we could be told it would be looked at between now and the Report stage.
EARL FERRERS: I know the point that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is making, but if he will read the Amendment which his noble friend has put down he will see that it says:
"… and the Ministers may, after consultation with bodies representing the interests of consumers, the interests of farmers, and the interests of agricultural workers, and with any body created by a statutory provision …".
The noble Baroness put down that Amendment and I have tried to explain why it will not work: the reason is that there are already discussions. I accept that it is important that consumer interests should be considered. At the moment, consumer interests, trade interests, the interest of producers and co-operatives all have discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture. There is a constant flow of people in and out of the Ministry discussing their problems. These discussions will take place with the Commission in Brussels as they do now with those who are already members of the European Economic Community. That kind of discussion is always continuing. Once the Commission makes its regulations they will have to be carried out by the Intervention Board. Under this Bill the Intervention Board will be able to depute some of that work to such statutory bodies as the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, as I have described. What I was trying to say to the noble Baroness, and indeed to the noble Lord, was that while I accept the fact that the consumer interests are important, it would be inappropriate to insert this Amendment here because the Home Grown Cereals Authority or the Meat and Livestock Commission would only be carrying out work deputed to them by the Intervention Board, and it would be wrong for those bodies concerned with the interests of consumers to be involved over a matter of mechanics. I quite agree that consumers' views should be considered, but this is done, with respect, by the Commission before the regulations are made.
BARONESS SEROTA: May I just ask the noble Earl to whom consumer interests
1376
in this country will make representations in future, under the arrangements he has just outlined?
EARL FERRERS: I have explained in my first answer to the noble Baroness that there is a Contact Committee for consumers which is represented at E.E.C. level, and these people have discussions and make their representations to the Commission.
LORD BESWICK: What my noble friend was asking is: who is the consumer body and what is the sort of consultation that is made with the consumer body in this country? We happen to be interested in this country, and we are asking questions about this country. We want to know what the effect of all this is going to be on the people of this country. We are not satisfied there should be central consultation in Brussels. The noble Earl was saying that all these discussions take place and then the decisions are taken, but it is the implementation of those decisions that we are dealing with in this subsection. What we would suggest to the noble Earl is that when it comes to the question of the implementation of the levy system there is good reason for injecting the consumer interest and the interest of the agricultural workers. If they have a right to know how things are working out, if they can get some sort of idea as to why the thing is being done in this way rather than in that way, and if they are dissatisfied, then their experience can be fed back into political channels here and would eventually find its way into the decision-making centre at Brussels. But there is absolutely no provision in the Bill, that I can see, for consideration of consumer interests at any point. The noble Earl by the time he had finished was back on excuse three—it is not needed because it is being done. Well, if it is being done there is no reason why it should not be written into the Bill. I hope we may have some indication that, if not at this point at some point, the word "consumer" will be in the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The last point is rather a different one. What my noble friend has been saying is that it is not appropriate that the consumer should be brought in at this point. If noble Lords

1377
will look at the clause they will see that it says:
"… the Ministers—
may, after consultation with any body created by a statutory provision and concerned with agriculture or agricultural produce "—
and, as my noble friend said, this might be the Livestock Commission,
"by regulations modify or add to the constitution or powers of the body … or by written directions given to the body"—
and, on construction, that must be with the body which has been consulted in this case. Therefore, this particular clause does not require this function. It does not make sense in this particular case for consultation to take place in the way that it does over whether the Intervention Board should devolve its functions to these particular bodies.
It might be useful just to give one or two instances of the kind of function the Intervention Board will have. It is going to be concerned with support buying; that is the general function of buying, storing, and re-selling various products, and the payment of subsidies for private storage and payment of producer groups. It is concerned with denaturing and similar subsidies, and the payment of these subsidies. It is concerned with production subsidies—the payment of subsidies to producers. It is concerned with the mechanics of exports and imports. None of these has any bearing whatsoever on the consumer. None at all.
LORD BESWICK: Really!
LORD DRUMALBYN: They are purely mechanical functions. The policy, as my noble friend was saying, is decided by the Commission. These are purely executive functions, very similar to the functions of the Commission for Customs and Excise. They are the same kind of functions. They are not done by producer boards, they are done by existing regulatory boards. This is what the proposal is, that the deputing of functions should be to these existing regulatory hoards, not to producer boards. I can assure the noble Lord that this Amendment is not one which really commends itself in any way at all, because there is really no point in the consultation of consumers and workers in a matter of this kind, which relates purely to the carrying out of executive functions that
1378
do not directly touch the consumer or the agricultural worker at all—certainly not the consumer.
LORD ROBBINS: May I say that I obey no Whip, and that I had had my dinner before the noble Baroness moved her Amendment. May I also say that I have no use at all for the agricultural policy of the E.E.C., and that I have swallowed it with intense reluctance in the interests, as I think, of superior objectives; but I must confess that I am completely convinced by the administrative case that has been made from the Government Front Bench.
8.12 p.m.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: I apologise for intervening, because I consider it discourteous not to have been here when the Amendment was moved. Therefore, I assure the Committee I will not be long. The little I have heard of the noble Lord who has just spoken did not convince me completely, because whatever argument is used from the other side—I do not want to go through it, because it is known quite well—the fact is that we have agreed that in the year 1973 we shall pay 10 to 15 per cent. of our levies, in 1974 12·5 to 17·5 per cent. (I will miss the next years), and in 1977 we will be paying 25 per cent. All these levies have to be found by that queer system of taxation, value added tax, et cetera. I am convinced that this has something to do with the weight on the consumers and on the agricultural workers.
The main problem of the Community's agricultural policy is the cost of the market support. They agree with that. That was known at Brussels. I have been to Brussels and listened to the debates with Mansholt and others, and it has been acknowledged that one of the big problems confronting Europe is the problem of the Six themselves and the cost of market support. The average farm size in the Community is 27 acres. The average farm size in Britain is 67 acres. We are told here (and I know this coming myself from miners and farmers) that a small farm of that size to-day is not considered viable in the hills in Wales, or Derbyshire, or the Peak District. Our own small farmers certainly need some kind of representation.

1379
I do not want to expand on this aspect, or to annoy the Committee to-night, but in view of the fact that no notice is taken of our efforts, I think that this is what the Americans aptly call "boon doggling"—and "boon doggling" is to make yourself a busybody with nothing resulting from it. Here we are sitting night and day without altering one word. I repeat that no concessions are made towards the constructive points of view that are, in nine cases out of ten, put very sincerely and in a kindly and thoughtful manner to the Committee. In the circumstances. I think it would be useless to carry this discussion any further.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would not for one instant deny that. I thought the noble Baroness put the case very well. When I was in Opposition, I used to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that my Amendments were "misconceived". The noble Baroness, I do not think, ever told me that, or perhaps she put it in other words. Unfortunately, this Amendment does happen to be misconceived.
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble Lord cast his mind back a little further? On what percentage of occasions did I say that his Amendments were misconceived, and what percentage of them did I accept? I will guarantee that it was not 100 per cent. misconceptions in his case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think that I should like to make any comparisons; I certainly did not keep a tally or notch a stick. The noble Lord will recall that in the recent Housing Finance Bill we accepted quite a number of Amendments.
8.17 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Before I say anything about the Amendment—it seems to be relevant to be talking about " misconceptions in relation to agriculture—may I ask the noble Lord, if, as we have had explained to us, this is the wrong place, whether he can suggest to me somewhere in the Bill where we can have some reference to the consumer? Earlier to-day we were talking about the interests of the worker. We have talked about the interests of industry; we have talked about the relevance of the company; we have talked about the legal
1380
rights of the individual. But here is a Bill which is going to make the staple commodities of the ordinary people far more expensive than they have ever been. I was interested in the retirement pensioner who wants it "good for his grandchildren". Well, it is lucky that he is taking that view on social security, because it is not going to be very good for him.
We have to be absolutely practical about this. No one has ever questioned—and I have heard as many speeches as almost anyone in the Committee—that agricultural produce will be more expensive; and agricultural produce is the main shopping item. I take all the points that have been made about administration, about this being the wrong place in the Bill. Before I go any further, can the noble Lord tell me whether there is a place in the Bill where we could insert some reference to consumer representation, either in direct relation to the agricultural policy or in relation to some of the other areas where the consumer will be affected? Could he tell me this before I go any further?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If it were appropriate I am sure that there would be a reference already. Of course there is a reference to the consumer in the Treaty of Rome itself. If it had been necessary to reproduce this in any way, if the effect of adhering to the Treaty of Rome had needed a mention in this regard in the Bill, no doubt it would be included. The fact that it is not there is a pretty clear indication that it is not needed in the Bill. We do not give honourable mentions of people in Bills, we put them in where it is necessary.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I quite take that point. But the Government do not even give them mention, let alone honourable mention. We are back to one of the excuses. I do not think the noble Lord meant to confuse me, and perhaps I am not one of the fertile brains on this side of the Committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but the noble Lord referred to consumer committees within the Treaty and, as I understand this clause, we are talking about a Board in charge of a Government Department. This is not a Treaty. This is not part of the Community, which is distinct from a Government Department.

1381
When we come to the threshold price, we see that the White Paper states:
"We shall adopt this Community system of support—"
buying—
"though not Community prices—in the first year of membership. We shall introduce threshold and intervention prices of our own."
In other words, we are working out something which is peculiarly ours. I suggest, with all due respect, that perhaps the
Resolved in the negative, and Amend ment disagreed to accordingly
Meat and Livestock Commission might have been better had it had a consumer representative on it. I recognise that the Amendment may be in the wrong place but I still feel, on a point of principle, that I should like to carry it to the Division Lobby.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 118.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Goschen, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Perth, E.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Polwarth, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

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

Redmayne, L.

Bourne, L.

Reigate, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hankey, L.

Ridley, V.

Brecon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robbins, L.

Brentford, V.

Hastings, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hemingford, L.

St. Just, L.

Burnham, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Chelmer, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Seear, Bs.

Chesham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Selborne, E.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Latymer, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Limerick, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cottesloe. L.

Lothian, M.

Sherfield, L.

Cowley, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Simon, V.

Cranbrooke, E.

Luke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Croft, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Stradbrooke, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Mancroft, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrrard, V.

Suffield, L.

Drumalbyn. L.

May, L.

Swansea, L.

Dulverton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monck, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Elles, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mottistone, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Vernon, L.

Foot, L.

Moyne. L.

Vivian, L.

Gage. V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Windlesham, L.

8.30 p.m.
LORD BESWICKhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("either") and insert ("each").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that on reflection noble Lords opposite will wish to accept this Amendment, but I want to give further time for reflection and I shall return to it on Report. In the meantime, I do not move this Amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: I simply want to call attention to, and have on the record, the fact that although there were 118 against the last Amendment on which we voted, when the case for the Amendment was being made there was only one person present on the Back Benches on the Government side.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before the Committee agrees that this clause shall stand part of the Bill I wonder if I may ask the Government whether they would care to comment on the rather curious and quaint drafting of the first four lines of this clause. The words were read by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, but perhaps I should read them again. The clause says:
"There shall be a Board in charge of a government department, which shall be appointed by and responsible to the Ministers, and shall be by the name of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce …"
When I first read the clause I thought that it must he a literal translation from some foreign language with which I was not familiar. It seems a most quaint way to express an intention. If it were only quaint I would not waste the time of the Committee, but I point out that the first line is completely ambiguous in saying
"a Board in charge of a government department".
I might say—if it were true, but it is not true—that my child is in charge of a nurse or that a nurse is in charge of my child and it would mean precisely the same thing. I do not know whether a Board in charge of a Government department means that the Board is responsible for the Government department or that the Government department is responsible for
1384
the Board. It might mean either. I thought that that ambiguity must somehow be removed.
Then there is a reference to a Government department. I cannot recall any Statute where reference is made to a Government department. Statutes refer to Ministers. If it means, as has been hinted to me, that it is in fact the Board which is responsible for the Government department perhaps it means the department's staff, and the department is the staff of the Board. It seems that any statutory board must have some staff. It seems curious to say that a board is in charge of a Government department. The Board no doubt has staff to assist it in carrying out its duties.
Then we come to the reference to the Ministers. When I first thought of raising this matter I thought that probably this is an expression contained in Part I of the Agriculture Act 1957 and that it probably came from Section 8. Perhaps it would mean the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales. Finally, there is this rather curious wording:
"and shall be by the name of the Intervention Board for agricultural produce."
I suppose it may be said that we know what it means, but I do not think it is very good English. If we could say, "known by the name of Intervention Board" or "shall be called the Intervention Board" that would be better, but it seems that these words are at least rather unusual. The first thing to which I called attention was a clear ambiguity. I should hope that before Report stage the Government might introduce an Amendment to clear up the ambiguity and perhaps at the same time think of putting more usual words in the other places where "Intervention" is referred to.
8.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on the points he has raised. In the first place he is right in saying that it is a Board in charge of a Government department, just as a person is drunk in charge of a car. There is no reflection contained in that. The point is that this is a Board which will be set up under the Bill and, like the Forestry Commission, is to have

1385
a Government department under its control. The Board will be appointed by and be responsible to Ministers.
The second point the noble Viscount raised was on the subject of the department. I think I have made this clear because the Government department is similar to the Forestry Commission, which is also a Government department. There are similar cases. For example, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, which is also a Government department. On the third point, the noble Viscount is right about the definition of Ministers. That is contained in the 1957 Agriculture Act, which says:
"The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly …"
Since then the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Wales have been added by a Transfer of Functions Order.
As to the noble Viscount's last point, I think he has slightly misread this passage. To make the meaning clear we should put in the words "there shall be" before "a body corporate". The words have been incorporated no doubt because of the brackets which follow with the parenthesis. I think the meaning is perfectly clear. It is a Board to deal with agricultural produce. I should have thought it was quite clear, although it might need reading twice as so many Acts of Parliament need to be read twice.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but I say to him that "drunk in charge" is quite a different case because no one would assume that the car was in charge of the drunk. Here it is quite conceivable that people might wonder whether the Government department is in charge of the Board or the Board is in charge of the Government department. This needs clarification at the next stage.
The noble Lord said that it is like the Forestry Commission, but we do not say that the Forestry Commission is in charge of a Government department. The Forestry Commission has its staff, but surely a Board is not in charge of a Government department. Obviously we are not going to object to this clause but I should be grateful if it could be cleared up.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Sugar]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 11, line 18, at beginning insert
(".—( ) Subject to the acceptance by the Community of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement of 2nd and 3rd June 1971")
The noble Lord said: Here again we feel that a matter ought to he considered at greater length than has been allotted for Committee and we shall refer to it on Report. In the meantime I ask leave not to move the Amendment.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Cinematograph films]:
8.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 45, after ("show") insert ("that")
The noble Earl said: I am sorry to disappoint the Committee after such a string of successes in getting Amendments not moved, but this is one which I believe has more significance than perhaps meets the eye. Since the Government have pinned their colours to the mast and have pledged your Lordships more than once that genuine improvements would be accepted, I seek to advance two arguments for this Amendment. It is, of course, intended to correct a not unimportant drafting error which obviously went unnoticed in the hurlyburly of another place. My first argument is directed to the particular. The word "that" is essential to make sense in contemporary English. The word is essential to prevent misunderstanding. Omission of this conjunction is, I am advised, without precedent in a Bill: Acts of Parliament do not omit "that" when introducing a subordinate clause after such verbs as "say", "declare", and so on. Nobody would call the present Bill a trivial piece of legislation. It is not in the same class, for example, as the Harbours (Scotland) Bill, that went through your Lordships' House virtually "on the nod" and will quickly be superseded and forgotten. Here we are dealing with one of the constitutional documents of our age; and this Bill is presented as the charter of our accession to this great new concourse of States. If this Bill

1387
deserves anything at all for such an occasion, then it deserves the best. So I ask the Government these questions: What steps do they propose to take to make good the mistake? What precedent for such drafting have they found, even in a minor Bill? And have they found a precedent in a major Bill?
My second argument is directed to the general. About the precincts of Westminster Hall, so much older than our tongue that they watched our speech unfold, I plead for proper English. When it is their first language for 280 million people; when, for another 120 million, it is their second; when half the papers and reviews in the world are printed in it; when three-quarters of the world's mail is sent in it; when three-fifths of the world's radio is done in it; and when, above all, we are to bear this gift of our tongue into the European company, surely here in Parliament we should hold our language in honour and in no wise help its further debasement. In the early forenoon of our tongue Chaucer did, of course, sometimes miss out the "that". But settled, mature, correct use is clear: "that" should be in as the proper link when the burden of a clause is joined, by the verb "to be", to nouns like view ", "opinion" and "declaration". So writes H. W. Fowler; thus wrote Dr. Johnson. Though the mistake of omission is common in America, it is not made by good writers. It is unpleasant. As Fowler wrote:
"Perhaps the illiterates will beat idiom; perhaps idiom will beat the illiterates: our grandsons will know ".
But never let it be said that your Lordships' noble House abetted the illiterates against their mother tongue or accepted what was less than worthy. I beg to move.
LORD ROBBINS: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl if he would be prepared to give his oath that the word in question, "that", is never admitted in a context of this sort by Shakespeare.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I was referring to correct, settled, mature, modern usage.
LORD FOOT: Before the Minister replies, may I intervene in this debate because, curiously enough, although it
1388
would appear to be a very small matter, in my view it is fundamental to the processes that we are going through in the discussion of this Bill. I am sorry that I missed the first two minutes of the noble Earl's speech because I did not foresee that these other Amendments were going to fall to the ground, but the first question that arises, it seems to me, is whether the noble Earl is right in saying that this is indeed a solecism and this is a grammatical error. As to that, I, like the noble Earl, have consulted Fowler on the issue, and the situation as it is described by Fowler is this: that there are certain verbs in the English language which idiomatically and by ordinary usage require the imposition of the word that "; the second category is clause. There are three categories: the first category demands the insertion of the word "that", the second category is of other cases where either construction is permissible, where you can use "that" or not use "that"; and the third category is of cases where you can omit the word that " only if you are speaking colloquially. If I were continuing this discussion with the noble Leader of the House outside this Chamber and we were talking together colloquially, it would be proper for me to say, "I will show you are wrong"; but in the grammatical solemnity of this Committee I should be obliged to say, "I will show that you are wrong".
Whether this is right and this is a colloquial use of English which is inappropriate to a Statute of this kind may be a matter of discussion, but it does not lie in the mouth of the Leader of this House or the authors of this Bill to contend that the omission of "that" is a proper construction. I say that for this reason: that if the Members of the Committee will turn on from page 12, which we are talking about at the present moment, to page 15 of the Bill, at line 9 it will be seen that we have exactly the same word used—that is the verb shown "—followed by a substantival clause, and in that case the word that" has been used. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House is following me in this.
In order that I may acquaint the House with the words, it says:
"If it is shown that the person concerned …"

1389
That is the construction that has been used in that case. Therefore the authors of the Bill cannot have it both ways. Either the construction on page 12 is wrong or the construction on page 15 is wrong. Therefore, whoever else may argue that this is all right, it does not lie in the mouth of the Government or the authors of this Bill to argue that this is right.
May I go on to ask another question? If it is wrong idiomatically or according to ordinary usage or according to grammar, then does it matter? I tried to foresee what sort of argument the noble Earl, if it is the Leader of the Government who is going to reply, is going to advance. He points to his side, but may I say that I am going to put some questions to him which I hope he will be prepared to answer because of the assurances he has given me hitherto. Does it matter if we allow a solecism to be introduced into this Bill? The first thing I would say about that is this. The insertion of the word "that", which would obviously make the matter clearer and would be valuable for the sake of clarity, does no harm to the Bill at all; it can only be an improvement.
The second point is the one I understand the noble Earl was making as I came in; that is, that we are now writing a Statute of the greatest possible importance, possibly the most important Statute that will have been put on the Statute Book in the life-time of anybody here. Is it not essential in those circumstances that we should get it gramatically and idiomatically right? The next point I would make about that is that it is the essential constitutional duty and function of this House to make Amendments of this kind. In the majestic speech which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, made on the Second Reading of this Bill, he reminded the House and reminded his colleagues on the Tory Benches—and I wish there had been more of them to hear it and to hear the argument now—that one of the basic constitutional functions of this House is to revise the legislation that comes up to us from below, and this is a test case as to whether we are going to perform that constitutional function.
The fourth point is this. If you omit the word "that" and you engage in a colloquialism in a great Statute of this
1390
kind—a Statute which will have to be translated into the language of all the members of the Community, and indeed later on will have to be construed very possibly in the courts or by the people in control of the various countries of the Community—what are they going to make of the fact that there is a difference of construction between page 12 and page 15? When they come to construe this Bill when it becomes an Act and what it means, are they going to say that there was some significance in omitting the word "that"? Are they going to be bewildered and confused by the fact that a different construction is used on different occasions?
The last reason why I say that this is a matter of the utmost concern to this House is because of the assurances which I have been given, and the House has been given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, as to how the Bill was going to be dealt with in this House. I hesitate to remind the Committee of the words which I used at the beginning of this debate. As it is possibly the briefest way in which I can put my point, may I quote from what I said at the very beginning when we were again considering a point of grammatical construction? I said this:
"The first Amendment is one which simply goes to the wording of the Bill, and is an attempt to improve and make more precise its meaning. It is a test case. It is a test of whether the Government are prepared to listen to argument and decide these matters on merit, or whether a decision has already been made that the Bill is going to be driven through this House without Amendment of any kind, as it was driven through the other place. This is a basic question which clouds the whole of the discussions we are to have. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether this small Amendment is being resisted on its merits or because the Government have already decided that they are not going to accept any Amendment of any kind. I think we are entitled to be told this. We are entitled to be told whether a decision has been made. If it has been made, then all the time we are going to give to this Bill, supposedly talking about various Amendments on their merits, is a pure waste of time and the constitutional function, the revising function of this Chamber, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was speaking on Second Reading, is going to be thwarted throughout the long deliberations, and the deliberations are going to be a prolonged farce."
I did not receive any reply to that question in the first instance but at a later stage on that night I repeated the request and the noble Earl the Leader of the

1391
House was good enough to give me a reply and to give me a categorical assurance. What I said on the second occassion was this:
"If the Government have really decided to reject every Amendment, whatever its merits, it is nonsense to talk of discussing things on their merits. It should like the Leader of the House to tell us directly whether the Government have already decided that no Amendment will be allowed to pass."
The noble Earl was good enough to give me an assurance in the clearest and most positive terms. He said this:
"Turning from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, all I wish to say, quite categorically,"
and these were his words—
"is that I made my position absolutely clear on Second Reading. No such decision as the noble Lord is crediting me and the Government with has been taken. I said on Second Reading that we wished to look at Amendments which might be moved on their merits. Quite frankly, we do not think a great deal of the merits of the Amendments that we have had so far. But we will wait and see."
Later on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, added that and endorsed it by saying:
"I wish that I could persuade some people who are putting down Amendments—and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Foot—that it is not sheer bloody mindedness which leads some people on this side of the Committee to resist these Amendments "—
and I draw particular attention to the words:
"It is not due to some decision to accept nothing."
That categorical assurance was given to us without any qualification. Neither the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, "Oh well, if it is only a minor matter we shall not be prepared to accept an Amendment." The assurance he gave us on that occasion was quite unqualified: that if any Amendment had merit on its side the Government would be prepared to accept it.
The situation with which we are now faced is whether that assurance is going to be upheld to-night. May I say as a matter of general comment that I myself am in favour of going into the Common Market. I am in favour of my country going into the Common Market, but I am not in favour of my country being railroaded or hijacked into the Common
1392
Market. There are many of us I believe—and I am one of them—who have had the gravest misgivings since the Bill started on its journey in the other place and when we saw that the Government were not prepared to accept a single Amendment, because they had to conform with a timetable and because they had to avoid a Report stage. There are many of us whose misgivings have been emphasised and underlined, as this Bill has gone through this place, by the thought that the Government have indeed made up their mind not to accept any Amendment, whatever its merits may be. If the Government are not prepared to give way on this Amendment, if the noble Earl is going to get up to tell us that this is a very minor matter and that it does not really count, then what is going to happen? When we come to divide the Committee, what is going to happen is that all the cohorts of the noble Earl, his noble friends who have not listened to a word of the debate and who know nothing of what it is about, will come trooping in to endorse a solecism, to confirm a grammatical error. Is that the function of this House? Is it not denigrating this House to behave in that fashion?
LORD MOTTISTONE: Has it not occurred to the noble Lord that there are more noble Lords on this side of the House who have listened to his long speech than there are on the other side of the House?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: There always are.
LORD FOOT: I am not complaining. The vast majority of the Members of this House are automatically on that side. I am not complaining that people are not here on this side; I am complaining lest the noble Earl the Leader of the House should get up in a minute (if this is his intention) and say: "This is a very small thing and it does not matter very much. I am going to invite my noble friends and to advise my noble friends who are scattered around outside to come and vote this Amendment down—not on its merits but because I do not think it matters very much."
LORD GLADWYN: Do you not mean, "vote for it"?
LORD FOOT: No, to vote the Amendment down. I appeal to the noble Earl the Leader of the House to consider this matter seriously, because the bona fides of the Government are in question. Did the assurances that we were given so categorically by the noble Earl and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mean what they said, or not? If the noble Lord is to get up and advise us that he is going to resist this Amendment, then I am afraid that it will be difficult for some of us not to come to the conclusion that the assurances given earlier in this debate were not well-founded.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I cannot agree with the last speaker. He is trying to hang the whole argument of going into the E.E.C. on a very small peg. The fact is that if you read this sentence, it is perfectly good English. There is no point in putting in "that". When I was at Oxford many years ago I had a very good tutor. He sent one of my essays home saying that it was slovenly work and that I was to take out every unnecessary word and bring it back the following week. I was a conscientious person and my essay, instead of being four pages long, was four sentences long and my tutor kindly said, "This makes very good sense and is good English". There is no point in putting in an unnecessary word if it is not necessary. "That" is not necessary. To hang the whole argument about the European Economic Community on the insertion of a word which is entirely superfluous is quite absurd. I do not think that the noble Lord—nor my noble friend on the Back Benches, though I am not sure about my noble friend on the Back Benches—has sat as long as I have to-day, listening to all the speeches. that I have listened to. If he wanted to hang his argument about opposing the E.E.C. on a good Amendment, then all I can say is that he has chosen a bad one.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Baroness finishes may I ask whether, if she believes that one should always leave out unnecessary words, she would not agree to an Amendment to line 9 on page 15 to omit the "that" in that context?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I have not studied this point. It has only just been raised by the noble Lord. I will look at it. If it is good idea that "that" should be in, I should leave it in.
LORD HALE: The noble Baroness said that she thought the phrase was perfectly good English. Does she think the word "accompanied" is good English? I can accompany noble Lords opposite if they will give me their company. I can accompany something which has a volition of its own, but I cannot accompany my walking stick; I cannot accompany the clothes I wear. Does she think that "show" is good English? To show a film is to display a film. It is misleading and ill-chosen. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made a completely conclusive case on the question of the grave error——
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: The noble Lord will forgive my intervening, but I thought that we were talking about a word "that".
LORD HALE: I was referring to what the noble Baroness had said. She said, "I think this phrase is perfectly good English." She then talked about the English that she learned at Oxford. If she read the clause carefully and came to the conclusion that she did, then her English training was not as good ac Oxford usually gives.
LORD ROBBINS: I must come to the support of the noble Baroness. I must confess that I am deeply shocked at what has been said in the last ten minutes. The noble Earl, whom we all respect, was aesthetically offended by the cadence of a certain phrase used in the drafting of the Bill. His reaction is legitimate and it is legitimate for him to voice it in this Chamber. But the utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, seem to fall in quite a different category. He is attempting to fasten on your Lordships' House canons of what is and what is not good English which certainly would not be unanimously accepted by people who have some claim to know something about the subject. He produces Fowler, whom many of us regard as being rather stuffy in the matter of prose style, as the authority which should govern your Lordships' House in a matter of this sort. I must confess that, discussing

1395
as we are matters of tremendous historical moment, this seems to me to be an extremely frivolous intervention.
9.9 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: I must say I rather wish "that" the highly important question of principle which is troubling my noble friend Lord Foot had not arisen on an allegedly grammatical solecism. For it may be that the noble Lord who is to reply will say, in the first place de minimis non curet lex, and in the second place, I suppose, it would be rather unfortunate, if this is the only Amendment passed, to have to re-summon Parliament in order to insert the word "that". You can say all that, but when it comes to "that" it is not really the point. The point is, as my noble friend Lord Foot suggests, that the intention of the Government is to reject all Amendments, however reasonable.
On the face of it, this is not unreasonable. If it were not that this is an occasion when the Government are obviously convinced that no Amendment should be accepted they would probably have said, "That is quite all right, let's put in the word ' that '". It is indeed obvious that it should go in; it is better to have "that" in than not to have it in, as is shown by the later example given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. That being so, and since it does apparently raise a question of principle, however unfortunate it is that it is raised on this particular issue, in accordance with the principles of the Liberal Party that I enunciated at the beginning of this debate—that if we consider an Amendment is inherently reasonable and improves the text we ought to vote for it—we shall vote for it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord thinks it is reasonable, and if he thinks that it improves the text, he is entirely entitled to vote for it. But what we are really concerned with here is the meaning that is to be conveyed. The object of words, after all, is to convey a meaning, and the meaning is perfectly clear. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked the question "Is it a solecism?" He went on to say that if it is a solecism—and he made a long speech of great moment on the basis of that particular assumption. He also—and so did my noble friend—appeal to Fowler. I have
1396
been reinforced with Fowler, despite Lord Robbins's friendly remark about it. Let me read this, because I think it is important, so that we can put the matter in perspective:
"Substantival clauses with that—I know that my Redeemer liveth'. 'I know I can trust you '. These are equally good English"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD DRUMALBYN: To continue quoting:
"If ' that' were shifted from the first to the second both would still be grammatically correct"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD DRUMALBYN:
"but each less idiomatic than it is."
The page concludes by saying:
"It should be added that the tendency is to omit ' that ' and some of the words in the first list—"
he has given three lists, where "that" is usual; where "that" is unusual and where "that" is used or omitted:
"It should be added that the tendency is to omit ' that ' and some of the words in the first list may be thought to have become eligible for transfer to the third. Perhaps this is due to the United States influence where that' is omitted much more freely than it is here. It seems clear from some of the examples given above that this is having an effect—dare I say it—on British journalists."
This is really not a matter which need engage the attention of the Government, or of Parliament. It appears that it is not a solecism. Whether it is an improvement is purely a matter of taste, and whether it is a matter of euphony or not is again a matter of taste. Therefore I suggest that we need not pursue the matter.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD FOOT: May I ask one question? If it is correct, and if this is proper on page 12, why is a different construction accepted on page 15?
LORD GLADWYN: For the purposes of euphony.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did say that both were right. It depends on the context and it depends on euphony to some extent.
LORD GARDINER: I have not voted against the Government to-day and, as noble Lords will know, I am in favour

1397
of this Bill. But it is perfectly obvious to everybody that if it were not this Bill, the Government would, of course, have accepted this Amendment. It is an obvious mistake. They have got it right in another place in the same context in the Bill. Any Government would have accepted the Amendment. I am afraid it has become only too obvious that the Government have decided, for reasons which we understand, that they will not allow any Amendments to this Bill. My reason for finding that so regrettable is that it does a good deal to destroy the reputation of this House. We are supposed to be the great revising Chamber. The day was when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the Leaders in both Houses of all three political Parties agreed that if the Government of the day had a small majority in this House over the other two political Parties, but not over them together with the Cross-Benchers, we should be a very much stronger House. This is precisely the sort of conduct which I think does so much to damage the reputation of your Lordships' House.
9.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: There is very little for me to add to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer one or two of the points which have been made. First, my old and personal friend Lord Drumalbyn has shown us why it has been so hard to get hold of Fowler in the last 48 hours: everybody has been after it. My noble friend has answered in the fashion that we enjoy so much when we hear him, but he did not reply to a question which I put to him: what precedent in a major Act can the Government cite for this appalling performance in the use of the English language? Like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, to whom we always listen with benefit, my noble friend made light of Fowler (or of Dr. Johnson, since I quoted him).
I was rather disappointed that my old friend and Parliamentary colleague, Lady Emmet, thought I was trying to hang some anti-Common Market argument on this matter. This is not a pro- or anti-Common Market affair; we are talking about good legislation and about the issue to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention so effec
1398
tively; namely, the function of this House. That is why I do not think this is a trivial matter at all, still less a frivolous one.
The real reason for the Government's rejection of this Amendment has been disclosed from the Liberal Benches. Although I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, he also let the cat out of the bag when he said that the real reason for resisting Amendments is that acceptance of them would mean recalling another place. Such arguments are utterly, wholly and eternally irrelevant to the functions of this House. It is because that issue is so implicit in this Amendment that I feel so strongly about it.
Notwithstanding the unfailing courtesy and kindness which I have received from Members of the Front Bench—whether the Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, or others—I am afraid that rejection of this Amendment, which would clearly improve the Bill and which is supported in another passage of the measure, puts the Government's good faith to the test. That is not an easy thing for me to say. I am afraid I must press the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I really do not know what course would best suit the dignity of this House, and we are not aided by the shrieks of laughter from the Government Front Bench. This is not a very major matter and it is quite obvious that in other circumstances the Government would have accepted the Amendment in two minutes. I am very much in two minds. This is obviously good enough English albeit it is not very good English. I should prefer to see it the other way round but I am very doubtful whether it is worth voting upon. I hate to repeat the language of my noble friend Lord Foot, with regard to the Leader of the House, but it is quite obvious that in many ways we are wasting our time. I really mean it when I say that I think this is a rather sad incident. In many ways it would be better almost to forget the whole thing; but if the noble Earl wishes to divide it will be interesting to see whether any other noble Lords feel that the situation is getting more and more unsatisfactory.

1399
I can understand the reasons for the Government's policy during proceedings in another place, but this does not apply now. It is not a matter for us to concern ourselves with whether the other place has to be recalled or not. The only advantage I can see if we were to carry this Amendment is that we might then be justified, and the Government might then accept a number of other Amendments which I am sure they would like to accept if they were allowed to. However, it is up to the noble Earl, and if he wants to divide the Committee I will probably go with him.
9.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: Before my noble friend takes his decision I should like to say something with particular reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. As to the substance of this, I have no reason to believe that this is a solecism, as the noble Lord was seeking to argue. I do not accept that the Amendment is an improvement. I accept, though, the noble Lord's statement that it is our constitutional duty to put right in a Bill something that is clearly wrong. I believe that it is perfectly right as it stands; and, what is more, there is no question of translating it into the language of the Community because this happens to be a domestic Statute.
But the noble Lord asked me certain specific things. He referred to our debate on the first day in Committee and my expressed willingness to listen to arguments. I reaffirm that willingness. He asked me whether the Government were going to resist all Amendments at all costs, and I said "No". I reaffirm that. He asked whether there was any such decision, and I said that there was not. And I reaffirm that. What I should like to say is that, if it can be proved to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of my colleagues that this Bill, as it stands, is defective in any material sense, or if it
is incompatible with the serious obligations that we are assuming, then any proposed Amendment will be looked at on its merits. I affirmed that on Second Reading in a carefully considered statement, and I reaffirmed it in Committee.
I do not wish to elevate this particular debate to a height which it perhaps does not deserve, but I must say in all sincerity that I rather resent the assumption made by the noble Lord that I was not meaning what I said. If it was clear to me that this or that Amendment to the Bill was necessary or desirable I should have no compunction in advising my noble friends to look at it again, or in saying that I should be prepared to consider it between now and the Report stage. I am certainly not so convinced so far as this particular Amendment is concerned; and if I were open to doubt, the way in which some of your Lordships have supported this Amendment would allay any doubts that I might have.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: May I ask my noble friend one question before he sits down? In the light of what he has said would he be willing to look at this again and reconsider it on Report?
EARL JELLICOE: If the noble Eari reads carefully what I said, he will know that I am not in a position to do that, because I am entirely unpersuaded that this is in any sense an improvement to the Bill.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Then I am afraid, with the greatest regret and with a heavy heart, that I must press this Amendment to a Division.
9.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 120.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blyton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Onslow, E.

Brockway, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hale, L.

Platt, L.

Collison, L.

Heycock, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Sandys, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Sempill. Ly.

Shackleton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Vernon, L.

Simon, V.

Tanlaw, L.

White, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Abinger, L.

Gage, V.

Newall, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Amory, V.

Goodman, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Beaumont, L,

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Perth, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Polwarth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Bourne, L.

Hailes, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

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

Reigate, L.

Brecon, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brentford, V.

Hankey, L.

Ridley, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robbins, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hastings, L.

Roberthall, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Chelmer, L.

Hemingford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hives, L.

Selborne, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sherfield, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Somerleyton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stradbroke, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Latymer, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Limerick, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lothian, M.

Suffield, L.

Croft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Terrington, L.

Davidson. V.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Digby, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dulverton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

May, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elles, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mottistone, L.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Young, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

9.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, at end insert ("and, for the avoidance of doubt, does not include a film in which the dialogue is mainly in Welsh.")—(Lord Berwick.)
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Beswick in this Amendment by way of inquiring what the precise position of the Welsh language is in the Community. A great deal of time has been spent on one word of the English language, but I want to ask about the status of the Welsh language as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, knows—although at the
1402
moment he seems not to be with us, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, might not be conversant with this point—by Statute the Welsh language is of equal validity with English, but I am not at all clear from the wording of the Bill whether Welsh is recognised in the Community as being the equivalent of English, and whether, therefore, we can be quite certain that there will be no dubiety whatever as to the status of the Welsh language in respect to the clause under discussion, where foreign languages are referred to in relation to categories of films. I hope that the Welsh language is a recognised language in the Community. If it is, then presumably we shall be in no difficulty. We are seeking an assurance from the Government, and a clear explanation as to the precise standing of the Welsh

1403
language in the Community in relation to films. It might be helpful if we knew the status in general of the Welsh language in relation to the Bill as a whole.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I readily respond to the noble Baroness. There are two pieces of news that I can give her. Let me give her the slightly less acceptable piece first. The noble Baroness asked about the general status of the Welsh language in the Community. As she probably knows, like Flemish it is not a Community language. Flemish is also a statutory language in Belgium but it is not a Community language, each country having one Community language.
The second point is a little more complicated and perhaps I should explain it. The principal objective of Community policy relating to films so far has been to ensure that films having the nationality of a member State are treated equally for screen quota purposes in other member States. To do this it is necessary to define what is meant by a film having the nationality of a member State. Article 3 of the first films directive issued by the Council of the Community on October 15, 1967, includes this:
"A film shall be regarded as having the nationality of a member State … if it is made in the following manner"—
I am quoting the relevant paragraph, (c)—
"or where the original version is recorded in the language or one of the languages of the Member State in question …"
It follows that a British film made in Welsh, or in Gaelic for that matter, will be a film of a member State; that is to say, a film of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this directive. Perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to add that the insertion of these words would not be appropriate in any case, because this clause is dealing with an entirely different question: the question of special cinemas—that is, cinemas intended exclusively for the exhibition of foreign films in the language of the country of origin. Welsh is not a foreign language. It is one of the languages of Great Britain so far as mutual advantage in the different countries is concerned.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I do not want to delay the Committee because we shall reach the end of our tether.
1404
That is a categorical understanding that a film in Welsh, as in the case of a Walloon film, would be regarded as being in a language of a Community State; probably a film in Erse or Gaelic would too. That is all right so long as it is clear.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so. I would simply add that an Irish film would be in a special position under the Films Act anyway.
LORD BESWICK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I ask the Minister to clarify a point in subsection (1) about Community films? Community films will be quota films, but am I correct in assuming that they will not be British films? This question is in direct relation to the Eady levy. Those concerned want to know. If the Minister cannot tell me now, I shall be happy to have a reply in writing.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There are two requirements for the Eady levy. One is that a film should be a British film, registered as a British film. Secondly, it should be made in a British studio. A film might be registered as a British film but it might not be made in a British studio. I need not talk about the other quota films. The main point is that a film must be made in a British studio and has to be a British film in order that it should get the Eady levy.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask about the sentence towards the end of the clause which says:
"In this subsection ' foreign language film' means a film in which the dialogue is mainly in a foreign language."
Does this cover a film made abroad but dubbed in English?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I am right in saying that it must actually be made in the foreign language. Perhaps I should put it the other way. In order to qualify as a film of a member State it must be in the language of a member State. I hope I have made myself clear.

1405
This covers co-production films as well. To be simply "dubbed" is not to be "made".
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask a follow-up question? A new technology is developing in films and has been a great success in Italy. Many films are dubbed in the language of the country. In Italy, they dub all their own films in Italian after production. Would a foreign film from the Community dubbed in English be available for quota? If this is so, it could seriously affect the quota position. There is a great deal of unemployment in the film industry, as all your Lordships know. These figures were given to me. In 1971, 90 films were registered for quota. About 10 were of some value; the rest were rather indifferent. If, say, 30 of the foreign films that come into this country were dubbed into English they could affect the whole quota position in this country. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what effect that would have, and whether that would be permissible under this arrangement?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Part of the object of this particular clause is to ensure the mutuality of privilege so far as quota is concerned, so that whether or not it was dubbed in English a film made in a member State would be eligible for the British quota; and, vice versa, a film made in this country would be eligible for the quotas that exist in France and Italy and other countries as well. This is part of the Common Market conception of the equality of treatment of films.
BARONESS WHITE: What happens if a film is dubbed in America?
A NOBLE LORD: Nobody understands it!
BARONESS WHITE: The question is not as frivolous as it may sound. After all, our real rivals in films are the Americans with their version of the English language, and it is rather important to know about this. There are a great many American firms who have film interests in Europe as well as in this country. We ought to know the position about American films.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The question of who finances a film is of course not relevant here. Many British films are
1406
financed by the Americans. It might well be that the Americans have financed a film to be made in France. That having been done and if it were dubbed in America, it would still be a French film in that case if it were registered in France. And it would be capable of being shown in this country, American dubbing and all.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Definitions Relating to Communities]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: I say again that the reason why the Amendments to this Schedule are not being moved is, first, that we have not any time, and secondly, even if they are moved it appears to be an absolutely useless exercise because there is absolutely no intention by the Government to listen to the arguments.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If I may say something very briefly, I perfectly frankly confess that I think I misled the Committee last Thursday when answering the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on a very involved series of questions he asked me on Clause 1(3). I think this is the appropriate moment to make my apologies and to try to put the matter right. What happened at that stage was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, gave me a collection of his questions to answer, and I did so in a context which suggested that the Treaties which would be dealt with under Clause 1(3) would be mainly concerned with directly applicable law. I think I fell into the trap of doing this because of the sort of context with which we were dealing in his questions, but I think it ought to be made plain that the future Treaties which will be dealt with by way of Order in Council under the second part of Clause 1(3) will be Treaties signed by the United Kingdom.
For the most part—or at any rate so far as the subject is concerned—they will be Treaties which contain something which requires this Government to act in such a way as not to affect our domestic law but to lay some governmental

1407
requirement upon us, that is to say an international obligation, such as to take part in a meeting or to join in some governmental activity. Secondly, they will be Treaties that lay on us an international law obligation to change our own domestic law so that we should be morally bound to legislate either by Bill under our existing powers or under Clause 2(2), and that would be a much more common way of doing it. Thirdly, and I think much more rarely, the Treaty would directly import some directly applicable law which would come into the Bill under Clause 2(1).
I went on to say, in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the Treaties that were being referred to at the end of Clause 1 would include the regulations, and in this I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I was wrong. They will not. The Treaties are defined as at the end of Clause 1; they will not include the regulations. If I misled the noble Lord I am extremely sorry. It was a misunderstanding on my part; the point had slipped my attention. I can only say that I did mislead the Committee and I am very sorry to have done so.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say so, it is quite intolerable that the noble Viscount should stand up and apologise so gracefully. I must say that at the time I thought I was right and that he was wrong, but now I have got to read what it was. It has really upset the whole of our thinking on this side of the Committee. We shall have to study it very carefully and begin all over again at the Report stage.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to thank the noble Viscount very much indeed for the correction he has made. I quite understand. This is a very difficult Bill and I should like to consider the Amendments and what he said originally, in the light of the statement he has just made. I am very much obliged to him.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions as to subordinate legislation]:
9.49 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert: ("or
(e) to make any provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom, or enabling any such obligation to be implemented under section 2(2)(a) of this Act unless before such obligation arose any proposal by virtue of which such obligation arises has been laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I shall move this Amendment very briefly. It is again a major Amendment, designed to make provision that before Orders in Council are made under Clause 2(2) it will be necessary for Parliament to have been informed in advance of any obligations. Otherwise the provisions under this Schedule which allows Orders to be moved will not apply—or rather under the main clause—and it will be necessary to proceed by main legislation.
Within the last 48 hours we have had a very important Report from the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the methods by which Parliament should consider these issues. As noble Lords will note, I have removed from the original Amendment any proposal to set up Select Committees because I was convinced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it would be inappropriate to do so in legislation. However, it is not inappropriate, despite what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said, to lay an obligation on the Government to keep Parliament informed.
I am not proposing to press the Amendment very hard at this stage because we intend to return to this matter on Report. I merely ask the Government to consider the subject very carefully. When speaking to the last Amendment the Minister said that he would not resist any Amendment which he thought was essential, and then he added the words "or desirable". I seriously put it to your Lordships that an obligation of this kind could be placed on Governments, for we are referring not only to the present Government but to any future Labour, Conservative or even conceivably Liberal Government, though the latter may be stretching the imagination rather far. I mean no respect to

1409
the noble Lord who is representing his fellow Liberals——
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Did my noble friend mean to say "disrespect"?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course I mean no disrespect to him; he has supported me on this matter and I have supported him more recently. These slips of the tongue suggest that the sooner we come to the end of this Committee stage the better. I seriously ask the Government to think about this matter again. I accept that they mean business in the matter of informing Parliament, but it is not enough on an issue of such importance to leave it to the goodwill of a particular Government and I am sure that those who have concerned themselves with this matter in the past have always been anxious to be vigilant in ensuring that obligations of this kind are laid on Governments.
After all, we see the failure, admittedly in countries where the Parliamentary tradition is not as strong as it is here, to bring their Assemblies into the picture. Consider, for example, France. I prefer the statutory requirements which are laid in the Treaty of Accession on the German Government to keep the Bundestag and Bundesrat informed. The Report of the Select Committee on Procedure stresses the importance of this and adds:
"The House will have to rely on the Government if they are to obtain adequate information."
I prefer not just to rely on the Government; I should like to make it an obligation on them. We will therefore return to this matter on Report. It is a test, and whatever may have been the reasons which deterred the Government from allowing Amendments to be made in the Commons, it is not sufficient, if we are to do our duty, to refrain from passing an Amendment even if doing so will mean bringing the Commons back for a day to deal with the matter.
EARL JELLICOE: In view of the terms in which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has moved this Amendment, I should like to say three or four things very briefly. The first is that I have read the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in another place with
1410
very great interest. I should like to recall to your Lordships its final words:
"Your Committee conclude that the entry of Britain into the Community presents a profound challenge to many of the established procedures of Parliament which, if not adequately dealt with, could leave Parliament substantially weaker vis-à-vis the Executive."
I should like to say that I endorse that paragraph in the Select Committee's Report. I believe, as I have said on more than one occasion, and the Government believe that this whole question of Parliamentary scrutiny and control in the new situation into which we are moving is one which should seriously engage our attention. We are all at one on that. We are not at one at present on the question of whether it is right to import these detailed procedures—I know there is an area of doubt between us as to whether this question of conveying information to Parliament is a procedural matter—into Statute. But I understand it is the noble Lord's intention to return to this matter at Report stage. It is an important matter and I should be very content, if he is content, to leave the matter there for the time being, assuring him that this whole area is one which is engaging the Government's very close attention and it is our earnest hope and expectation that it will engage the joint attention of all major Parties in the very near future.
LORD SHACKLETON: I would only say that I am not concerned with detailed procedure; I am concerned with an obligation to be placed on British Governments to keep Parliament informed. The detailed procedures cannot be worked out in legislation. I want to stress that, not in order to argue on the procedure side but to emphasise that this is one of the fundamental duties of a vigilant Parliament. If no noble Lord wishes to pursue the matter further now, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 66D:
Page 21, line 6, leave out from first ("regulations") to end of line 12 and insert ("no Order in Council and no regulations made in the exercise of that power shall come into force unless a draft statutory instrument has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.")
The noble Lord said: I am going to move this Amendment formally in order to give the Government an opportunity of saying what is the position of Northern Ireland. Reference here is made to the Government of Northern Ireland, to the Orders in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland. Since as I understand it at the moment the Secretary of State is responsible and not the Governor of Northern Ireland, I think it would be of value if we could be told what would be the effect of this Bill if it comes into force before there has been any change in the present arrangements in Ulster. I beg to move.
10.0 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The procedure that will apply to Northern Ireland is the same as the procedure that will apply at Westminster. For those matters which do require legislative change in Northern Ireland, the changes will be made by way of subordinate legislation. This will be subject either to the Affirmative or to the Negative Resolution procedure at Stormont—in other words, it would be entirely on all fours with the position at Westminster. What one has to consider, and what we did consider in the present exceptional situation, with the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, is whether this procedure was the appropriate one or whether it should be altered in some way. But as we have discussed on a whole host of Orders concerning Northern Ireland, the present situation is one that lasts until March. If the law was altered, either in this Bill or any other Bill, in such a way that it was a permanent change, we should then have a very difficult situation from next Easter onwards. Either Stormont returns, in which case the normal procedures apply, or there is something else, in which case the whole corpus of Statute Law referring to the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland going back 50 years would have to he altered; so there is a great case for making sure that all legislation in this interim period is consistent with what would have been the position had the Parliament of Northern Ireland been continued in the normal way. There, as a very brief description, is the situation as it will be under this particular Bill where matters concerning Northern Ireland are con
1412
cerned. I could give the noble Lord, if he wished, a list of the Instruments and the matters which they are likely to cover which will be needed in Northern Ireland to make the necessary changes. It is a fair list, but if he wanted that information I am in a position to give it to him.
LORD BESWICK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord; I will read what he has had to say. Can I ask the question again more simply: Is this Bill as now drafted applicable to the present situation in Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The answer is yes, by way of Orders in Council, which is the device that has been used, as the noble Lord knows—he has taken part in a number of these debates—for all the matters which would normally have been within the legislative competence, either by substantive legislation or delegated legislation, of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Can the noble Lord tell us what will happen if the plebiscite to be taken, as I understand it, on the boundary position in Northern Ireland were to result in Northern Ireland wishing to become part of Eire? Would that then mean that the whole of this legislation would be of no effect at all? What would happen in those circumstances?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It would result in a new situation which would require a great deal of thought and work.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: This is surely the whole sort of problem that we are up against in dealing with the type of Bill with which we are presented. We are presented with a strange sort of portmanteau Bill which pretends to cover all conditions, all circumstances, but in actual fact it covers nothing at all which is of any significance for the future.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The situation which the noble Lord envisages is one that is hypothetical. If that were to be the case, legislation would, of course, be required at Westminster, and many Acts of Parliament already on the Statute Book would be affected; and if Parliament decides to give approval to this Bill, and it was then on the Statute Book at that time, it would be included in that number.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Would it also mean that this particular Bill would then become of no value?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think it is most improbable that that would be the case; and the noble Lord will also be aware that the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Economic Community, so presumably some form of legislation would be necessary to bring all 32 counties of Ireland into line. But this, I repeat, is a wholly hypothetical proposition before the House.
10.4 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor know full well—and I quoted Gladstone the other day—that this is a mighty legal innovation for Britain. Will not the situation be (and this is rather sad) that we have not been able to do anything in this Chamber? After two million words in the other House and our efforts here, we might as well have walked out. I used the word "boondoggling", an American expression: busybodies busy doing nothing. This is an insult to Britain as we reach this sad position. I am a European; it is this system I am worried about. The constitutional innovation for Britain would mean now that future Community legislation would automatically become part of British law directly applicable to British subjects. Such Community law would not be laid before Parliament, and the Community institutions issuing from it would not, as such, be answerable to this Parliament. However, such Community legislation would derive its force in the United Kingdom law from the original enactments, the farce of which we are going through to-day. It would introduce completely to Britain the Community system of law. Furthermore, Britain would participate as a major member in all the Community legislative institutions but the British individual who wanted to make a case, as he can now under the Queen's law against Parliament, could not make a case; neither could companies nor businessmen who may be interested in this make a case in the same way as they could in Britain against Community law. That is how I see it. I shall not use another word.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Good!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The Lord Chancellor may say "Good" and he may be insulting to those who disagree with him, but with his background and the high position which he himself is supposed to exalt it would be wiser, despite his ability and cleverness, if he would show a little more wisdom. I consequently say that we in this Committee are to-night, in a way, betraying the rights of the British people. I have counted 50 Acts of Parliament in these Schedules that have been wiped aside without discussion. I will not name them. Informed noble Lords on both sides of the Committee know them, but the public know nothing about them.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Would not the noble Lord agree that it is just possible that all the Amendments that have been put down, which might even be thought of as a charade, did not really warrant being passed and that therefore that is why the Committee has not passed them? Is it not therefore rather damaging to the Committee—which I am sure the noble Lord holds in as much regard as I do myself—rather ungenerously to say that because none of the Opposition Amendments has been passed this Committee has not done its duty? I suggest to the noble Lord that this particular Bill, apart from other points, is a highly technical Bill, which was highly skilfully written and, in point of fact, did not require Amendment. This might be a point of view worthy of consideration.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord—I believe the question was addressed to me—for the kindly way in which the noble Lord put the point. But would not the noble Lord think that it is almost miraculous that for the first time since the Magna Charta a Bill has gone through the two Houses, has gone through all stages, has gone through Report, with 2 million words spoken in another place, and we spend days here——
LORD GARNSWORTHY: There was no Report stage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am sorry, no Report stage.
EARL JELLICOE: I hesitate to intervene in this interesting debate between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord

1415
Davies of Leek, but I think I should remind your Lordships' House that we are discussing Amendment 66D which is concerned with Northern Ireland.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I will not follow it up any more, but I think some of our other Amendments, if not all, were as constructive as any that could be drawn by thoughtful constructors.
LORD HYLTON: Many problems have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, but it is for him and others to start to make the European Parliament an effective and democratic body.
LORD BESWICK: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
10.10 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 24, line 3, at end insert—

("6 Anne c.11.

The Union with Scotland Act 1706

Article XVIII, so far as it conflicts, or may conflict, with this Act.")

The noble Earl said: We were given to understand, one way or another, that the House was prepared to sit very late. It is now only ten minutes past ten, so another couple of hours would not do us any harm. Therefore it may come as some consolation to my noble friends on this side and noble Lords on the other to know that the principal—not the only—purpose of my Amendment in this case is interrogative. Schedule 3 deals with repeals, customs tariff, sugar, seeds and miscellaneous, and these last begin with the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, which is a pretty recent Act, 1946, then a series of Acts about farming and iron and steel, and the Finance Act 1970. My Amendment relates, I submit, to something more important than any of those items listed at present in this Schedule. When it is a British operation to seek admission to the Community, surely it is time to recall that the United Kingdom is a Union of Kingdoms, founded on more than one great constitutional Act. Since we are much preoccupied in this Chamber, and have been increasingly in the last four days of debate on this Bill, with problems of procedure, with the Government's attitude to Amendments and the like, perhaps it is worth recalling that we, of the Northern Kingdom, are very conscious that it was a procedural Motion in the Scottish Parliament which led to the critical choice of Commissioners to negotiate the Union, and therefore in fact eventually brought about the Treaty of Union.
It may be worth recalling that that procedural trick, as many people at the time thought it was, has not yet from the heart been altogether forgiven, and despite a sharp rise in living standards in Scotland after the Union, such as indeed we are led to expect in Britain after our entry into the Community, none
1418
the less there was a nasty taste, a sour taste, of resentment at having been tricked, which issued in the bloody deeds of the '15 and '45 and then the penal laws against freedom of religion and freedom to wear the tartan. Even two-and-a-half centuries later those things are certainly not forgotten, though here and there it may be that they are forgiven.
My Amendment has three objects. The first is to call attention to the Treaty of Union and the Guarantee in Article 18 that:
"No alteration be made in laws that concern private right except for the utility of the subjects within Scotland."
My second purpose is to inquire whether these may not possibly, even probably, be in conflict, or whether there may not be a conflict here between Scottish law and the effects of accession to the Community. My third purpose is to inquire whether, and how, this Treaty and this Bill do, and will, affect the Treaty of Union. My fourth purpose is to propose for prudence in future and the avoidance of doubt, that the position be made clear at any rate, as the Spanish peasants say, "in case". The possibility of doubt or conflict should be expressly recorded. Surely Scots are entitled to that much.
My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack told the Committee on Monday that in case of conflict E.E.C. law prevails. If that is the case, why list any repeals at all? If you list some at the end of a great constitutional Bill, surely the list should be complete. Surely it should include its last great constitutional predecessor, the Act of Union, or else it should be made fully clear that the Act of Union is in no way affected. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for raising this interesting point; not that this is an Amendment which I feel should be accepted by the Government as I am confident that Article 18 will not conflict with anything that is in this Bill. But the wording of Article 18 of the Act of Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1706 is so beautifully worded and, I feel, so ideally covers the sort of negotiations that are covered by this Bill, that I think

1419
it is well worth while reading it to your Lordships in full. It is not long, and it reads:
"That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the same 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 thereof, remain in the same Force as before, (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent 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 those which concern private Right, that the Laws which concern publick Right, Policy and Civil Government, may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no Alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for evident Utility of the Subjects within Scotland."
If our accession to the European Economic Community Treaty goes ahead, and the wording is as brief as this Article written 266 years ago, it will have covered all the requirements of entry and, at the same time, preserved our rights and Government as well as this Bill does now. I feel that apart from substituting the words "United Kingdom where Scotland" appeared, or "Europe" where "England" appeared, the wording could be exactly the same. I felt it was worth while taking up a few minutes of your Lordships' time to record something which I so admire in our Union of the Parliaments of England and Scotland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the Committee is extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for reminding us of both the beautiful language and the extraordinarily—in the context of the times—apt drafting of the Article to which this Amendment relates. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has proposed Amendment No. 67, which would include this beautiful Article contained in the Union with Scotland Act 1706 in the Repeals in this Bill. I must say I think that both the English and the Scots would be sorry to see it repealed. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale put this qualification in the right hand column:
"… so far as it conflicts, or may conflict, with this Act."
The Committee has now heard the actual terms of Article 18 and, I doubt not, will agree with my noble friend Lord Bal-
1420
four that it does not, may not and cannot conflict with what we are now doing. Ex abundanti cautela—in order to achieve greater certainty the Government have consulted the Scottish Law Officers upon this important point because, of course, the original Article was a Treaty between England and Scotland before it became embodied in Statute Law and the opinion of the Law Officers is that it does not and cannot conflict. That is also my opinion.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asks why if Statute law conflicts with Community law if it is directly applicable, do we need a Schedule of repeals? The answer to that is two-fold. First, where it does conflict and is seen to conflict with Community law the sooner it is off the Statute Book and ceases to create confusion the better. Secondly, some of the Community law is indirectly applicable and puts legislative burdens upon us. I thought that we had made that plain. I should hope that now we have made this clear and now that my noble friend the Earl of Balfour has read out Article 18, my noble friend Lord Lauderdale will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for what he has said. I shall read it closely when we get the printed text of Hansard. Of course at the end of a Committee stage like this we are all—I speak for myself, but I think I also speak for others—a little bemused and confused. I wonder whether the phrase "on its merits" will not go down in history "at a stroke". Sometimes as a Conservative I wonder where I am in what used to be a constitutional Party. I find it very hard to state what principles we follow; the old are mostly out of date and the new too much to swallow. However, whether that is true or not, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said. I should like to read it closely, consult with others on the import of what he has said and perhaps return to the matter on Report, if necessary. In the light of what has been said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
10.23 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Enactments Amended]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 33, line 35, after ("satisfied") insert ("provided that no animals shall be so prescribed if they have been at any time vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease; ")
The noble Lord said: I believe a number of noble Lords opposite wish to know the position over animals vaccinated in circumstances as detailed in this Amendment which I move for the purpose of obtaining information.
EARL FERRERS: This was one of the very important matters which had to be raised in recent negotiations. Our whole purpose was to ensure the continuation of our present policy of confining imports of livestock to those animals which have not been vaccinated against this disease. We were successful in securing agreement on this point, and Article 104 records that we and other acceding States may continue the present import policy in regard to all diseases and animals for the period of five years during which a joint review will be conducted to decide policy to be adopted thereafter.
The noble Lord may ask, "What is to happen after the next five years?" Article 106 of the Treaty provides that before the five years are up there should be—and I quote the words:
"a review of the situation in the Community as a whole and in its various parts … in the light of developments in the veterinary field."
It will be for the Council of Ministers to consider what to do in the light of those developments. If the animal health situation should be unchanged, then our attitude will be unchanged. The Community accepted, when we were applicants, that we could not take the risk of importing vaccinated animals, and we can expect that our partners will be at least as reasonable when we are full members as they were when we were applicants. Incidentally, other members, such as Ireland and Norway, will also have interests similar to our own. I can give the categorical assurance that there never has been, and there will not be, any question of levelling down the standards of animal health. The object of the whole Community is that these should be levelled up.
1422
I should also like to make one other point emphatically clear since there could be a doubt; that is, that the agreement on animal health is not just a transitional agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know, in the case of Community prices there is a transitional period for five years, after which we become part of the Community régime. This is not so with regard to animal health. Our position is fully safeguarded, and we are not committed—nor would other members wish to commit us—to any longer-term arrangements which might prejudice our animal health arrangements. There is no requirement for us to forfeit our quarantine arrangements; we have a perfectly free hand to maintain such regulations as we think fit to protect and preserve our own animal health situation.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Northumberland Committee and the Guard Committee both came to the view that the slaughter policy in force in this country is by far the best. They also came out against vaccination, which they regarded as suitable only for countries where the disease was endemic. Vaccination also presents a problem of marketing and of administrative difficulties which outweigh any advantages that may arise from it. Article 104 of the Treaty of Accession provides derogation from these policies of vaccination and slaughter for foot-and-mouth, and of vaccination and recognition for brucellosis. Can the Government give us an assurance that our policies for slaughter in the event of foot-and-mouth cannot be watered down? This is especially important in view of the export of pedigree livestock to places like Australia, New Zealand and the United States, where the stock has to come from non-endemic countries. Can the Government give us an assurance that these slaughter policies will be maintained, and that it will be possible to maintain them in spite of any other policy on the Continent?
The other, very small, point that I should like to raise is whether rabies is covered by quarantine regulations. As all noble Lords will know, rabies is a horrifying disease, and we have managed to eradicate it in this country. We have also—and this is even more important—managed to keep it out of the wildlife in

1423
this country; and consequently it can be well controlled. I sincerely hope that the E.E.C. Commission will not force us to alter regulations on either slaughter policies or rabies and quarantine.
EARL FERRERS: I thought that I had given as watertight an assurance as I could give to my noble friend, but I will certainly repeat it and, if I can, expand slightly on it. We as a country are entitled to continue to maintain those standards of animal health and animal hygiene which at the moment we operate. Where we export to another country, then of course, when the Community régime gets into full swing. we shall have to subject our animals to such tests or regulations as the countries to which these animals are exported require. But so far as this country is concerned, if we wish to continue a slaughter policy then we are entitled to do so, and we shall continue to do so. With regard to rabies, I can again give my noble friend the most categorical assurance that we can and will take any measures that are needed to safeguard both animal and public health from this disease.
10.30 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's explanation and his assurance that the sort of policy we should like to see pursued is in fact going to be pursued. For myself, so far as I am in a position to judge these matters, I think that what he has said is entirely satisfactory. That being the case, I find myself quite unable to understand why the noble Earl does not accept the words, why he does not write this into the Bill. Here again we have the situation where the Government say that they agree with what we seek, but that it is not necessary to put it in the Bill. This is the last Amendment on the Order Paper, and I am going to give the House an opportunity of saying that in this particular case they would like to see the assurances that have been given actually written into the Bill.
EARL FERRERS: I wonder whether before the noble Lord does that, he would cast his mind back a few days. We recently had the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and he will remember that Clause 1 of that Bill depicted a
1424
scheme for the eradication of brucellosis. When it was put into the Bill and went through your Lordships' House it was agreed that this was an excellent scheme to have because we wanted to eradicate brucellosis. But it so happened that while the Bill was passing through Parliament it was found that a better scheme was possible; and therefore when the Commons Amendments came back to your Lordships at the beginning of the week we had to remove the clause which, for very good reasons, we had inserted. I think it would be a pity if we were possibly to repeat the exercise and write into this Bill something which in fact is not necessary and which at a later date one might wish had not been written in.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I find the argument which the noble Earl now advances extremely convincing, and in the ordinary way I would accept it. But this surely would be an admirable opportunity for the Government to show that they have listened to what has been said, and that the assurances which the noble Earl gave a few moments ago, about their readiness to amend when there was a real need to amend, did mean something. I am not saying that the need is as real as all that but I am saying it would be an opportunity to wipe out all the frustration felt up to now by noble Lords on both sides of the House.
We are coming right up to the end of the Committee stage of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said a little earlier that it was possible—and he asked us to believe that it was possible—that none of the Amendments which we had advanced had any merit, and that the House had been right to dismiss them all. That is what the noble Lord said. He may well be right: that is just conceivable. What I cannot accept is that the noble Lord is in a position to say whether any of our Amendments had any merit; for the simple fact is that he never heard the arguments put forward for many of them. A short while ago the Committee rejected an Amendment. There were 118 votes in the Government Lobby, yet only one noble Lord had sat on the Back Benches and heard my noble friend Lady Phillips advance the case on behalf of the Amendment. One noble Lord on the Back Benches, and 118 noble Lords trooped through the Division Lobby: 118 voted for the Government!
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: How many noble Lords behind the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, are listening to what he is saying now?
LORD BESWICK: Very few—and when the laughter subsides I will tell the noble Lord why. The reason is that if all my noble friends came along—those who are sick and those who for other good reasons are not here—we could not possibly muster 118. We just do not have 118: we do not have a hundred. They say that that makes a mockery of this House and therefore decide not to interrupt their other affairs to come along here. I think that certain conclusions will be drawn by a good many people from the behaviour of the Government during the course of this Committee stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
10.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: At the conclusion of our Committee stage I should like to thank my noble friends on the Front Bench who have been handling this Bill, and also my colleagues. Secondly, I should like to say that I myself rather regret the last words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. But let that pass: I recognise the strength and sincerity of his feelings on this subject. I should like also, at the conclusion of the Committee stage, to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he helped through the usual channels to see that the business on this Bill, a very difficult one for all of us was conducted.
Having said that, I should like also to congratulate the Liberal Party on the notable new recruit they have just acquired.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and particularly for his remarks to my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip. This is a matter on which a number of people feel passionately, some more passionately than others. I will not repeat the criticisms that have been made with regard to the possibility of carrying Amendments against the Government. It is certainly unique in my experience that such a Bill has passed with
1426
out amendment. None the less, I think there is something to be said for the fact that for most of the time we have maintained our dignity; and it has not been easy for any of us. We shall return refreshed after an all-too-short holiday. As I have said before, we shall be working when the other place will not. We will see whether we can do something for our country then.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn—(Lord Denham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before putting the Question, may I remind my noble friend the Leader of the House that the Lord Chancellor by-Statute has a scat upon the head of the Earls' Bench?