§ 2.47 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended that the speeches of Members of this House at Strasbourg will be made available, and whether arrangements will be made to enable Questions to be asked in this House on such speeches and the general deliberations at Strasbourg.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, a verbatim record of the proceedings at Strasbourg of the European Parliament, containing speeches in the languages in which they were delivered (the so-called "Rainbow" version) will be available in the Printed Paper Office. The record for January is at present in the Printed Paper Office and will shortly be placed in the Library for reference. 1396 A verbatim record in English of all meetings of the European Parliament is published as an annex to the Official Journal of the European Communities. The issue containing the report of the January Session will be available to noble Lords as soon as it is received from Luxembourg.
Noble Lords who wish to ask Questions on matters arising from speeches made by Members of this House in the Assembly or from the deliberations there will be able to do so, subject to normal rules of your Lordships' House. There will no doubt also be opportunities to raise such matters in the course of general debates on Community matters.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some time ago this House approved the appointment of six of its Members? Therefore in a sense we elected them by a democratic process to go there. Is it not consistent with democratic processes that those we elect should make themselves available to be questioned about the deliberations and attitudes at Strasbourg? Would that not be democratic? May I ask what objection the noble Earl raises to it? As regards the information he conveyed to me, if I may say so with great respect, I am fully aware of the present position.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, in fact we designated seven Members of your Lordships' House before December. I think the position is that the delegation and its Members are not directly and formally responsible to your Lordships' House, although, since the actual designations were made by this House, it lies within your Lordships' power to "undesignated." where in fact you have designated.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, while accepting that those Members are not delegates and bound to report to your Lordships' House, would the noble Earl consider, in the light of the suggestion from my noble friend, that a suitable occasion should be provided for a debate of the Strasbourg proceedings, so that those Members of your Lordships' House who have been sent there could report on these matters? I think that such a procedure would be very informative to a number of us.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, of course I will consider that suggestion, and I am 1397 sure it is something that could easily be arranged through the usual channels. I think I will leave the matter there for the moment.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Earl accept that there is a subtle nuance which has crept in between what he has said now and what he said in replying to a debate on this matter on December 19, when he said that the Members would be accountable to this House? Just now he said that they would not be "responsible". Would he bear in mind that he said that they would be accountable, and ways and means would have to be found to bring that about?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, if there is an inconsistency, I apologise to my noble friend. I said that on December 20, and I was answering in the context of designation. What I suggest to the House is that the whole question of the part we play in the European Parliament and our involvement in the modification of our procedures to accommodate this new situation are matters which we must look at as we go along. There is a great deal to he said, when we have gathered rather more experience, for debating it at the appropriate moment in the way suggested by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he does not think that a great deal of thought should be given before the House adopts the principle of questioning individual Members who have no Governmental responsibility? This could be a very slippery slope, indeed. I do not feel that the House should lightly take that route.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think that our Companion to the Standing Orders provides (and the reference is to page 68) that Questions may be addressed not only to members of the Government but also to certain Lords as holders of official positions. It is our judgment that the members of the delegation to the European Parliament, however eminent, do not fall as such within the category of noble Lords holding official positions.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that I fundamentally disagree with the noble 1398 Lord, Lord Byers? May I ask the noble Earl for his advice? On the assumption that a Member of your Lordships' House has been delegated, seconded, or sent to Strasbourg, and he makes a speech with which I happen to disagree, may I put a Question down on the Order Paper about that speech and raise a debate as a result? Or, to put it the other way, suppose that Members of your Lordships' House do not make any speeches at all and do not uphold the dignity of the House or accept their responsibility by engaging themselves in the deliberations, can I put down a Question about that?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am advised that it would be in order for a Member of your Lordships' House to put down a Question asking whether the Government were aware of the views expressed by a particular Member of the European Parliament and what action Her Majesty's Government were proposing to take. It might be more difficult if that particular Member of the European Parliament had not opened his mouth.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, since I was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, may I tell him that I have no intention at all of answering him because I should then be in breach of the principle I am trying to uphold.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, could my noble friend tell us whether the English version of the proceedings in the European Parliament is available immediately after they take place, or only after a considerable time lag? If it is the latter, how long is the time lag?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think the "Rainbow" version is available in Strasbourg the day after, and then there is the question of transmission here. The English version takes a good deal longer. I think the present anticipated delay is something of the order of five to six weeks before it is available here, owing to difficulties of translation, which are being looked into.
§ BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEYMy Lords, would it not be easier for members of the Opposition to get the information they require if they sent delegates to Strasbourg?
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, may I just answer my noble friend and say that I think she has hit the nail on the head.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, in view of the questions that have been asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, how is it that in the other place Members can put Questions on reports from the Chairman of the Church Commissioners, and also from the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee? They are not members of Her Majesty's Government.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I suggest that that supplementary question goes a little wide of the original Question. If he were to put a Question on this subject on the Order Paper I, or another Member of this Front Bench, should be glad to answer it.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that we are trying to build a bridge of understanding between the Strasbourg Parliament and our two Chambers here, and if we have to wait five or six weeks for a translation this does not make sense. We cannot keep in touch with what our representatives or colleagues are doing. Could my noble friend urge that it is possible in this day and age to produce translations much more speedily than that time period?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords. I agree with the general proposition put by my noble friend. I thought I had indicated in reply to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that this was a matter which was being looked into with a degree of urgency. It is a question of staff.
§ LoRD IRONSIDEMy Lords, would the noble Earl say why we have to wait so long for translations of speeches which are probably made in English?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, there are, I think six official languages in the Community; therefore there is a chance that they may be made in five languages other than English.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, is the European Parliament already so obsolescent that it has not simultaneous translations?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think that question is very wide of the mark. This is a question of printing, not of immediate, simultaneous translation.
§ LORD PARGITERMy Lords, would the noble Earl consider whether it is possible for interpreters here to translate the documents, rather than wait for them to come from Strasbourg, so that we may get these documents more quickly?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, that is a possibility which can certainly be looked into. Also, since it is now three minutes to three o'clock, perhaps we may move on to the next Question.