HL Deb 24 October 1973 vol 345 cc638-64

3.6 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Marquess of Lothian he designated a Member of the European Parliament in the place of the Lord Brecon. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to propose that my noble friend Lord Lothian should replace the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, as a Member of the European Parliament. In moving the Motion I should like to put on record the appreciation of the Government, and that of the House as a whole, of the great services which the noble Lord, Lard Brecon, has rendered as one of the first group of Members of the European Parliament. For many years now the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has had a career of wide and varied public service in Wales and in Great Britain as a whole. Now, over an exceptionally demanding period, he has earned our thanks for the time and energy he has given as a member of the British delegation to the European Parliament.

I am sure that most of us in this House are proud of the contribution which the House of Lords has been able to make to the European Parliament in a highly significant phase of its development. Not only have we been able to field a strong and enterprising team of Peers but they have been most ably supported by the Parliament Office. As a result of his recent appointment as Chairman of the Welsh Water Authority, the noble Lord. Lord Brecon, has felt obliged to resign from the European Parliament, and I am very pleased to be able to propose to the House that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, should take his place. As the House knows, the noble Marquess has had considerable experience of overseas affairs, both while he was at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and before. Moreover, in regional terms, what is Wales's loss is Scotland's gain. I am sure that the noble Marquess will be a great addition to the European Parliament and will make a noteworthy contribution to its proceedings.

My Lords, there is one other matter to which I should like to refer in moving this Motion. When the original group of eight Peers were nominated last December as Members of the European Parliament the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was then the Leader of your Lordships' House, said—and I quote: There is the question of the duration of this Order. All I would say is that this .is debatable ground. It is certainly usual in this House for a Motion of this kind to have currency for the Session only. If the House wished to appoint the Members for the duration of the Parliament. I am advise' that this should be stated specifically in the Motion; and it is not so stated. So it is my understanding that this is a Sessional Order, although it is my hope that we shall have—and I think it would be of great pity if we did not have— a large degree of continuity in our delegation to the European Parliament, because we all have to feel our way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/12/72, Hansard, col. 1111.]

As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said this was "debatable ground Your Lordships will see from Hansard of December 20 last that my noble friend was speaking "off the cuff" and with "off the cuff advice" from the Table. After Lord Jellicoe's Statement on December 20 last, he asked the Table for a considered opinion. The considered advice tendered by the Clerk of the Parliaments was that the Order designating the Lords Members of the European Parliament was of indefinite duration, though it could be varied or revoked by the House at any time. The Clerk of the Parliaments reached this conclusion because he did not consider that the Order of December 20, 1972, fell within the categories specified by Erskine May as being limited in duration to the current Session; and also because the European Parliament has an existence independent of either House of Parliament in this country.

Since my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was good enough to give me notice of his intention to return again to-day to the question of how Members of the European Parliament are selected and the duration of their term, I have looked into this matter with some care. It is for this reason that I am taking a little longer in moving this Motion that might otherwise be the case. I want to be as frank with the House as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, himself would have wished to be. I find that earlier this year, having received the considered advice of the Clerk, he put on record—and this has been made available to me—his intention to find a suitable opportunity to modify what he said in December. Perhaps I might quote my predecessor's own words from the record he made: I shall have to take a suitable opportunity of modifying what I said in the House of Lords on December 20 last, in replying to Lord Lauderdale's Amendment which sought (inter alia) to limit the term of appointment of the Lords designated to the current Session. I said then that it was my understanding that the designation of the Lords Members of the European Parliament was to be regarded as a Sessional Order. I see no difficulty in modifying this, as I warned the House at the time that the question of the term of the appointments was 'debatable ground', and it would not be difficult for me to say that on reconsideration I wished to amend the tentative view that I then expressed.

I am aware that some doubts remain about the best method of selecting Members of both Houses of Parliament to serve as Members of the European Parliament. Indeed my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has put down an Amendment to this Motion to-day, as he did on the previous occasion when, in December, we discussed the nomination of noble Lords to the European Parliament, to draw attention to his preference for a system based on a process of election. An electoral mandate is something that we shall continue to consider in the future, as indeed we are bound to do under the terms of the Articles governing the Institutions of the Community. Article 138(3) states that the Assembly (that is the European Parliament) shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States.

But, my Lords, important as these considerations are for the future, the broader issues do not really arise on the filling of a casual vacancy. All the present Motion does is to propose that my noble friend Lord Lothian should take the place of my noble friend Lord Brecon, who is standing down for the reasons I have already given. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that the noble Marquess should make his way to Strasbourg and Luxembourg with our full support and encouragement. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Marquess of Lothian be designated a Member of the European Parliament in the place of the Lord Brecon.—(Lord Windlesham.)

3.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE rose to move as an Amendment to the Motion: at end to insert "for the remainder of this Session; and those Lords designated Members of the European Parliament thereafter shall only be so designated after a process of election". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

May I say, first of all, that this is in no sense a criticism of the noble Marquess whose personality we all cherish with affection, whose ability we cherish with envy and whose unfailing kindness and courtesy we seek to cherish by emulation. Nor, if the situation had not seemed to compel it, would I personally have wished to make new trouble for a new Leader of the House whose appointment we have hailed with delight. My concern is not mischief but principle.

As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, the Amendment I now move is the one I moved on December 20 last when the first nominations for Strasbourg were made. May I without rancour recall the background at that time. The Executive in this country had just treated both Houses of Parliament to the unpalatable medicine of a complicated Bill to which not even a comma, let alone the innocent conjunction "that" was allowed to be added or taken away. Unamended the Bill reached us, and unamended it left this place. That Bill set up a new relationship between this country and eight of our neighbours, one different in kind from our relationship with such international organisations as the United Nations, NATO, the Western European Union and the Council of Europe. It conceded to the European Economic Commission direct powers over the everyday life of the citizen against which, save for a rare veto in the Council of Ministers, only the European Parliament was trumpeted as the eventual democratic long-stop.

Just now my noble friend quoted, but selectively, from the Treaty of Rome about methods of appointment to the European Parliament. He did not quote, as I rather hoped he would, another passage from Article 138 which meantime requires Members of the European Par liament to be appointed from national Parliaments, namely: by procedures laid down by each Member State". Other countries have long since laid down their procedures: Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, by a process amounting to election, pick members from both Houses; Germany does the same from the Bundestag; France and Italy have an open election in both Houses for the choice of delegates. Britain has so far laid down no clear procedure, and I say "laid down no clear procedure" referring to the assignment of Members of this Parliament to the membership of that Parliament. I can only speak for the Party to which I continue, despite occasional stresses, to be loyal; however my noble friend Lord Lothian was selected—and I am sure that had his appointment been put to the vote he would have got in unanimously—there was in fact no overt system of election or choice within our Party. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye is now with us on the Front Bench below the gangway, for as he said so pregnantly on December 20 last: here we have the Executive…encroaching upon our Legislature and saying who is to be a member of a European Legislature".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1104.] He added that it was an "Executive-packed team" that both Houses were sending.

I do not wish to prolong these proceedings unduly and to wear out your Lordships' ever-indulgent patience, but may I just recall that last December I made three essential points. The first was that this was evidently an appointment for an indefinite period. That view has now been contradicted by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I shall return to it. My second point was that a system of election could very well have been devised without raising the prickly problem of inter-Party relationships. There could have been, and there could now be, and there could be when Parliament reassembles for the new Session, a system of lists for which Members of any Party could put themselves forward, so that we could then vote according to the lists. If one list was blank, so be it, but we could at least have a system of election. In addition, when we debated this matter briefly last December my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye cited the example of procedures in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I would add to that the procedures of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

For good measure let me now offer a third alternative; namely, that the inter-Party problems could be overcome, and the Whips' patronage dispensed with, if the terms of reference of the Committee of Selection were so altered as to enable that Committee, which is independent of the Whips and represents all sides of the House, to make the selection. My main point was one of principle last time, as it is now, that if Parliament is to send representatives to a new kind of European Parliament, which is to be a sort of longstop in defence of the citizens' rights those representatives should not—repeat "not"—be Government placemen. They should be freely elected by the House or Houses, until some better method is chosen. It might be well if we were to draw upon the wisdom of the great Gibbon, who wrote: The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the Executive".

It is easy to quote selectively from the debate on December 20 last, partly because it was a little ragged, but with your Lordships' indulgence I have chosen to put in a logical order a number of the things which my noble friend the then Leader of the House said at that time. First, he said it was a sessional appointment. I shall return to that. Then he said:"…this is an important matter, and one that we should not underestimate…it is one which I hope we shall come back to in this House. Perhaps we may do so quite soon." He went on: I have taken full note of what has been said by your Lordships…It is an important matter and one to which the Government certainly intend to…address themselves." [Col. 1113.] He added that he cordially agreed that we certainly need to work out in the lifetime of this Parliament (preferably in this coming Session)… —that of course referred to the Session which we are now concluding— our procedures by which we select, or elect, Members of this House who will be delegates to the European Parliament.

Finally, he showed that his mind was open to a considerable range of alternatives. From that moment until this there has, on this subject, been silence from the Front Bench. Ten months have gone by and we have been told nothing about the procedures which the Government then pledged themselves to consider and which they recognised should be worked out quickly: nothing, that is, until those of us who were forewarned by the Peterborough column of the Daily Telegraph on Monday, looked over our Order Paper yesterday and found only twenty-four hours' warning of this Motion—and that. mark you, my Lords, as if the matter had not been ventilated last December; as if no pledge had been given that this was a Sessional appointment (I shall again come back to that) and as if there had been nothing said then that such questions of selection or election procedures would be further and urgently discussed.

With the very greatest respect, I must submit to your Lordships that this is trivially short notice. There might be some of your Lordships who would even feel that it borders on something not very far removed from a little discourtesy to the House. At any rate. I believe that this short notice is unworthy and I sincerely hope that it was genuinely accidental. Otherwise, why raise matters in this House at all? The power of the Executive has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. This is common ground, except between the Front Benches.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Shame!

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, is the Executive now so heavily out of control that when, from courtesy and a desire to assist, one by leave withdraws a critical Amendment, that must henceforth be the end of the matter? Or can we now recover our faith that matters raised on such an occasion do mean something and that the assurances given by the Government do in fact mean what they suggest? Or does it mean that in future when one has tabled a critical Amendment one should be prepared, willy-nilly, to press it in the Division Lobby?

On the question of the Sessional appointment, my noble friend Lord Windlesham has at least saved my noble friend Lord Lothian from a 24 hours' appointment, because as things stood until two minutes ago for all we knew this was a Sessional matter and we were going through this rigmarole to appoint him for 24 hours. But should not the House have been told before? We quite appreciate that the noble Lord's predecessor had intended to acquaint the House: how is it that that acquaintance has now to be prised out of the Government only by proposing an Amendment?

The Government have resorted to two arguments on this whole subject. They have said, or tended to say, one way or another, "Oh well, this is how delegations to the NATO Assembly, to W.E.U., to the Council of Europe and so on have been selected in the past, through the exercise of the Whips' selection" I am glad that my noble friend has not attempted to use that argument now. As to the Whips' custom, I would draw his attention to King James VI's words about smoking: It is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose and harmful to the brain. Not only is the custom of the Whips hateful in a matter of this sort; it is irrevelant also. For appointments to these other various international bodies in any case are only Sessional whereas we now learn that this is not; they are to bodies which are no more than consultative while we are here speaking about appointment to a Parliament—at any rate a body that claims to be Parliamentary—with a very important role to play, quite different from the other bodies.

Then the Government have tended to say—and did say in the past—that they had been prevented from devising or proposing a proper system of selection because of inter-Party difficulties. But again, as an interim measure, the extension or revision of the terms of reference of the Committee of Selection would have got over that difficulty without any heads being broken.

My Lords, it was Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, on his way to the scaffold, who replied to the jeering mobs in the City: The greater the mischief, the better the sport". It is not my purpose either to make sport or to raise mischief, beyond a degree that is perhaps healthy to the Whips—for whom we have such a strong personal affection. But I do believe that those Peers who sit in this House by virtue, not of merit, not of accomplishment, not of career success but by the accident of birth have a very special duty to perform. It is a duty not unlike that of being picked for jury service. If they have one obligation more than another which is laid upon them by history, it is the guardianship of our constitutional processes. Such indeed was something that stood out in the philosophy of the late noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, as Leader of the Opposition in this House, declared the principle in the 1945 Parliament that at any rate Conservatives would make it their business to ensure that any Party endowed with a temporory majority in the other place should not be enabled to make irrevocable constitutional changes unbacked by the electorate. I do not want to go into the past history of this general controversy now, but there is a matter of principle at stake. It is because of this that I rise reluctantly at this moment humbly to remind your Lordships that the greater the power, the greater the abuse, and that all power is a trust. We are accountable for its exercise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— At end to insert: for the remainder of this Session; and that those Lords designated members of the European Parliament thereafter shall only be so designated after a process of election."—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)

3.31 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, we are witnessing one of the most interesting ironies of this House. On the one hand we have the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, the strongest voice on the Benches opposite against the idea of joining the European Economic Community, the one man who put forward great arguments against going into the European Parliament at all, and on the other hand we have the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Windlesham, a great believer in and champion of the European idea, turning down the proposals made in good faith by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for giving a vestige of respectability to the European gathering. I should have thought that the noble Lord the Leader of the House would have been a little more forthcoming and would have been in a better position to welcome what was said on the Back Benches there. After all, it would be something of a fig leaf for this European Parliament, would it not?—the one element of democracy either in this House or that—if we had some process of election for those whom we send there. Irrespective of whether we agree with sending anyone to Strasbourg, I should have thought we ought to learn of these things here and not through the channel of the gossip column of a newspaper. That is not good enough for this House, and I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will have some inquiry made as to why it was able to he learnt in Fleet Street in that way instead of being properly announced in this House.

My Lords, having said that, I wish to make just two other comments. I agreed with a comment made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he said that the European Parliament has a position —and I quote, I think, correctly—"entirely independent of either House of Parliament". "Entirely independent"; of course it is entirely independent. I must say I thought some of the phrases he used in his speech were a little over-colourful when he said how proud we were of those who represented us in Stras-bourg, and spoke of the strong and enterprising line they had taken. May I ask whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, can give some indication of what benefits have accrued to the British people as a result of the strong and enterprising line taken by the noble Peers in Strasbourg? Will he also say, when he refers to the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, and to the appointment of Lord Lothian, what he meant by there being a loss to Wales but a gain to Scotland? Would he indicate a little more precisely the areas in which Scotland will gain as a result of the representation by Lord Lothian in Strasbourg? I should have thought that in this connection, as was originally announced, we ought to be given a little more information as to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House bases his speech on.

My other point is this. As is well known—it has not been hidden—the Party for which I speak does not send anyone by any process to Strasbourg. Therefore I do not think that we are entitled to say how noble Lords opposite are selected or elected. I think this is a matter which, for the time being, at any rate, has to be settled on the Benches opposite. At the same time. I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, put forward a strong case, and it is with great interest that I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to say in reply.

3.38 p.m.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, as a Liberal Member of the delegation to the European Parliament and in the presence of the fact that the Labour Party spokesman has just said that he does not really want to intervene in the practicalities of the election of representatives to the European Parliament for the moment, I should like to make a few remarks about the important questions of principle which have emerged, both in the declaration of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and in the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, maintained that direct elections were a desirable objective and, indeed, forming part of the Treaty of Rome, represent an obligation on us. We must work for that. I believe that it is the intention of the Government to do so. But we must all recognise that in practice it will be a long time before these direct elections on a European scale can in fact be organised. Apart from anything else, at the moment it is very difficult to apply a scheme for the constitution of a House with, say, 500 to 600 people elected from all over Europe in accordance with the same electoral law, probably by proportional representation, which is not accepted by all member States at the moment, and so on, in which naturally the smaller States would have less representation than at present. That is a difficulty that has to be faced and overcome. It will happen.

Equally, we must make more progress than at present with the emergence, so to speak, of the constitution of the European Union which has been laid down as an objective to be achieved as early as 1980. As your Lordships will know, the Parliament, Commission and, indeed, Ministers are bending their minds towards forms of a European constitution involving many more powers for the Parliament. The way in which the new Community will work is now under active consideration in the Parliament. The work is not as appreciated as it might be by the noble Lord who has just sat down. Work is indeed being carried on on the whole structure of the democratic community that we are pledged to establish in 1980. But it cannot happen now, and probably will not happen before 1980, or whenever the full constitution is agreed upon and becomes applicable.

In the absence of direct elections in accordance with the Treaty, it is however entirely possible to form a Parliament out of delegations which are nominated by the various Parliaments of the Member States. The system by which these delegations are nominated varies in the various Parliaments at this moment, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said. There is no doubt a form of election in some Parliaments among the members of those Parliaments. Our system is not that; it is nomination, as we all know, by the Whips. It has been criticised by some, but at least it has this virtue: that it does provide for adequate representation for the Oppositions. In the case of the Liberal Opposition I fear it is not adequate—indeed, we think it is quite unfair. It would be more suitable, in our view, if the proportions of the Parties in the Delegation reflected the votes cast in a General Election. However, we find it difficult to imagine that we shall be able to persuade the authorities of the justice of our view. I repeat, the present system is inherently unjust. Anyhow, at the moment the delegates are nominated by the Whips, and at any rate the Labour Party, if it cared to join in the work of this Parliament, in this constructive work, which it will not do at the moment, would find itself adequately represented, from the point of view of numbers at least.

There is, however, a case for suggesting that even in our system of nomination there might be within all the Parties concerned an election of the members whom the Party itself desires to represent it in the Parliament of Europe. I cannot see any particular objection to that, although naturally it would have to be laid down in advance how many Peers should in principle form part of the delegation, and out of the total delegation how many should represent the Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties. But, given that, within the Parties themselves, I think there might be a case for free election among the members of the Party in Parliament, and I suggest that it might at least be considered by the Whips. It might even give considerable satisfaction to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who would, if that system were adopted, have every chance of forming part of the delegation.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, I appreciate the compliment which I rather sensed the noble Lord was coming to. I would not run.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, I am sorry to hear it. When the noble Earl realises what is happening there in a year or two's time he may regret his words. Anyhow, it seems to me that we must at the moment go ahead with some system of nomination to this Parliament of Europe. The only difficulty, and it is a serious one, is that though this system of ours is workable it results in the nomination of very hard-worked Members of Parliament—and indeed, even some Peers may be said to be very hard-worked—so hard-worked indeed that there is a danger of the whole system's breaking down. For unless the Member of Parliament is not intending to fight the next election, in which case he need not spend a great deal of time in his constituency, he will find it increasingly difficult to attend an increasing number of sessions in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, committees and so on during the whole course of the year. From the next year he may find it almost beyond his powers. There are to be no fewer than 14 plenary sessions of this Parliament in 1974. There were only 11 last year. The number of committee meetings is going to increase as well. All the Members are supposed to be members of two committees, so your Lordships can work it out. They may have to attend up to 110 to 120 working days outside Parliament. If they are Members of the House of Commons this will be extremely difficult. In fact, I do not think they will be able to carry on. The system really is in some danger of collapse.

Now, if that is so, there is only one other practical solution, it seems to me, and that is to contemplate the direct election of Members to the European Parliament on a national basis of some kind. All kinds of schemes have been put forward to this end. One is that all 36 delegates should be directly elected in various constituencies in the United Kingdom, and temporarily designated European Peers of Parliament, perhaps for the period of the sessions in Strasbourg. It is not so extreme as one might think; there is something to be said for it. They would be Members of Parliament; they might even be allowed to go into the Smoking Room of the House of Commons. They would represent directly electorates all over the country and they would therefore form a very good team to send to Strasbourg on a national basis. At any rate the system has the advantage that it would not break down. For they would obviously he able to spend a great part of their time there when they were not in their constituencies. It seems to me logical, perhaps inevitable, that this sort of thing is going to happen in the next few years, and I hope it will.

The final question is whether it is right for the nominated Members of this Parliament to be appointed for only the session, or for the period of the Parliament, or indefinitely. On the assumption that it would in practice be for the period of the Parliament. I appreciate what the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, said and would associate myself with it. It seems to me only sensible, apart from all the constitutional implications, which are very complicated, that nominated Members of the European Parliament should be appointed for a fairly long period. If they were appointed only for Sessions they would not have any security of tenure; and I assure noble Lords that it takes at least a few months to get into the work and to play an intelligent part in the important committees, monetary and political, and so on. It is impossible to play your part properly unless you have several months' experience, which you would not have if you were appointed for only a session. Therefore, on purely practical grounds, I am certain that it is right to do as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested: to nominate our Members of Parliament for an indefinite period on the assumption that it would in fact be for the life of the Parliament.

3.47 p.m.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, your Lordships' House has just witnessed a most remarkable transformation. From the euphoria which over a long period of years accompanied the speeches which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, indulged in, we now have a speech delivered in the most muted tones.

LORD GLADWYN

Not at all!

LORD SHINWELL

It was one continuous apology: he says this is the very best we can do; he offers no reason at all why it should be regarded as having any quality whatever. It was almost a transmogrification.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord is hardly interpreting what I said in the right way. I said that the Parliament was doing a lot of extremely valuable work. I regretted that the Labour Party was not there to help. I hope it will do better work in the future. That is what I said. I said that years ago and I say it now.

LORD SHINWELL

The noble Lord has not heard the end of it. I really do not want to trouble him unduly. I wanted to indulge in a very few observations, and I give this assurance, as did the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that there is no personal criticism of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for whom I have a high regard, as indeed, if I may say so in parenthesis, I had for his father many years ago, a man of remarkable brilliance. So there is no question of prejudice, or bias or malice. We are concerned with the principle. I really must say I have been astonished at the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Both of them have spoken about the "European Parliament". There is no such thing as the European Parliament. There is the European Assembly. There is a delegation from your Lordships' House and from the other place. But there is no European Parliament, there is nothing Parliamentary about it. Nobody will suggest there is anything in the nature of democracy about it. There is not even, as in the case of your Lordships' House (which, as everybody knows, is not entirely democratic in principle or constitution) the hereditary principle, for which there is a great deal to be said. They decide that some people will go over there and that they will talk, and that is indeed all that they are being permitted to do. It is just a farce from beginning to end. I am not the only one to say that; the Press say it. There is hardly a Press comment about what has been going on in this European Assembly that has not been sometimes humorous, sometimes sardonic, or sometimes downright critical. It is just a farce. What impact have they made on the Commission? Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will tell us, in his reply, whether the Commission pay the slightest attention to them.

There was a suggestion some time ago that the Assembly would tell the Commission where they got off, give them the "brush-off", shrug them aside; but everybody knows that the Commission treat them with contempt. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says they do not. How do the Commission treat them then? Do they do what the European delegations say?

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, the members of the Commission attend all, or most, of the meetings of the committees. They send very high level experts to the meetings of the political committee. They are invariably there when the plenary meets. They are interrogated. They make suggestions together with the Parliament. They help the Parliament's work and the Parliament helps them. The Parliament has now a great ally in the Commission. You ask any member of the Commission. It is true. The noble Lord does not know what is happening.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, the noble Lord should keep his breath to cool his porridge rather than indulge in this sort of thing in the presence of intelligent people. Of course the Commission know what is being said in this so-called "European Parliament" which, as everybody knows, is just an assembly. There is not a single achievement which they can claim, unless it is that they are able to talk. I know that that is sometimes regarded as an achievement.

I want to express sympathy with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. He was relegated from an honourable position in the Government on the Front Bench to the Back Bench. Well, it has happened with other people. I had to suffer it myself many years ago, though there was something voluntary about it. I must say that I am full of sympathy for him for being sent over there with all the trouble. Your Lordships' House is different from another place. Reading from the newspapers, who know all about it, it appears that those in the other place fly off in the morning from Gatwick or Heathrow, and they are no sooner there than they have to fly back again because the Whips demand their presence h the other place. They go backwards and forwards in a kind of constant shuffle. What a farce this is. Why should we put up with this sort of thing? It is bad enough to enter the Common Market without having this farce accompanying it.

With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who made a fine speech (as he always does), indicating remarkable research on his part, one does not need intensive research to understand what is going on. Intuition is enough; instinct is sufficient; common sense or horse sense is enough without intensive research. I repeat that it is just a farce. I should like the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he replies, not to use the term "European Parliament". There is nothing in the Treaty that provides for a European Parliament of this character. It is an assembly, and no more than that, with no authority whatever, and incapable of making an impact that is worth tuppence worth of gin. Why do we not stop it?

VISCOUNT BARRINGTON

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he perhaps explain to the House —or at any rate to me—what he means by the expression "a constant shuffle", which seems to me (at first hearing) a contradiction in terms?

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, T must confess that I am interested in boxing, and I remember Muhamed Ali indulging in a "shuffle", or a "re-shuffle", when boxing. That is where I got the phrase.

VISCOUNT BARRINGTON

My Lords, I was merely questioning the adjective "constant".

3.55 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, when moving his Amendment the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, quoted some words of mine when we last debated this issue. He reminded your Lordships of my objection, which was shared by many noble Lords on all sides of the House, to the Executive having the power to appoint Members of a Legislature. That was my fundamental objection at the time and it still remains so, and I regret to say that since we last debated this issue it has been intensified by two things: one positive, and one negative. The positive is that we are constantly reading of the attempts of the European Assembly, or Parliament, call it which you like, to obtain more power and control over the Commission, more power over the affairs of the E.E.C.

I do not make any criticism of that, but it is a fact that the negative is that since we last debated this matter in your Lordships' House, and while that surge towards greater power is going on all the time in the Assembly, Her Majesty's Government do not seem to have advanced in any way at all as regards proposing some method other than nomination by the Executive of Members to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, called the "pseudo legislative body"—call it what you like, but a body which is aiming to be a legislative body. Her Majesty's Government seem to have done nothing, and I should be very disappointed if, when he replies, my noble friend the Leader of the House cannot give us some indication as to when Her Majesty's Government are going to go to the first stage, that being some alteration of the present system of selection behind the scenes, through the usual chancels, but nothing seen obviously by all Members of your Lordships' House.

The second stage is one envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which I think is some long way ahead, some form of direct election. I am not touching on that matter at all. I would only ask for some information from Her Majesty's Government on the progress that they are making, and when they hope to be able to tell us that they have thought enough on the subject to introduce some new system of selection for those who are to be Members of the European Parliament. When I last spoke, in the speech to which the noble Earl was good enough to refer, I quoted the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association system of a form of indirect election, as any member of the C.P.A. knows. The Leader of the House, in those days the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that note was being taken of all suggestions made. He did not deal in his reply with the C.P.A. proposal. I was very willing to hear it knocked down if it was entirely unsound, but I heard nothing except a promise that the Government were thinking very seriously on this matter, and hoped soon to be able to say something. That is months ago, and I think that we are entitled to ask the noble Lord the I eader of the House in his reply to give us some measure of satisfaction on what progress has been made so far, and how soon the Government hope to be able to bring forward a Bill to change from the present under-the-table methods.

BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER

My Lords, in the absence of our coordinator, the noble Lord, Lord Strang, I should like it to be known that by a method of informal election the Cross-Bench Peers selected a Peer to go to Strasbourg. With due respect to the noble Earl, it would not have been the slightest bit of good to prick people, as for sheriffs, because there are not so many noble Lords who could spare the time—and a lot of time is needed—for this very important job.

4.0 p.m.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, may I add just one word? I am sure that I echo the congratulations and good wishes of all your Lordships on the appointment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to the European Parliament. We all have the highest possible regard for him, and I have no doubt that he will do well. But as one who sat in the Council of Europe for seven years, in the days when the appointment was made through the Whips' Office, perhaps I may say that the system worked pretty well because the Council of Europe never made any pretence at being a Parliament of any kind. It never had any real power. What it did was to bring the nations of Europe together. To a large extent it brought about the Franco-German rapprochement. The Council of Europe did quite a lot of good work, and I think it might have done a lot of better work if it had been more encouraged. But this is an entirely different situation; and I want to point out that this show is not working at the present time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell that the system is breaking down; and I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Gladwyn admit that as it is running at the present time it is in fact breaking down.

The stresses are becoming greater every day. Members of another place who have to go there have to be absent from their constituencies for weeks on end, and that is a situation which cannot be tolerated indefinitely by any constituency. Members of this place are hard-pressed and have to swirl about between Strasbourg and Brussels. That, in itself, is a crazy arrangement—having two centres. It is absolute madness to have Brussels and Strasbourg, with all the enormous expense of transporting the officials and the documents from one place to the other about every three weeks. The whole thing is breaking down, and I beg the noble Lord the Leader of the House to say, when he replies, that the Government will give serious consideration to this aspect. I do not think the other place will be able to stand it for much longer. Most of your Lordships who go there—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will agree with me—are out of pocket, or very nearly out of pocket, as a result of going there. Anyway, it is a "frightful sweat" going there all these times.

I believe there is only one ultimate solution, and that is a system of direct election to this Assembly (and I am prepared to call it an Assembly) by the country, apart altogether from election to another place. There is no election to this House, nor should there be, but I should be delighted to stand as Member of the European Parliament for the North of Scotland any day—and I bet I should be elected. So, my Lords, that is my conclusion: I say "Direct elections; and Boothby for the North of Scotland!"

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, may I ask my noble friend to let us know in his reply to this rather unsatisfactory situation exactly what is the period for which the noble Marquess is proposed to be appointed. It was said earlier that this was debatable ground. Can my noble friend tell us precisely what this period is, and whether it is the same as the period for which various noble Lords were appointed ten months ago?

4.5 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, perhaps I may conclude the debate on the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. We have of course ranged very wide. We have been talking about the Motion to replace Lord Brecon by Lord Lothian, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has again put down his Amendment. We have had a very wide-ranging debate on the European Parliament and on the way in which people should be selected to serve on it; on the tensions on them once they are there and on what the future pattern might be. I do not object to that at all, particularly because I accept entirely that the motivation of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is the finest one that a Parliamentarian could bring to an initiative of this sort; and that is the vigilance shown by somebody who sits on the Back-Benches or on the Opposition side of the House to see that the Government are not getting away with more than they should. That is his motive, and I applaud it.

I am well aware that the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton (who has not spoken to-day), are keeping a very keen eye on the Government in this field. That is one of the functions of Parliament. It may be very uncomfortable for Ministers at times, but it is necessary, acceptable and desirable, and I regard it in that light. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood (if I may deal at this point with his direct question at the end of the debate), asked what would be the term of office for the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the other Peers who serve in the European Parliament. The answer is that, on the advice given to us by the Clerk of the Parliaments, they would serve for the term of this Parliament. The noble Lord might like to look rather carefully in Hansard at what I said about the Clerk's advice. He will find the reasons spelt out there.

My Lords, may I now deal with one or two of the main points of criticism—and they have been points of criticism, strongly expressed sometimes—which have arisen in the debate? The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made great play of the lack of notice. They spoke of a period of only 24 or 48 hours' notice that the House had of this Motion. The inference was of either discourtesy or sharp practice—at any rate, something which was undesirable. I have checked during the course of the debate, and I find that the Motion was put down last Thursday. It was put down in the middle of last week. It appeared on the Order Paper of Thursday, October 18, which was distributed to all your Lordships; and it has been on the Order Paper since then. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made great play of an article in the Daily Telegraph. He was outraged that he had seen this in the Daily Telegraph for the first time. That article appeared on Monday of this week: our Order Paper for Thursday showed the Motion down on the Order Paper.

The main point at issue, I think, is the question of what Parliament—both Houses of Parliament, incidentally—should do—

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, it is not a particularly important point but when the noble Lord refers to the Order Paper of Thursday he means the one dated Thursday which was posted Thursday night and probably reached us Monday morning. Is that it?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I think the noble Lord had probably better look at what he said in his first intervention, and his second, to see if it is quite in line with that. Yes, it is the Order Paper for the 18th, which was received by Members, by post, on the 19th. The Daily Telegraph article appeared on Monday. So the inference, I think, that the Government have tried to slip this in at the last moment does not hold water. The noble Lord is a fair-minded man, and he will feel, perhaps, that that was not the strongest argument he would have wished to use had he had time to consider it.

The main point before this House and another place is what we should do now, in this early stage—after all, we joined the enlarged Community as a full member only at the beginning of this year—about Members of Parliament, and of your Lordships' House, who serve in the European Parliament. I do not want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—it is always unproductive to do so—but he did not like the words "European Parliament". He said he would not have them used. I must tell him that the Assembly resolved on March 30, 1962, to change its name to the "European Parliament". My Lords, in this ten-month period, for reasons that I do not intend to go into now, there has been no consensus between the major Parties on whether or not Members of Parliament and Peers should serve at Strasbourg and at Luxembourg. I regret that. It is not a matter that we need to debate between us now, but it is a fact that there is no consensus. In the British Parliamentary system, so much depends on agreement between both sides: the Party in power and the Party out of power, the Independents, the Party on the Liberal Benches, whose interests are taken into account as well; and, in the main, the Government and the Opposition try to move in the same way.

In these circumstances, it seemed to my predecessor—and I would have done exactly the same if I had been in his shoes—and it seemed to the Lord President of the Council in another place that the best thing to do in this interim first stage in the development of the European Parliament—in the new relationship between the British Parliament and the institutions of the Community—was to proceed through the normal Parliamentary processes. I am not saying that the normal Parliamentary processes are the best for all purposes, or are necessarily the most appropriate; but I can claim —and I think the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and other experienced Parliamentarians will agree with this—that the normal Parliamentary processes are that names are put before the House after a process of consultation. This is how the Select Committees are appointed. They speak with the authority of the House; they are not regarded as placemen of the Whips, and still less as placemen of the Government. This is how, outside Parliament, Members of Parliament and Peers have been appointed to the Council of Europe, to NATO, Parliamentarians to the Western European Union and to the various other bodies to which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred.

It is wrong—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, with some deference—to assume, because the answer is not the one that one would like to see, that nothing has been done. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in the debate on December 20 that he would take very careful note of what was said in that debate and that he would discuss it with his colleagues elsewhere. I have studied the records and the papers, because the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was good enough to give me advance notice last night of his intention to raise this matter; I have had the opportunity of looking at the background. I find that my noble friend honoured that obligation. But for the reasons that I have given he came to a conclusion, and he would have reported to the House, either during this debate or during the debate on Lord O'Hagan's Motion, in which he intended to take part, what his conclusions were. They are those that I have said: that in these circumstances it seems to us, the Government representatives in this House and in another place, that the best we can do is to continue with the system. This is not to say, as I tried to imply in my opening remarks, that we rule out any question of an electoral mandate. It is in the Treaty of Rome itself that there should be a move towards direct elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who speaks with considerable experience as a Member of the European Parliament tells us that he thinks that maybe that ought to be achieved in two stages. He advocated an interim step to achieve some form of electoral membership and lighten the burden on the existing Members.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, simply because otherwise the existing system could break down.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, spoke on these lines. Everyone who is close to the issue —and we must not assume that it is those with the strongest opinions who are closest to the issue—are aware that this is so. Therefore the Government want to consider all these matters. We want to do it on the basis of consensus. We want to do it with the co-operation of the Party opposite, because to set up new constitutional procedures of great significance without the consent of the major Opposition Party would be asking a great deal.

I should like to repeat again what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in December when the same Amendment was discussed at the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale: that the Government are not dismissing this as a matter of no importance. We are aware of the great significance both in terms of the burden on the individuals and in terms of the mandate that the members of the British Parliament carry with them. But I would reject absolutely and completely the allegation that the European Parliament has no part to play, that it is a farce, that it is a charade. That is not so. If one goes into a new institution that is going to last for a very long time on that basis it is a most destructive way of looking at things. It must be our aim, as it is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to strengthen the European Parliament, to make it more effective; and that is the course the Government are set on.

4.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, if I may I will tender my apology to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the quite sincere belief, but evidently a mistaken one, that this Motion appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday morning instead of last Monday. I feel sure that my noble friend will accept my apology for not having studied the Order Paper closely enough. I should like to thank those who were good enough to join in this short exchange. I was interested to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, now accepts the view that meantime it would be well to have some electoral system within Parliament.

I was rather disturbed at one point made by my noble friend Lord Windlesham who was so courteous in his reply and who has been so careful to deal gently with me to-day. He mentioned the memorandum from his predecessor. According to my recollection, that can have been written only before, or around the time of, the Whitsun Recess. If it has been sitting in the Government in-tray from last Whitsun until now—which, if it was from his predecessor, must have been the case—surely it is not satisfactory that it should have been kept quiet for so long. That is my first point. I know that the noble Lord deserves and will have at all times the indulgence of the House when accidents occur; but it does emerge that a different view had been established in the mind of the then Leader of the House and was not disclosed, although it existed before last Whitsun, until now.

Then my noble friend continues to use the argument that unless there is consensus between the major Parties no progress on this matter can be made. He has not commented on the three or four suggestions which were repeated to-day. He has not commented on the suggestion that the terms of reference of the Committee of Selection could well be widened and that the effect of that would be to take this matter out of the problems of a Party consensus. My noble friend has said that the Government have this possibility very much in mind. This is what we were told last December. I should like to feel sure, which at the moment I do not, that we shall hear at some definite time—let us say, by Christmas or by the time Parliament reassembles in January—that the Government have come to a conclusion and that they will declare it to the House. I will gladly give way for a moment if my noble friend can answer just that point.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord can put down a Question for Oral or Written Answer at any time he wishes posing that exact Question and I shall answer it.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, I am not clear whether my noble friend is by implication inviting me not to press my Amendment; but I rather sense from the tone of that reply that he does not mind whether I press my Amendment or not. May I ask him whether he would like me to press my Amendment and clear the matter now by a Division or whether he would prefer that I ask leave of the House to withdraw it?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, neither the noble Earl nor the House will be astonished to hear that I prefer the latter.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, before asking the leave of the House to withdraw—and I should like to ask that leave but it is for the House to decide whether or nay—I would say to my noble friend with the greatest respect that, while I am doing my best to accept literally what he has said just now—as I accepted last December what his predecessor said—I am sure he will understand that if this matter arose again and we had once more to go through this rigmarole of a discussion, I cannot be quite so certain that I should feel so agreeable to the idea of seeking leave to withdraw my Amendment. However, with that caveat I beg leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, and I believe that it would probably be to the interest of the House that that leave should be given if the House so wish it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Forward to