Lords Sitting of 7 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

RACE RELATIONS ACT AND CLUBS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to introduce a Bill amending the Race Relations Act to prohibit the practice of a colour bar in clubs open to membership by the general public.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the Government are considering what changes should be made to the Race Relations Act to improve its effectiveness and in doing so will take account of the recent decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in the case of a working men's club in Preston.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Was it not the clear intention of Parliament when the Race Relations Bill was before the House that, while clubs with restricted membership should be exempt, in those with a general membership the colour bar should apply? Would it not be possible to introduce a short amending Bill to put this matter right, even if one has to wait until the next Session for a broader amending Bill?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated in a speech to the annual conference of the Race Relations Board on September 13 that he agreed with the Board's criticisms on the weaknesses in the 1968 Act, and that he
580
intended to introduce legislation to strengthen the Act. Given the fact that a number of consultations are required and that there is now this problem which my noble friend has identified, it would be better to deal with all the problems at the same time.
LORD PANNELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter brooks no delay? In the case referred to we are speaking about a brown Englishman—somebody who has spent all his life here. There is an increasing number of boys and girls in this country who are coloured, and who are as English as anybody in this House. One of the illogical features of colour is that in this case a lower court differed and the Court of Appeal differed, but their Lordships—because of some curious judgment—based upon five Peers, brought another decision to bear, to the great regret of the noble and learned Lord who pronounced the judgment. This is an absolutely ridiculous procedure.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my right honourable friend certainly takes a serious view of this matter, but there are a number of other questions in this field which are equally important and that is why he prefers to deal with all the problems at the same time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does my noble friend intend to introduce a blanket Bill to include all the problems at the same time, and will it include sex discrimination in clubs?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend will not have to wait long before she reads the Government's detailed provisions in the field of sex discrimination.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am entirely sympathetic. In view of the fact that a sex discrimination Bill is to be introduced, and that it will have much broader terms than the present Race Relations Act, when a Bill amending that Act is introduced will it include the broader terms of the sex discrimination Bill?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, it is impossible to answer a question in that degree of detail before the consultations, which I indicated are about to take place, have, in fact, taken place.

DISQUALIFIED DRIVERS: INSURANCE COVER
3.4 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before the Question is answered, may I offer my apologies for having left out the words "and revoked" after "endorsed" in the third line, because that was the intention of the Question.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that insurance cover is being offered by an insurance company to enable defendant drivers who have had their licences endorsed after committing offences to recover sufficient funds to enable them to avoid the consequences by providing cars and drivers for them and for paying costs incurred by them; and whether they will take steps to ensure that the penalties become realistically effective.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS BIRK): My Lords, the amendment which my noble friend has made I have already taken into account. There are several insurance schemes which offer benefits in the event of their members being disqualified from driving. Generally they meet the cost of a chauffeur during business hours for up to twelve months and may also pay legal expenses. They do not pay any fines which the courts may impose. Furthermore, these policies do not and cannot alter the fact that a disqualified motorist must not drive himself. They are merely one of several ways in which he can arrange personal transport.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness state how on earth a penalty will be of any use, particularly for a person who has money, if the courts themselves have no right of detention—in very serious cases, in some instances—because of the Road Traffic Act? What on earth is the idea of allowing people to insure themselves against penalties? Will the noble Baroness allow people to insure themselves against imprisonment?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, on the last part of my noble friend's question, he knows as well as I do that that is quite impossible. Disqualification is not designed to prevent a person from travelling around—it is merely to prevent him from driving. Many disqualified drivers have other members of their families who can drive them—or there are many who can afford to hire chauffeurs. What these schemes do is to offer similar arangements for those without these facilities, and short of stopping everybody who is disqualified from driving from using any transport other than public—and how one would enforce that I am afraid I do not know—I cannot see that one can do anything.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the most innocent of us can have an accident (and I have been lucky enough since the 1920s not to have had a driving accident until the 1970s) and most of us insure ourselves against the possibilities of fire or accident that may even sometimes be caused by negligence? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that a Greek philosopher once said:
"Laws are like spiders' webs: the weak are enmeshed but the strong can break through"?
Thirdly, is she aware that while the rich may drive easily, the insurance companies which provide this cover (and I have their rules here) state that if there is a revocation or too much drink is involved they will not pay for a chauffeur-driven car for that person?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's three supplementary questions, the answers are yes, yes, yes.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we on this side of the House are very pleased with the Answer she has given: to prevent from driving a driver who is not fit to drive is the object of this exercise. At the same time may I congratulate the noble Baroness on, I believe, answering her first Question on the transport problem.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in spite of the reference to the Greek philosopher and the words expressed by the noble Lord opposite, is it not absurd that a court—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I wonder whether that is really in the form of a question? The object of Question Time is to elucidate information from the Government, and, although it is a question, to use the phrase "is it not absurd" is not exactly the form in which to put a Parliamentary question.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government could not possibly do anything absurd, nevertheless will the noble Baroness consider the question of whether detention should not be one of the penalties that may be imposed in respect, I do not say of all offences, but those offences which are serious? That is the purpose of this Question.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I rather suspected the purpose of my noble friend's Question, but as the purpose goes beyond the scope of the Question I do not feel that I can answer it on this occasion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this may be a precedent for a comprehensive extension to the danger area of membership in local government?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while many of us on this side of the House welcomed her Answer it would be grossly unfair to punish a man twice for the same offence? A commercial traveller or a doctor who are dependent upon a car would be deprived of their livelihood.

EEC: RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS
3.18 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what problems are still outstanding in the renegotiation of the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community; by what date it is expected that the renegotiations will be completed; how soon after this it is proposed to make a Statement in Parliament; and if at
584
the same time it is intended to issue a factual White Paper.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the report on renegotiation which the noble and learned Lord who occupies the Woolsack gave the House on November 5 during his speech in the debate on the Address. It is the Government's aim to complete renegotiation by next spring. Statements will doubtless be made at intervals on the progress of renegotiation. No final decision has yet been taken regarding the issue of a White Paper on the results of renegotiation, but full information will of course be given to the House at the appropriate time.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how very welcome was the Lord Chancellor's statement that it was hoped to complete the renegotiation by the spring, particularly since spring starts officially on or around March 21? Are the Government fully aware of the great importance of providing the public with the maximum information as soon as possible so that a nationwide debate can take place well before the poll?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said and I hope that spring will be fairly early next year.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a previous Labour Government stipulated five conditions which would justify our entering the Common Market? Have those five conditions been abandoned, and if not will the noble Lord be kind enough to re-state them now?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope to be kind at all times to my noble friend. I am not sure whether I can recall the five conditions which he mentions, but I can assure him that they have not been abandoned; indeed, considerable progress has been made on each one of them. One such condition was, of course, renegotiation of the nature of CAP.
Another condition was to create a better arrangement in regard to the Commonwealth and developing nations within the

585
Commonwealth. A further condition was to safeguard the essential sovereignty of this country, and the fourth one was in regard to regional and industrial policy, although not to the Regional Development Fund. If I have left out a fifth condition, I hope my noble friend will allow me to communicate with him personally.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if these are some of the five conditions stipulated at the time—although my noble friend said he could not recall them, and it is, therefore, somewhat difficult to understand why he was able to talk about something he could not recall—can my noble friend say whether any of those conditions have been the subject of renegotiation in recent times? Is it not the case that the only subjects which have been renegotiated are those of beef and sugar?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, both those points have been the subject of renegotiation, and considerable progress has been made. A good deal needs to be done, especially on beef. With this I would agree. I would add that the budgetary position and our contributory position in regard to the finance of the Common Market is the fifth condition.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I further press the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on the timetable? Is it intended by the Government that the Parliamentary procedure leading to a referendum, if there is one, should be completed by the Summer Recess or later? October has been referred to. That seems a rather unrealistic date in comparison with the Summer Recess.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have said that within 12 months from the General Election of last month—we shall have completed renegotiation hopefully by the early spring—we shall have consulted the people, provided the fullest possible information both to Parliament and the people, and before next October, or by next October, have conducted the consultation which will decide whether or not we stay in.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if I may be permitted a further question, could my noble friend say whether the
586
matter of having a referendum of the British public is one that has been determined by Brussels? Is there not something in the Treaty of Accession which makes it necessary for one of the members of the Nine to consult Brussels before taking what might be regarded as a fundamental decision?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware of anything in either Treaty to inhibit this country from deciding for itself how it consults its own people on this matter.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he anticipates any development with regard to the Regional Fund? As he knows, there is a country with which he and I are not unacquainted which may be in a more profitable position if the Regional Fund were developed.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for implicitly recognising the distinction between regional industrial policy and the Regional Fund. The Fund does not form part of the renegotiation for obvious procedural and technical reasons. We are willing to take part in further talks in the Community. A good deal of study has been made of this matter. Therefore, I cannot say when information about any decision as to the former structure of this Fund will be available to either House.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on the local community for the benefit of which an educational foundation was endowed an option to purchase or otherwise acquire land or property disposed of by the governing body of that foundation. My Lords, for the fourth time I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move. That the Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this appointment, which was first made last Session, carries with it the Chairmanship of the Select Committee on European Communities. As we shall be debating the Special Report of the Committee later this afternoon, I do not propose to say any more than a few words. I have no doubt that noble Lords will be expressing their appreciation to my noble friend Lord Diamond for the work he has undertaken in establishing the Committee, and for getting so much support from the membership of the Committee as a whole. I pay my own tribute to him. If we regret that my noble friend Lord Diamond should now become Chairman of a Royal Commission and therefore can no longer be of service, this is tempered, I hope, by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, is willing to be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees. I would urge the House to agree with this Motion.
My Lords, I will not disguise from the House that about half an hour ago I was receiving stern strictures from my noble friend Lady Summerskill about the appointment of women Peers to a certain Committee. My noble friend will appreciate that this Motion is not a result of those strictures, but I hope she will feel that the Motion I am moving this afternoon at least provides for me some saving grace in her estimation. The appointment which I move is not on the basis that it is right and proper that a woman should become Deputy Chairman of Committees; it is because I and those whom I have consulted felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, was the right person to undertake these tasks. She has the character, the drive and enthusiasm to make this important Committee work. I hope the House will agree with the Motion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
Moved, That the Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not like it to go unsaid from this side that we, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the splendid job he did. It is sad that as he has now gone to redistribute any of the wealth we may have left after next Tuesday, it is necessary to redistribute his job to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. Alas! she will be lost from those on the Front Bench, but I think her appointment will be a gain to the whole House.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the appointment. We on these Benches are extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has gone, but he has taken on a job that we know he will do well. We are very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has become the new Deputy Chairman of Committees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Lord Royle, the Earl of Shannon, the Lord Henley, the Lord Derwent, the Lord Alport, the Viscount Hood, the Viscount Goschen, the Lord Maybray-King, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Lord Segal, the Lord Popplewell, the Earl Cathcart and the Lord Amherst of Hackney be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) "Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

(2) "Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures: with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or
590
after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(iv) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

E. Cork and Orrery,

L. Darling of Hillsborough,

L. Fletcher,

L. Molson,

L. Peddie,

L. Stamp.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or

591
Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 4 on Monday next at half 4 o'clock.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other question to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

E. Dudley,

E. Lauderdale,

E. Selkirk,

L. Bethell,

L. Diplock,

L. Drumalbyn,

592

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fulton,

L. Hale,

L. Hill of Luton,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Lloyd of Kilgerran,

L. Mais,

B. Phillips,

L. Rhodes,

B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie (Chairman).

L. Walston,

B. White.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records; and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No. 49, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of

593
the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

L. Clwyd,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Foot,

L. Guest,

L. Hacking,

L. Janner,

L. Lyell,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Meston,

L. Milner of Leeds,

L. Nathan,

L. Simon of Glaisdale.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message Ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
3.29 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND rose to move, That this House takes note of the Special Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974). The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be churlish of me to start without first saying a word or two in appreciation of the much undeserved but acceptable comments made by various Members of your Lordships' House. When in January, 1973, we joined the European Community, we became partners in a law-making body of an unusual kind, partners in a body which made laws which were binding, or which could become binding, on the citizens of all member countries in which our Government would participate through the relevant Minister taking part in the Council of Ministers' decisions, but in which our Parliament would not participate. It was therefore obvious that some machinery had to be devised so that the traditional function of Parliament in protecting the rights of the citizens of this country could be carried out.
For that purpose—as your Lordships well recollect; this is very familiar ground—the Maybray-King Committee was set
594
up, and its recommendation was accepted by your Lordships' House that a Select Committee should be formed which would have the responsibility and duty of examining and considering all proposals emanating from Brussels, proposals made by the Commission of the Community to the Council of Ministers and reporting to this House those which were of importance in content and policy and therefore worthy of consideration by your Lordships. It is that Committee's first Report which we are now considering.
It is a Committee which had been functioning for three months by the time this Report was produced—not by the time it was printed, because, as your Lordships are aware, there is a certain interregnum between preparing matter for printing and circulating the printed document. I hope that that will be much reduced and almost extinguished in the months ahead, but that is something to remember with regard to all Reports which have been made and which have not yet reached your Lordships for the simple reason that they have not been printed. What we are considering is the first three months' work of this Committee, of which I was greatly privileged to be Chairman.
I should like to start by drawing your Lordships' attention to what has been done and the method we have adopted to do it. In all these matters almost without exception, we have followed the wise advice of the Maybray-King Committee. First, to get an idea of the scope of the work, may I remind your Lordships that owing to the sixteen months' delay which occurred between our joining the Community and the Committee being set up there developed a considerable backlog which, added to the new proposals being made during the course of the three months under discussion, made a total of some 400 proposals to be considered. That represents a challenge. Of course, the larger part of those proposals would be likely to be of a kind which, if they had been the subject of domestic legislation, would not be likely to arouse great interest among your Lordships and would not indeed take up much, if any, of the time of your Lordships' House. So it was clearly necessary to devise some method of separating out those which were in that category, and those which would, or might, need to be brought to

595
the attention of your Lordships' House and be the subject of debate if necessary.
Accordingly, a process of sifting was adopted and we followed the suggestion made in the Maybray-King Committee. It fell mainly to the Chairman of the European Committee to select or sift those proposals which fell into category A—namely, not worth bothering your Lordships with; and those which fell into category B—namely, those which after they had been throughly examined and considered and evidence taken and conclusions drawn, should be reported fully to your Lordships' House. Accordingly, as paragraph 7 of the Report explains, this sifting process was done.
But after sifting there nevertheless remained, from the workload of about 400 proposals, 130 proposals which needed, or seemed to need, to be examined and considered. That, again, is a large number and it is of a large variety. When I say "variety", I mean a variety of topics which would have engaged the interest and responsibility of many different Government Departments. So one had to devise a further system not only of selection or sifting, but a system whereby all the remaining category B items could be examined, as far as possible in a reasonably short time, and evidence taken and so on. Therefore, five sub-committees were appointed, broadly on the basis of suitable groupings of Government Departments, and manned in part by the membership of the main Committee; but as, clearly, that membership was not sufficient to go round, having regard to the fact that it would be impossible to expect every Lord to be able to attend on every occasion, manned to some very valuable extent by co-option. Therefore, again as foreseen by the Maybray-King Report this is the way in which the Committee set to work; first, by sifting; and, secondly, by having a number of sub-committees examining at the same time a series of proposals with a view to reporting on them to your Lordships' House.
May I now come straight away to the results that have been achieved by the Committee—and, again, I am speaking of the period of the first three months of the Committee, ending broadly with the start of the Recess. It is, therefore, necessary for me to say—and to thank
596
all members of the Committee accordingly—that, of course, the work of the Committee and of the sub-committees continued during the Recess, though not with the same regularity as during the time the House was sitting. The result has been that the sift which was nearly completed at the end of the period in the Report has now been completed, and there remain in the process of examination by the sub-committees a number of proposals, nearly all of which are not urgent. It will be appreciated that a number of proposals are made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers which do not stand a hope of early consideration or early adoption. They are not intended for that; they are intended for careful long-term consideration. Therefore, all of those have been included in the figures in the Report which is before your Lordships.
I am making the simple point that inasmuch as we had during the first three months caught up with the sixteen months' backlog, completed the sifting process, completed examination of all the proposals deserving examination, with the exception of those which were not of an urgent nature, it would be fair to conclude that the Committee had in that period got on top of its work. I am happy to say that that is the case, and that there is now a Committee functioning which not only has got on top of its backlog and knows its work, but which is able to cope with the current volume of work coming before it and likely to come before it. Therefore, the machinery envisaged by the Maybray-King Committee, if I may say so—I am in a little difficulty here because I was not entirely absent from the deliberations of that Committee myself—was wisely thought out. I cannot say that the Committee was wise, but I can certainly say that the Chairman was extremely wise. Therefore, one is happy that the Report can describe that result.
My Lords, that result was not obtained—I am going to be fairly practical and factual about this—without a great deal of work by the members of the Committee and the co-opted members of the sub-committees. The volume of paper descending on members of the Committee was enormous. We nearly had to get to the stage of providing one lady with

597
masculine assistance in order to carry the paper; it was physically of such proportions. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to express my appreciation to the members, co-opted members, and chairmen of the subcommittees, because it is the subcommittees which did the examination and calling of witnesses and the drawing of reports. The burden fell on the chairmen of the sub-committees, and I express my great personal appreciation to them, to the staff who worked for us so well, and to the legal adviser, Sir Charles Sopwith, whose services we were fortunate enough to be able to secure.
I repeat that the work was not done without that effort or without a measure of co-operation from all concerned which I have never experienced in any similar activity before. It was amazing. In the first place, we had complete co-operation from the other House, complete exchange of papers, and unique provisions made through the Table, under which the usual problem of having to get a special message before a Member of the other House could give evidence here, or vice versa, was overcome for all time. We do not need to do any more of that business. If a Member wishes to give evidence from the other House he simply comes along, be it Minister or Back-Bencher, and gives evidence, and vice versa.
I myself accompanied the Chairman of the comparable Committee of the House of Commons when we went to Brussels. We had complete co-operation from Government Departments. Of course there were difficulties in the early stages of getting all the material ready and so on, but that is inevitable. I am never daunted by growing pains when you have a new organisation to set up and there are difficulties to overcome. They were simply growing pains and they have been overcome, and I foresee no difficulties in the future. The Government Departments are to be congratulated on the work they did and on the assistance they gave to our Committee. So, indeed, are Government Ministers on their willingness to come and give evidence, and for the undertakings which have been given from both Front Benches in both Houses as regards the unwillingness of the Government, in normal circumstances, to proceed with reaching decisions in Brussels in advance of consideration by the Houses
598
of Parliament of those matters upon which the respective Committees have reported as being worthy of consideration and debate. It is for that effort and that co-operation that I express my great appreciation.
I now come to the real question: how-far have we succeeded in our purpose, our purpose being to protect the rights of the citizen, and to protect the rights of Parliament in relation to legislation emanating from another place—yet a third place? I must first make the obvious point that everything that our Committee has done—and the facilities provided—has been in addition to the rights which Members of your Lordships' House already have. Not one single right has been withdrawn; that is to say, any noble Lord, irrespective of the view of the Committee, or any Member of the Committee, can raise Questions, Starred and Unstarred Questions, seek to raise a matter on short debates, and have a meeting with a Minister. Ministers are always ready to meet Members of your Lordships' House, as I well know. All these methods of airing views can continue. Nothing has been withdrawn whatsoever, and all the facilities which we are providing are additional to that.
Your Lordships are of course very familiar with the rule whereby any of your Lordships can not only attend but participate in the debate in any Select Committee; the only limitation is not being able to vote. I cannot recollect a single occasion when any of the Committees voted, so that is not a great limitation. There is that facility, which again continues and has not been withdrawn.
Some of your Lordships may feel a little anxiety—I certainly did—as to whether the selection, the sifting process, would mean that certain proposals were taken away from the purview of noble Lords for all time. That is not the case either. It did not matter whether a Committee, or I as its then Chairman, thought that a certain category was appropriate for a certain proposal. That did not determine what any of your Lordships might think about it. It helped in getting our work done, but nothing more than that. I am also relieved to note the statistics that of every ten proposals which I, as Chairman,

599
thought ought to be categorised as B—worth consideration—the sub-committees on closer examination decided that two were not worth that. Some 20 per cent. were recategorised as A; namely, not worth further consideration by the subcommittee or by the House. So one is very relieved that one has erred on the right side.
Have we succeeded in protecting the public in the sense of obtaining the views of the public? Yes, my Lords, I think we have gone a long way, considering the printing difficulties which hampered us greatly in this respect. Evidence has been taken from the public and from organisations representing the public. Whenever any such organisation has written in and asked, "Are you aware that we have certain interests? Will you bear this in mind?", we have replied, "Yes. Of course, we will be very happy to bear this in mind." The hearings have been held in public. The evidence either has been, or will be, printed. Therefore, I think it is right to say that every step has been taken to make our activities known, and to give opportunities for representation of the views of the public. Of course the debates which are about to take place are the supreme tests, and that is the way that public opinion is aroused.
Then, again, as I have already said, the Government have given these very definite promises indeed about not reaching premature decisions. By "premature", I mean in advance of a decision being taken by this House on a Report made for debate. Although in the early days it was not possible for them to withhold from reaching decisions because the Committee had not been set up and had not reported, and therefore opportunities for debate had not even been sought, one understands the context in which that happened, and that was again a part of the growing pains which inevitably one suffers when catching up to date.
The debates are the heart of the matter, and these are starting to take place in your Lordships' House to-day. As your Lordships will see from the figures, of the 34 Reports, 22 have been made, in the opinion of the Committee, for information only, and 12 have been, in the
600
opinion of the Committee, worthy of debate. That would mean about three or four per month—on the basis of the three months' work—and that would mean about one day's debate a month. I do not think that one day's debate a month on legislation emanating from Brussels represents an unmanageable figure. Therefore, I am very relieved that we can really say that the Committee is now functioning, the Reports are before your Lordships' House, and there is no reason to doubt that it can continue to cope with the volume of work coming in, and to discharge the heavy responsibilities which have been put upon it.
I should like to say a few more words before I sit down. First of all, your Lordships will have observed that I have made no reference whatsoever to pro-Market or anti-Market sentiments, for the simple reason that any such words would have been totally irrelevant. The question has not arisen, nor could it arise. Our function has been to try to fill a democratic gap while the European Parliament is not yet able to carry out its full functions there. That has been our responsibility, we being members of the Community; we have not been asked by your Lordships' House to do anything else, and that is what we have found it quite enough to do. So questions of what individual views might be with regard to remaining in or seeking to come out of the Market just have not arisen, and I hope they never will, in this Committee.
I want to make just one point which I hope your Lordships will find acceptable. I found that the key to getting through a volume of work of that new kind in rather quick time is due to a fact which is not sufficiently aired in your Lordships' House; namely, that your Lordships' House is a veritable storehouse of wisdom, skills, and talents of a kind unimaginable until one goes to friends and says, "Will you help me on this? Will you come along on that? Will you serve on that?" Many who have established themselves as major statesmen in the world have been most willing to come along and help. As I am retiring from this job, it can do no harm to tell your Lordships the reason why I think we have been able to do the work as well as we have.
It would be wrong of me to finish without wishing every success to my successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. I am sure she will enjoy the work, that her Committee will enjoy her chairmanship and that the House will enjoy the benefit of their joint wisdom. I have known the noble Baroness for some time. In fact I hope I do not embarrass the noble Baroness when I say that I remember very well her maiden speech. Not only do I remember her maiden speech, which, of course, was delivered in another place, but I remember the response by the bluff Clydesider who followed the noble Baroness and made the usual appropriate comments about the wisdom of her speech—which has been well fulfilled—and went on to say that another reason why he welcomed the noble Baroness was (if my memory serves me right) that she was "easy on the eye". I do not remember when that was, but looking at the noble Baroness I am driven to the conclusion that it must have been but yesterday. I wish her every success; I wish this Committee every success in its important task. I feel very privileged to have been concerned in its early days.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him how the sifting process by the other place is going along as compared with ours? In other words, has the other place come to the same kind of ratio as the noble Lord and his excellent Committee of a ratio 22: 12? It might be worth while to know the kind of conclusions which they have come to.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I kept myself informed of the way in which the other place was carrying out its duties, but it would be wrong of me to offer any comment. I believe they came to the conclusion that sifting was not appropriate in their case.
3.53 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, it is with extreme pleasure that I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Diamond and endorse the gracious compliment he has paid this afternoon to his noble successor. I, too, have known the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for a very long time. She has the admiration and the frienship of all the political Parties and all the Cross-Benchers
602
in the House, and we are delighted. Those of us who sat on the Select Committee of 1973 and who recommended the setting up of the Scrutiny Committee—Reports of which we are now considering—are staggered at the progress that this Select Committee has made under the distinguished Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is to join in this debate—he made such significant contributions to our discussions last year—and that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale is to speak. I am delighted that from the old 1973 Committee we still have on this Committee the noble Lords, Lord Fulton, and Lord Dudley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
From the start in 1973 we had the wholehearted support of both Front Benches. That has been constant. It began with the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, who was Leader at the time, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, Leader of the Government Benches, followed by the enthusiastic support of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, Leader of the House to-day, who has been in this from the start and who also served with distinction on the 1973 Committee. I congratulate him on his skill in choosing the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his equal skill in choosing such a wonderful successor.
My Lords, the 1973 Committee emphasised a number of problems. One problem was the need to prevent Parliament from being overburdened with massive documentation. From our studies, and especially from our visits to Parliaments abroad, we thought that the problem could be solved, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said by sifting—by asking the Chairman and an official to go through the documents and put to one side those which were not important. They were called the A group. On the other side were those worthy of consideration by the Committee itself. We imagined from our experience that this B group of important ones would be, perhaps, 5 per cent. of the total number of documents. We were wrong; we underestimated the problem. As the Report has shown, far from it being 5 per cent. which were worthy of serious study by the Committees it turned out to be 30 per cent., and as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has

603
pointed out, 130 long and detailed documents have been of sufficient importance to warrant careful consideration by one of the sub-committees. So first I congratulate them on having achieved a mountain of work.
We then recommended that the task of the Committee could be carried out only if we set up specialist sub-committees. The Committee has done that. Five subcommittees, one under the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, one under the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, one under the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, one under the noble Lord, Lord Champion (who has done a splendid job and I am sorry is not joining the new Committee), and the fifth under the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We have been fortunate to have five Chairmen of such quality, men of all parties and of no party. These Select Committees report to the major Committee, and not the least excellent feature of this first year's work has been the way in which noble Lords have consented to come forward to be co-opted because of specialist knowledge. They have worked enthusiastically and given service to the five sub-committees. The House is indeed indebted to some 21 noble Lords who have accepted co-option on to one or other of the five committees. That number will grow as the years go on.
The Report we are considering shows that a splendid start has already been made. Each sub-committee has met once a week on average, has met, as the Chairman proudly said, during the Recess, and has taken evidence from expert witnesses, and prepared Reports. There have been 42 meetings of subcommittees apart from the main Committee meetings and, as we foresaw, the Reports take certain varied classic shapes. A Report will indicate that a certain document coming from the Commission is important, so important that it needs a debate; may be so important that it needs debate urgently—and I shall refer to urgency a little later on. Another group of documents will be regarded by the Committee as important enough for the House to be informed of their importance because they contain very useful information, although not warranting a special debate. Then, some of the documents which the Chairman himself has
604
regarded as important enough to go to to the Committee have been, on reflection, wiped out and the number of documents to come to the House has been thus reduced.
Let me illustrate the kind of Report. Here is one on Prepackaging:
"The Committee consider the proposal is one which raises important matters of policy to which the attention of the House should be drawn, but they are satisfied that in all the circumstances the adoption of an average system would be of economic benefit to the United Kingdom and there can be no doubt that failure to do so would be prejudicial to British trade in the Community."
Important, but not important enough, for the Committee to wish to oppose.
Then, a second one, on Radio Interference:
"The Committee consider that the proposal raises matters of policy and submit this Report to the House for information."
And for information only. A third one—probably the most important in some ways as the years go on—this time on the Regional Development Fund:
"The Committee consider that the proposals raise important questions of policy and principle, to which the special attention of the House should be drawn, but that no useful purpose would be served at present by a major Report to the House, so long as the precise nature of the proposals which will emerge from renegotiation are at large. They intend to consider the matter further when information is forthcoming on the character of the amended proposals for a Regional Development Fund, and believe that at that stage it might be thought appropriate to have a full debate in the House."
These are different kinds of recommendations from the Committee. It is significant that 12 subjects, in 12 documents, have been regarded by the Committee as sufficiently important for it to demand a debate. If one looks at the Report one will sometimes see under tabulated reports of the sub-committee in the last column, "debate", This indicates that that topic is one of the 12. I am worried about the time factor in two ways, whether the House can provide opportunities for 12 debates. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has pointed out, if we have perhaps three mini debates in a day we might possibly be able to do the job. But 12 subjects for debate in only three months work would suggest that there might be 30 in a Session, and I am therefore still anxious.

605
My Lords, the main purposes of the Diamond Committee are first to inform the House—indeed, to inform the general public—about what is happening in this European Parliament to which we belong. We can be critical; we must be critical. I have always thought at the same time that we can be positively critical in expressing support for, and giving information about subjects which we support, both to the House and to the country. But the most important feature of the Diamond Committee is to press for debates. In the 1973 Select Committee we underlined the urgency of the matter which we were discussing, the need to act at an early stage. I think everybody now agrees that we should have set up a Scrutiny Committee two years ago, even before we went into Europe.
I am glad that the Report emphasises the need, whenever possible, to scrutinise proposals before they are finalised—at the earliest possible stage before the Commission or the Council, or both, have made up their minds. I quote:
"To alert the House at an early stage to controversial proposals, thus enabling Parliament to debate controversial Commission proposals at a formative stage."
It would have been a good thing if we could have debated the butter mountain before it reached the height it did two years ago. Now, thanks to the Diamond Committee and its Report, we will have an informed debate on sugar. That could perhaps have occurred earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has explained that the problem of printing, of the General Election and so on has interfered with the timing of a possible debate on sugar. The Commission sent its first Report to the Council in July. Lord Diamond's Committee considered it, I think, on August 20—certainly in mid-August—and we might have been able to take part in the sugar debate earlier than this afternoon had we been swifter. I say to the Government that we must find means of speeding up the printing of a Report, especially the Report of a Select Committee if it is urgent; and of providing a debate, if the Select Committee says that it is a debate which ought to take place urgently.
I am delighted that the parallel Committee in the other place, under Sir John Foster, carries on in the same good relations with the new Committee; that they share documentation. I think it is constitutionally
606
right that our Committee has said that Budget and fiscal matters are for the Commons Select Committee and not for ours. The Committee had to face an enormous backlog. Documentation built up all of last year; all the time we were meeting, trying to create a machine, we were aware of the fact that the backlog was accumulating constantly. The Committee has tackled this with determination. I note with pleasure the quiet confidence it expresses on page xvii:
"Considering the magnitude of the tasks imposed by the terms of reference the difficulties encountered to date appear far from insuperable."
There is a note of supreme confidence in that remark. I believe that is so because in the critical early days the Committee had an exceedingly able Chairman and exceedingly able chairmen of sub-committees, with industrious and able backing from the rank-and-file members of the committees and those who consented to be co-opted.
My last word is that I hope the Government will accept the advice of the Diamond Committee and, when the appropriate time comes, appoint the Committee, not for a Session but for a duration of Parliament. The work is continuous and ought to be able to go on independently of the break at the end of a Session. I commend the Report to your Lordships. With it, I offer the Select Committee my sincere and hearty congratulations. I believe it has made a great start under a fine Chairman. I believe it will continue to make excellent progress under that Chairman's splendid successor.
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I shall intervene but briefly on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but I congratulate him on his Special Report. Also, I have in retrospect to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for his earlier Report, and also commend the contribution which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor made to that Report as well. I am glad to see that he is to speak to us this afternoon.
I will confine my remarks mainly to paragraphs 16 to 18 of that Report regarding the Committee's relations with the United Kingdom delegation to the

607
European Parliament, and also to that very significant last paragraph, paragraph 24. Before doing so I wish to take the opportunity of saying how strongly I endorse the remarks of my noble Leader Lord Carrington and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie for the remarks which they made in the debate on the Address last Tuesday, concerning the EEC. I support also—if I may stick my neck out a little—what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about the importance of holding more frequent meetings of Heads of States, or Governments, ultimately meeting perhaps monthly and confidentially in, as he said, "British Cabinet style". I agree with him that only collective discussion at the top level over the years will establish the understanding and confidence which will lead to the sort of Europe from which we can benefit. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say this in his most interesting maiden speech.
To get to my main points, my Lords, I should like to add how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for having decided to invite noble Lords who are members of the European Parliament to attend meetings of the Select Committee and its sub-committees as often as they are able to do so, in order to take advantage of their dual mandate. But, as Lord Diamond says, the strain imposed by this dual mandate means that we are only occasionally able to attend meetings of his committees, although we receive all the relevant papers. The fact that membership of the European Parliament can now take up to some 200 days of our working year means that for some of us it has become virtually a whole-time job—and, indeed, an unpaid job, since the increase in the cost of living and the rise in our expenses now exceeds the travelling and subsistence allowances provided by the European Parliament itself. In this connection, I hope that in parenthesis I might be allowed to say that we are emphatically not in a favourable position vis-à-vis our colleagues from the first Chambers in the Parliaments of the other eight countries. Senators in other countries of the Nine receive up to an equivalent of £10,000 per annum to attend either the European Parliament or their national Parliaments less frequently, I
608
think, than do most of your Lordships who are members of the EEC Assembly.
However, to go back to my main point, what I feel about the new Committee in your Lordships' House, which will be presided over by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, is this. I hope that, if it is at all possible, before that Committee decides which subjects, instruments or legislation it considers merit discussion on the Floor of your Lordships' House, members of the European Parliament might be consulted and might be specifically informed by, perhaps, the secretary of the Committee that these proposals are likely to be put forward as Motions in your Lordships' House. Then, members of the European Parliament can perhaps be asked to give their views on the matter, if they have any. Even if we, as members of the European Parliament, are unable to attend a given Committee meeting here in this building when such matters are discussed, I do not think it would delay proceedings if a message was sent to us, by telex if necessary, wherever the Peer or, indeed, the Member of the other place who happens to specialise in that question may be.
Sometimes, if the meeting of your Lordships' Committee seemed more important than the debate we were attending on the same day in Brussels, in Strasbourg, in Luxembourg or elsewhere, we might well return to attend the meeting of the Committee here in Westminster. As an example, I was asked this morning whether I would come to the first meeting of the new Committee, presided over by the noble Baroness, on Tuesday. Unfortunately, it so happens that this is perhaps the most important week in the year of a European Parliamentarian, since we shall be involved in the most vital stage of our debate on the overall budget of the Communities, and we must, if possible, all try to be there and take part in our speciality, and to vote later in the week. I need hardly add that the work of Peers in the European Parliament tends to double when Members of the House of Commons are recalled on a three-line Whip or during Election campaigns, of which, I regret to say, we have had two this year. This underlines the importance, in my view, of ultimate direct elections to the European Parliament, perhaps on the basis of the proposals made

609
by the Dutch member, Dr. Patijn, which many of your Lordships may have read, but which I strongly commend to your Lordships and which I think would be a very suitable subject for debate in your Lordships' House. But both on practical and on democratic grounds, I think we should have direct elections before the year 1980—preferably, perhaps, in 1978.
At present, members of the European Parliament from the larger countries are attempting to represent the interests of some 1½ million of their electorate, and indeed, I suppose, the interests of their country as a whole. This, as your Lordships can imagine, is, if not a mammoth at least a somewhat daunting task for some 20 Members from both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, the sooner Labour delegates join us to make up our full quota of 36 members, the better. I feel, however, that if Peers or even Members of another place were sent a specific message as soon as it was known that the Lords or Commons Committees were likely to recommend a debate on a given subject, then we on the Continent could get a message back very quickly, and possibly our views might be of interest to members of the Committees here in Westminster. I think some kind of simple communication procedure of this kind could be devised to meet this point, and I hope that the noble Baroness will bear this in mind.
I recognise, of course, that, in the absence of a Labour delegation, a Labour Government may not be as interested in the views of Conservative, Liberal or independent Members of the House as they would be in the views of members of their own delegation if they had one. If they did have one, those members could help a great deal in renegotiation, as we are trying to do ourselves in the European Conservative Group, in the Liberal Group and by the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, who always obtains so much worthy publicity for all the questions which he asks. I am very glad to see that he should be here this afternoon. But, if there was a Labour delegation—and I hope the noble Led, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will take this point-such a delegation could help him and his Government a great deal in the renegotiation procedures.
I consider, however, that for most of the time Conservative, Liberal and indeed independent members, as well as Members
610
of another place, tend to take a national, British point of view in most specific issues, without forgetting their overall European responsibility and European outlook; and I have found some present Labour Ministers very interested in what a Conservative member had to say. I have even been called by Labour Ministers for my advice on some specific question, and I was very glad to go to see them and tell them my views.
Finally, I was particularly interested to read the last paragraph of the noble Lord's Report, paragraph 24, in which I am very glad to note that he says:
"The Committee recognise that their responsibilities may in time come to be discharged within the Institutions of the European Communities, when the development of the European Parliament and the strengthening of the decision-taking processes of the EEC have made the necessary progress".
It may be of interest to your Lordships to learn that the French do not have scrutiny committees as we do. As a very distinguished French statesman said to me only last week: such Committees may perhaps inhibit European integration by over-emphasising national interests to the detriment of the interests of Europe as a whole and Britain as part of Europe. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that we should at this point in time have these Committees. The Danes and the Irish have similar ones. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, indicates, so long as the procedures of the EEC do not allow for full democratic scrutiny of proposals for legislation, then we need these Committees. I also agree that without them, and without the kind of informed debate such as we are having this afternoon, the Communities may well remain ill-understood in this country. I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I have made my points, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Goronwy-Roberts, have to say in answer to me in their winding-up.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the three speeches which have already been made in this debate leave me with little to add, but I cannot deny myself the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Maybray-King and Lord Diamond, on their outstanding success in devising and carrying forward to this advanced point the machinery which

611
Parliament so badly needed for examining and bringing to notice matters from among the vast mass of documents flowing out from Brussels, which require Parliamentary attention. It must give the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, under whose Chairmanship a number of us sat with much pleasure in 1972, very great satisfaction that his Report has been almost entirely accepted and the procedure recommended in it is now shown to be in working order. I think the only glaring error that we made on that Committee was to estimate that only 5 per cent. of the documents would need to be considered for bringing to the special attention of Parliament. The Diamond Committee finds that it is nearer 30 per cent. than 5 per cent. and that, I think, increases the warmth of the tribute we should pay to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his Committee for having carried forward the scrutiny in such a rapid way.
My Lords, I do not think that it has been mentioned—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not mind my mentioning it—that he was in fact the only member of the Maybray-King Committee who on one occasion tried to play truant. If your Lordships care to look up the Minutes of the Maybray-King Committee, it will be found that there was one Division during its many meetings, and that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on that occasion moved the omission of the paragraph which recommended that the work in question should be done by a Select Committee. The voting was one for the Amendment and nine against. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not press—indeed he was not in a position to press—his point further, but whether he has since been converted or has bowed to the weight of numbers, I do not know. However, I give him all the more credit for having thrown himself into the work of the new Committee and having so loyally and successfully sought to make the new machinery effective.
My Lords, I think that all of us on the Maybray-King Committee, and probably many of your Lordships who were not on that Committee, felt acutely unhappy that so many months after Britain had entered the Community we still had no machinery for Parliamentary
612
examination of what was going on. It was a very grave defect. It was not the fault of the then Conservative Government that this happened and it is no good crying over spilt milk, but we were, I think, in considerable Parliamentary danger during that period when proposals which might not commend themselves to either or both Houses of Parliament were going forward without effective means of our challenging them or seeking to modify them.
As I understand it, when the Diamond Committee took over, it was faced with a backlog of some 271 documents and in the next three months—May, June and July of this year—there was a net increase of 132 more documents which required its attention, making some 400 altogether. The fact that the Committee brought that figure down from 400 to 119 by the end of July means that a tremendous amount of hard work had to be done, and I am sure that the major part of it fell on the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, though he will say, no doubt, that he would not have been able to do the work but for the constant helpfulness which he received from the Officers of the House and from all others who were concerned to get the machinery to work.
I am quite sure that all of us would wish to join in the tributes which have been paid this afternoon, not only to the noble Lord but to the members of his Committee and most particularly to the chairmen of the sub-committees, some of whom must have found themselves with an unexpectedly heavy load of work from which they nevertheless did not shrink. Lastly, we should pay tribute to the co-opted members who voluntarily took these burdens upon their shoulders.
I should like to ask one or two questions. The Maybray-King Committee, in the course of its Report, drew attention to the possibility that the urgency in certain cases might be such that a report of a sub-committee ought to be able to be speeded straight to the House without being considered, as would normally happen, by the main Committee. I should be interested to know from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, whether this has ever happened in practice during these first few months. I do not think any of us would say that an urgent report from a sub-committee ought to be held back

613
from Parliament because the main Committee had not time to consider it; but I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his colleagues will have given thought to this, even if the problem has not as yet arisen in an acute form.
My Lords, my other question is a more important one. I gather, from something said in the Report of the Diamond Committee, that the Committee has also been troubled by it. How is the normal Member of your Lordships' House to discover in advance that a sub-committee of the main Committee is to meet to discuss some document bearing on a subject in which he is particularly interested? To take an example—and it is not such an imaginary one as your Lordships might think—there might be a noble Lord who was particularly knowledgeable about shrimps. Strangely enough, shrimps are a matter which has given the Commission in Brussels some concern, and I understand that the operative law in Britain has already been modified by a regulation which was never examined by Parliament because it went through before the Diamond Committee was set up. This hypothetical Peer might be very anxious to exercise his right under the Standing Order to attend the meeting of a sub-committee when a document relating to shrimps was being examined, but he would be hard put to it to deduce, from a notice on the Order Paper that there was to be a meeting on Wednesday of the Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Food, Energy and Transport, that the main item on the menu for that meeting was to be a matter close to his heart. There may be some grapevine by which it is possible to convey to noble Lords what the agenda is likely to consist of when a sub-committee meeting is announced, but if this problem has not yet been solved, I urge that thought should be given to it.
We can see already from the willingness of noble Lords to be co-opted to sub-committees that there are those here in your Lordships' House who are ready to take on additional burdens, and I feel quite sure that it would be a gain to the whole strength of the Committee if more and more individual Peers could be drawn in to exercise their right of attendance and speech at sub-committee meetings, but that can only be achieved if some
614
way of informing them of the probable agenda in advance can be devised.
Naturally I join with each noble Lord who has spoken, and indeed with the whole House, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir on her appointment as the new Chairman of this Committee. I wish her the best of luck. She has great gifts, but I suspect she will need the luck as well. However, I am sure she knows that the House of Lords has the greatest confidence in her.
May I throw out one suggestion—not for the present but for the more distant future? It is that from time to time there should be an examination, either by a joint committee of both Houses or otherwise, of the work being done by the Commons' Committee and the Lords' Committee. I suggest this because of my experience on the subject of Statutory Instruments. In 1925 your Lordships' House set up the Special Orders Committee to keep Statutory Instruments under review, and 19 years later, in 1944, there was set up in another place a parallel Committee on Statutory Instruments. When I had the honour of being appointed Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the 1971–72 Session, nothing struck me more sharply than the discovery that, although for 27 years the two Houses had had these parallel Committees, it had never been anybody's business to make a comparison of their operation and to see whether there were overlaps or gaps, or whether the work could be done more efficiently and more economically.
Certainly, it is not an exact comparison, but I should like it to be borne in mind that after (say) five years of the operation of these two Committees which Parliament now has on European Instruments, there should be, by some machinery or other, an examination of how the two Committees have worked, so that we can see whether there are gaps or over-lappings or whether either of the two Committees could be enabled to work more effectively. I am not proposing that this should happen for a number of years, because, quite clearly, each Committee has to settle down and get on with its very important work. It is a review which should be made not of the theory but of the practice of the two Committees, when that time comes.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to add expressions of my gratitude to those which have already been made on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to extend congratulations to his successor. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, we have in the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a reformed character, who accepted the desirability of the Select Committee as against the Standing Committee, and who then threw himself into its work. I should like especially to confirm, indeed to stress, something which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said earlier; namely, that there was absolutely no expression of any pro-or anti-Common Market sentiments in our proceedings. I have perhaps acquired the reputation of being a sceptic—indeed, such I still am—but I hope that my scepticism will be constructive in a glance into the future, in the light of our Committee's terms of reference.
The Select Committee owes to Parliament an energentic exercise of its power to send for persons, papers and records that are relevant to its wide terms of reference—significantly wider than those of another place, which are limited to secondary legislation and published documents. We are set up to consider "proposals", not decisions, "whether they are in draft or otherwise", and to obtain "all" necessary information. In effect, our job is vigilantly and resourcefully to search out any important questions of policy or principle.
After the experience of only three months' work labouring against a sixteen months' backlog, I ask myself what lessons should be drawn from those intense three months, drawn for the benefit of the successor body. Nothing in what I have to say should in the slightest degree be thought to imply any sort of criticism, either of our late Chairman or of the staff. The staff have been diligent and sophisticated; they go to endless trouble. And as for our Chairman, I must say it was for me daily an ever more educative process to sit at his feet, wondering at so penetrating a mind and so deft a diplomatist. I greatly regret his levitation to the stratosphere of a Royal Commission. My regret is only matched by my pleasure at our unexampled good fortune in the success
616
ful "hijack" of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir.
Four points may be worth looking at. First, there is the obligation to obtain "all necessary information". From one sub-committee which dealt, under the urbane and sympathetic chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, with transport, fisheries, food and energy, there emerged the urgent report—still unprinted—which was sent to the House on July 18. This concerned the Commission's proposals for an energy policy and it arose almost by chance.
The fact was that it became common gossip in London among the oil companies that a discussion document was in circulation. It was admitted to have been in the Ministries; it was admitted to be available for discussion with the energy industry; but it was not considered in Whitehall to be available to Members of Parliament. Inquiries were made and these were usefully stimulated by a Press report, as a result of which, with the aid of our staff, we managed to identify the consequential proposal R/1472/74. The Committee looked at it, discovered the importance and urgency of it, took evidence and made an urgent report which, one learned on the grapevine privately, was of considerable value to certain Ministers. But we spotted it only thanks to a Press leak and London gossip. I do not believe that we would have spotted it otherwise.
This is no reflection on the sifting procedure, because with such a mountain of paper it was hardly surprising. Yet among the very important evidence which the Maybray-King Committee collected, notably from the German Parliament, it was found that they study Commission papers—and I quote from paragraph 120 of the report— "before they are published"; that means, before they go from the Commission to the Council. The Maybray-King Committee recommended that we should study Community proposals—-and again I quote—
"… while still in the formative stage, starting as early as possible."
That purpose is confirmed in the report which is before your Lordships this afternoon.
The questions arising, to which I should like to draw attention, are these. Do we yet have—and it is not surprising that

617
we may not have after only three months' work—the right machinery for getting the necessary information as early as possible? Have we so far, under the pressure of this backlog and with little time in which to tackle it, been too dependent on Whitehall? Have we been too dependent on Whitehall when we can, if we want, send for persons and papers anyway? Have we the right lines of communications with Brussels? Should we not be willing to have recourse to the appointment of experts, as indeed we are authorised to have recourse under our resolution of appointment?
My second main point is the question of what I call "follow through". The Maybray-King Committee suggested in paragraph 121 of their Report that scrutiny of many of the more far-reaching proposals "should be a continuing process by a sub-committee which has studied the subject in depth". In the last Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, presided with his urbanity and consideration over a sub-committee that had an absurd range of subjects to consider; agriculture, fisheries and food, transport and energy. Ought there not in future to be a separate sub-committee either on energy and transport or just on energy, and should not such a sub-committee have specialised staff to support it? As I say, we are empowered to have this under our terms of appointment.
Thirdly, there is the question of the Council of Ministers. The Maybray-King Committee made the point in paragraph 139 that the Scrutiny Committee should be free to consider whether a Ministerial Statement on Council proceedings ought to have the special attention of the House drawn to it. This was the more important, the Committee thought, inasmuch as Ministerial Statements,
"have not always been entirely satisfactory".
It may well be that our new Chairman will remember particular occasions when that thought floated about the Chamber. More especially did the Maybray-King Committee draw attention to the point in the light of the German experience.
It was made very clear at Question 371 of the Minutes of Evidence when Herr Werner Blischke, an official of the German Parliament, had been asked if he
618
could tell us whether in private session of a Parliamentary Committee the German Minister concerned would tell the Committee exactly what happened in the Council of Ministers. The answer was: "He is expected to do so". That is the German practice. I submit we should not be shy about learning from it. The Government have not yet responded—and this is a point which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be interested to consider—to the suggestion made in the Maybray-King Report, paragraph 20, that it would be "greatly for the convenience of Parliament" if they would state their position on the Luns doctrine, which referred to the controlled leakages that had become the custom from the Council.
The Council of Ministers is now the most important body of the Community. As an institution it is not accountable. It is not—repeat "not" —comparable to a cabinet. Some 150 persons attend it. Its continuing work proceeds through the Committee of Permanent Representatives. In some respects its activities resemble those of a legislature and its legislative decisions bind the citizen without further appeal. The only resemblance it has to a cabinet is that it meets in camera, and yet, as I have suggested, Ministers atttending it give out partial and slanted accounts of what took place.
All in all, Parliament deserves to know much more about what happens in the Council of Ministers; and at the present period of renegotiation surely Parliament needs to know as much as at any time. The Scrutiny Committee of the last Parliament did not manage to get around to any examination of Council proceedings and the Statements made on them by Ministers. Even now, it was the other place which this week, on Monday, was given an outline agenda of Council business for the coming month, and it has had the opportunity to question Mr. Hattersley about it. Surely that underscores the importance of this Committee in the future, bearing in mind the guidance of the Maybray-King Committee, looking at Ministerial Statements and Council proceedings.
Finally, there is the question of the summit meetings. The Maybray-King Committee stressed the value of the then

619
future Select Committee, looking, as it put it,
"… at Community objectives laid down by meetings of Ministers outside the formal structure of Community institutions".
That is in paragraph 120. The first summit occurred in October, 1972, and at it the United Kingdom Government consented to the aim of economic and monetary union—for which the current "shorthand" is EMU. That was never the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny in this House, whether by debate or by the Select Committee. Yet paper after paper, document after document issues from the Commission to the Council carrying a preamble which, after all, corresponds to the Long Title of a Bill, quoting as its context and purpose the advance towards economic and monetary union. It is something to which this House has, to my knowledge, never formally consented. Here, again, was a range of matters which the outgoing Committee could not get around to due to its short life and the immense backlog.
What I have said is not in any sense a criticism of what was done, but rather an endeavour constructively to set some sights for the future. I trust that the new Committee, largely freed of the burden of the backlog and chaired by one whose mind and Parliamentary skill are as fair as her ever welcome appearance, will rise to these new horizons and new opportunities.
4.50 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, at the end of the Special Report that we are debating to-day the Committee that has been until recently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggests that one day it may be possible for the scrutiny of draft legislation flowing from the Community to be vetted and monitored within Community institutions. It is not possible at the moment, and indeed it would be unthinkable so long as there were no Labour representatives at Strasbourg—and I, as all other members there, regret their absence and hope it will soon be remedied. Nor indeed would it be possible to think of it seriously until a European Parliament was elected. But may I reassure the noble Earl who has just sat down that two of the aspects of the nature of the Community to which he himself referred in the closing section of his
620
speech are aspects that the European Parliament—not yet democratic, not yet directly elected, still without Labour Members from Britain—is itself concerned about.
One of these aspects is the secret legislative activity, the unaccountable legislative activity of the Council of Ministers. Many members of the European Parliament continue to press for the Council to meet in the open when acting in a legislative capacity. The other point the noble Earl mentioned was the super-imposition of the summit meeting above all the institutions of the Community in such a way that what the "summits" decide is not accountable through the normal institutions of the Community. The noble Earl was complaining that we had not in this House debated the communiqué of the summit conference of Heads of State and Government in 1972. The European Parliament is similarly concerned that it has not enough lien on the Council of Ministers, and we are very much hoping that after the next summit conference we shall be able to act in parallel, as the noble Earl himself was suggesting, by obtaining a direct explanation from the Council of Ministers of what it is that they have decided in the names of all the people of the member States.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and also for pursuing this point. Would he agree that there might be some merit in working towards the objective that when the Council behaves as a legislative body there should be full and verbatim accounts of what it does?
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not wish to stray too far from the subject in question, but I am revealing no secrets when I say that tape recordings are made of Council proceedings and these are kept by officials of the Council; they are at the disposal of the individual Member Governments, and some Member Governments release them. To return to the subject directly under discussion, I have been unable to participate fully in the work of the Committee whose Report we are discussing to-day because, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, explained fully and convincingly, a great burden of work falls on Members of the European Parliament.

621
However, even if I had not been absent so often from this country, I wonder whether I should have been able to exercise my statutory right under the Standing Order to attend and participate in the work of the various sub-committees. I was very interested in, and would endorse wholeheartedly, what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had to say on this subject. May I make a plea to the noble Baroness and to the Clerks that if the Members of this House who are not co-opted members or full members of the committees are still to have the right to attend these committees, some much better system of information should be devised; the agendas of these committee meetings should be published more comprehensively, and a subject likely to come up for discussion at a particular meeting should be advertised, perhaps in the Library, particularly when Government Ministers or other distinguished experts are giving evidence to the committee.
The Committee refer towards the end of their Report to their role in informing the Press and the public and to the nature of the Community legislation. As someone who has learned from working in one of the European Parliament's 12 specialist sub-committees which meet continuously, two or three times a month in Brussels, monitoring draft Community legislation, may I say that these subcommittees of your Lordships' House have a very important role to fill in so far as public information goes. One thing I have learned is that the nature of draft legislation in the Community is very different from the nature of draft legislation here. Many Community proposals are what we would call Green Papers or White Papers or even, very often, Statutory Instruments. Some are small technical measures merely implementing something that has already been carried into law some time before, while others, such as the European Draft Statute on Company Law, kick around for years going through endless modifications. There is an exaggerated fear encouraged, if not entirely created, by the media in this country (I am not an attacker of the media; I am a supporter of them) in that these draft proposals are presented as if they were British draft legislation. In fact, most Community proposals are much more like discussion papers, White Papers or Green Papers, documents which
622
are often amended, and amended again, delayed and altered out of all recognition by the time they finally pass into law.
So I suggest to the Government and to the noble Baroness in her new role that it would be much to the advantage of the Committee and of the Government to encourage a wider knowledge of the work of the committees, because for those who fear that a whole stream of alien legislation is being imposed unwillingly on this country the true situation could easily be demonstrated by having meetings of the sub-committees in public, by taking evidence in public and giving a platform for people concerned about the nature of draft legislation; and it would be as well for those giving evidence to know that their point of view had been taken into account by Parliament. Also, it could be very useful for the Government when attending the Council of Ministers to be able to say, "We took evidence on this matter in one of our Houses of Parliament and all those who were concerned about it attended and gave full vent to what they were worried about, and Parliament presented a report." The Committee at the moment do excellent work but their work is not sufficiently well known. I am sure there are many people with genuine worries—perhaps unfounded worries—about the nature of Community draft legislation who could easily be satisfied if they had an opportunity of presenting evidence in public to one of these excellent sub-committees of your Lordships' House; and in so doing the Committee would be reinforcing Parliamentary institutions in this country, at the same time, possibly, as helping the work of the Government and the Council of Ministers.
My Lords, I have spoken enough. I should like to congratulate the members of this Committee, the Chairman who is retiring, and his successor, on what they have done in showing the resilience of your Lordships' House in adapting so quickly and so successfully to this new challenge. May I say that there is every opportunity for peaceful and productive co-existence between the European Parliament and this Committee. I hope that this co-existence will be more in evidence in the future than it has been up to now, although problems will inevitably remain. I attach a lot of weight to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, had to say about possible ways of making

623
greater use of the European Parliamentarians' expertise in the work of this sub-committee.
My Lords, may I conclude by saying that while welcoming the work of this Committee and hoping that it will continue in the way that it began, the best way to make Europe democratic and the best way to make the Community fit in more closely with the needs of democracy and Parliamentary traditions is to send Labour Members to Strasbourg.
5.1 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, speaks with great authority on European affairs and has made, if I may say so with respect to him, an outstanding contribution to the work in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels which I have been able to see at first hand. My excuse for intervening in this debate is that I was myself a member of the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament for eighteen months until last August and a Joint Deputy Leader with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I was myself a member of the Political Affairs Committee and of the External Economic Relations Committee.
My Lords, in my opinion the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses have undertaken very successfully, on the whole, an important and essential role. This job is done in all of the national Parliaments with the exception only, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned, of France. Inevitably there has been some duplication between the work of the Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and another place, despite the exceptional powers sensibly given to both Committees to facilitate liaison, which is described in paragraph 17 of the Special Report of which we are taking note. I should like to agree very warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, speaking from very long experience, of the difficulties and duplication that can arise when parallel committees of the two Houses are working on the same subject. It may well be that, in view of the very heavy backlog of work which has piled up so far as the Scrutiny Committee in another place is concerned, and the anxiety expressed about this by the Leader of the House who is considering a new method of
624
scrutiny, in their wisdom Members of another place will give further thought to the possibility of a Joint Committee. However, I am sure it would be impertinent of me to go beyond that.
My Lords, another reason why there was such a big backlog of work has already been referred to in several speeches by noble Lords. This was the 16 months' late start that was made, but that is all water under the bridge—or perhaps I should say water over the bridge—and what matters now is the future. But there is a third reason to which attention has not been drawn and it is something with which we have to live. It is that the European Parliament and its Committees meet for 11 months out of 12, whereas we meet for 8 months out of 12. They sit in September, October and January and there are, therefore, three months when they are churning out draft legislation of all kinds—draft papers. Regulations, Directives and so on—when we ourselves are not sitting. This requires further thought and it leads me to say a word about paragraph 18 which refers to the "dual mandate".
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said something about this in a very modest way. He told us—and it came as no surprise to me—that over the last 12 months he himself has spent something like 200 working days as a Joint Deputy Leader of the European Conservative Group. I myself did not spend quite so many working days abroad in 1973, but I was abroad for 150 days; or, to put it another way, I was abroad on European Parliamentary work for three days out of five, counting Mondays to Fridays as working days. I do not think that the general public has fully understood yet quite what a heavy strain is imposed on Members of your Lordships' House—and an even greater strain on Members of another place. As has been mentioned in this debate, this means that the opportunities for giving evidence to the Select Committee or its sub-committees are few and far between, and may often mean flying home in order to do so and the giving of ample warning.
My Lords, this would not be the right time to go in any detail into the relief of the strains that the "dual mandate" imposes, which undoubtedly result from the introduction of direct elections. However, indirect reference is made in the

625
Special Report to this possibility, and I think that we should note in passing here that the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has already given consideration and, I think, is due to give further consideration at a further meeting to the most excellent draft Report on Direct Elections, the rapporteur of which is Dr. Patijn, the Dutch Socialist Member. I think I am right in saying that this Report may well come before a plenary meeting of the European Parliament next month.
Choosing the ideal interim system for this country to introduce direct elections will be far from easy because we have a pure majority system. Introducing direct elections into a country like Holland, for example, which has pure proportional representation, or into Germany, which has a mixture of the two systems, is comparatively easy. I hope that I shall not be thought immodest if I draw attention to the fact that on Wednesday I shall be taking the chair at a Press Conference to present to the Press the report of an all-Party study group, which was commissioned by the British Council for European Movement, called "Direct Elections to the European Parliament". Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Alan Beith were the two other Members of Parliament who belonged to the study group and we had the advantage of taking most valuable evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Indeed, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to introduce direct elections into this country appears as an Appendix to this Report. I hope that this will contribute to the national debate on this very important subject. Certainly there is no doubt that when the time comes when we are able to introduce direct elections, so long as we bear in mind the immense importance of very close liaison between the Members of the European Parliament and the Members of the British Parliament considerable relief will be provided which is badly needed.
My Lords, may I say a brief word about the last paragraph of the Conclusion of the Special Report. I am thinking of the first sentence in the last paragraph; perhaps I may be allowed to read it:
"The Committee recognise that their responsibilities may in time come to be discharged within the Institutions of the European Communities, when the development of the
626
European Parliament and the strengthening of the decision-taking processes of the EEC have made the necessary progress".
That is perfectly true, but unfortunately progress has been disappointingly slow—far too slow. There have been inexcusable delays and failures on the part of the Council of Ministers to follow through the positive promises which were made at successive Summit meetings. I am glad that the next Summit meeting will study this question again and that we may at last begin to move in the right direction because, as we all know, the European Parliament has no legislative power whatsoever. I hope it is on the verge of getting some real "teeth". But if I may be allowed to point this out, it has two advantages which we do not have in either House of British Parliament. It has the most unusual power of, what I might call, pre-legislative discussion; which, put in another way, is a dialogue with the Commission. This is something which our own Select Committee shares with it, in that they are able to look at draft legislation in its early stages. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said about this point, because if one does not look at legislation in the early stages it is often too late. So the European Parliament and its Committees have this pre-legislative power which is a most valuable one, the importance of which is sometimes under-estimated.
May I say a couple of sentences about the extraordinarily good work done by the overworked staff of the Select Committee? If I may say so with respect to your Lordships, it was absurdly small when the Committee was first set up. But of course it was a matter of trial and error and nobody knew exactly how heavy the work was going to be. I was glad to read that the staff had been very much strengthened and I hope that that will ease the work of the Committee.
Before I conclude, I should like to issue a brief word of warning arising from the system of classification into A and B lists, described in paragraph 6 of the Special Report. Obviously, it came as a surprise to many of your Lordships to find how many of the draft reports, regulations and so on, really merited consideration by your Lordships' House. The estimate in the Maybray-King Report—which I thought was quite

627
brilliant, if I may say so with respect—was that only one in 20 might merit such consideration; whereas it has turned out that very nearly one-third deserve it. Again, this was guesswork on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and those who work with him, but it has meant that the amount of work which falls to this Committee, and which also falls on your Lordships' House, is a great deal heavier than had originally been supposed.
However, with respect, I think we should be careful not to overestimate the need to debate measures proposed by the Community, which have already been through every conceivable check and control before seeing the light of day. They have been considered by the Government Department concerned in Whitehall; they have been through the fine mesh net of our Permanent Representative and his excellent and very large staff; they have possibly been considered by some professional body such as the veterinary surgeons or accountants or farmers; they have very likely been considered by the Economic and Social Committee, which I am sorry to say is not fully up to strength as far as this country is concerned, and they will also, of course, have been considered by the relevant committee of the European Parliament.
It is true to say that almost the most severe criticism one can make—in the light of my experience of the European Committee—is that it is altogether too slow-moving and that many desirable things never seem to happen because so much consultation takes place. The chances of their trying to ram something down the throat of some member country which is unwilling to accept the legislation concerned are very remote indeed. I have not yet seen it happen, particularly since they gave up the idea of harmonisation for its own sake, which I was very pleased indeed about. So it is a slow-moving body which takes the utmost care in consulting everybody concerned over a long period of time. I think that that, also, has been somewhat misunderstood.
Therefore, I should like to suggest with respect that it is quite unnecessary for the Select Committee to give even greater scrutiny to draft proposals emanating from Brussels than they would give to draft proposals emanating from
628
Whitehall, unless there is some particularly good reason for it. As the Select Committee's experience grows I think they will be inclined to take the view that less Community legislation merits debate in your Lordships' House than has been the case in the past and therefore I would hope to see the amount of work that we are expected to do—even if we do it in the shape of a "mini-debate", which has been mentioned as a possibility—decreasing rather than increasing. This is all the more likely to happen as a result of the skill and experience of the chairman of the Select Committee and of its larger staff. It places a very heavy burden of responsibility on the Chairman, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows from personal experience and as the noble Baroness will soon find out.
To put it in another way—and this is the last point I wish to make—speaking of Parliament as a whole we are surely not seeking more control over British Government proposals than the British Parliament previously exercised, or now exercises, simply because such proposals have been agreed with eight other I countries. That may seem to be a rather strange way of putting it but perhaps it is not an ineffective way of putting it. If I may give one example from my own experience, when I was a member of the External Economic Relations Committee we had the right, and we exercised the right, to scrutinise draft treaties with every country into which the Community, under its common commercial policy, entered into a trade agreement, and we have been claiming the right, which I think we have virtually acquired, to seek to amend such trade agreements, but finally neither your Lordships' House nor another place has ever exercised such a right at all.
There may even be some of your Lordships who have never read the Ponsonby rules and did not even know that they existed. I did not know that they existed until about eighteen months ago when I was asked to draft a memorandum for this Committee on the extent to which we should seek to control or even have a veto over trade agreements between the Community and third countries. I then studied the Ponsonby rules and so far as I know they have never been used, either by your Lordships' House or by another place. Trade agreements, so to speak, go through "on the nod", But,

629
of course, there will be ample work for the sub-committee concerned with trade agreements to do in all kinds of matters, such as the renewal of the GATT agreement and even smaller matters of great importance which affect the United Kingdom, such as the treatment of Hong Kong textiles, to give just one example.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I attach the very greatest importance to the work of the Select Committee. I hope to be able to contribute to it in some modest way. I believe it has what I might call a bridging role in order to ensure that the gulf between the British Parliament and the European Community, which undoubtedly exists, can be crossed easily, quickly and naturally, but I hope and expect to see the work of the Select Committee gradually diminish as membership of the Community is increasingly recognised as being in the national interest and is therefore more and more taken for granted. In my experience the bureaucrats in Brussels are very far from being faceless. Meanwhile, I feel strongly that so far as your Lordships' House is concerned the Select Committee, working very much on the right lines, has done an absolutely first-class job and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his Chairmanship of this Committee and wish every success to the noble Baroness who is succeeding him.
5.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I welcome this debate as a valuable and timely chance of spreading information about Europe at this important time. Important though this work is we must all realise that it is uphill work. Like other Members of the Committees I am proud of having been asked to be a co-opted member of one of the sub-committees, but I claim that in the long run this work is more attractive to Members of your Lordships' House than to Members of another place. However, we tend to attract less notice in the Press and on the television for the work that we do here.
We depend for this spread of information about Europe largely on the Press and the television, but I think we must all agree that they prefer tales of human misfortune to reports of procedures, and it is largely procedures about which we
630
have been talking here this afternoon. If some Member of your Lordships' House had the misfortune to fall down on the way home this evening and to be run over, whether by a bicycle or by a bus, I am sure this incident would have far more space given to it in the newspapers to-morrow—possibly even space on the front pages—than any minor sentence on the back page that this present debate is likely to be given. But it could be that in the future these debates, provided they are short, will be more attractive to the Press and television than our talks to-day, which must in the very nature of things largely be concerned with procedure.
It is curious, but people in this country are indifferent to Europe. It is curious because we are not only so close to it, but are really a part of Europe. One of my first impressions in 1945, when I first became a Member of another place, was the lack of interest at a time when I should have thought it would have been of absorbing interest, not least because we had the special responsibility at that time of occupying large parts of it. But it seemed that the less the Members in the other place wanted to have to do with Europe, the better they were then pleased.
If I may turn again to procedure, there now comes the question of timing. This work of scrutiny is not a field for snap decisions. The more evidence one hears, the longer the time taken and hence, the easier it is to get left behind, even to the degree of being too late to influence events. I am sure we must be able to demonstrate to the public that any reports made by our Committee and debates in this House are in the end effective, and are not just pigeon-holed. I am sure that one of the most valuable things the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, could tell us when he speaks in this debate is in what manner he sees these Reports having effect, who they are going to influence, and exactly what bearing they have on those decisions taken a long way away from here but which, none the less, are going to be very important to the lives of all in this country.
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I say a word or two before the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, replies. I should like to join other noble Lords in

631
congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his work. I admit that when I first went into the Committee I wondered what on earth was going to happen. If we look at the first pages of the Report of the Committee, we see that there were 600-odd documents sculling around the place. The fact that we have been able to get through them and, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, the fact that there was very little disagreement in any of the Committees once we had grasped what they were about, is largely due to the leadership given by the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that of the 600 documents some were highly unimportant, but how were we to know that unless we looked at them and had some idea of what they were about? Some were wisely put out almost like balloons to try out, long ahead of requirements. This has the disadvantage of making a great deal of paper available, but it has the advantage of giving plenty of time. This is no bad system.
I think the Committee has the advantage of learning something of the approach to these problems which is being made from Brussels. It is utterly different from our concept of legislation. It takes one quite a long time to grasp their approach, their manner of working. Anyone who goes there will be quite surprised at the complete difference in their view of legislation from our own. It is wrong to pretend that we need to be very frightened of this. In the Law Committee there were few, if any, proposals which would affect, except in a minor degree, the law of this country. There was nothing at all we need be afraid of. There are certain differences of principle, I think, in the sense that we are inclined to run many things by voluntary organisation, within professions and organisations, whereas France particularly is more inclined to work by Statute law. Generally, we obey the law in this country. Certain other countries do not pay quite so much attention to it. They are inclined to sign an international document without having a very firm intention of carrying out what that document contains. Perhaps we are slow about signing it, but I do not think there is any need to be anxious about it.
My Lords, the third thing that impressed me was the preparation, the
632
readiness to help and the knowledge of the civil servants in this country with regard to what is required. Obviously they had given an immense amount of attention to the problems being evolved in Brussels. They were extremely well informed, and we gained a great deal of information from these people.
I would refer to a point raised about timing by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We made a recommendation from the Committee. When is it going to be debated in the House? It will certainly not be straight away, and whether we will even find one day a month to debate it, I do not know. The document of itself must be the important document which can be taken to Brussels or wherever it is, by our representatives. The Report made by the Committee is as much as they can go by, because debates will not take place here frequently. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who suggested they should be informed when certain subjects were under discussion. This is very difficult indeed. Most of our meetings were held at rather short notice, and we were not told until a short time in advance what was going to be under discussion, or its significance. I have no doubt that this is something my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie—who I warmly congratulate on her appointment, and who I am delighted to see taking on this important task—will do. I have no doubt she will find a way of doing so. It will be difficult to arouse any great publicity interest in the work of this Committee. It is important that the public should realise that this House is taking seriously its responsibility in seeing what is being produced by the legislative procedure or by the proposals coming out of Brussels.
5.27 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I apologise to the House for the fact that my name does not appear on the official list? It was put down some few days ago through the official channels, but there was some hiatus in those mysterious ways with which I am not acquainted. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his most efficient and sympathetic approach to the vast problems which faced him when he first undertook the chairmanship of this important

633
Committee. I admire his administrative skills in disposing of this vast amount of work and his ability to inspire members of the Committees, co-opted or otherwise, to be so active. I wish him well in the important task which he now has before him.
If I may add a personal note, I was greatly honoured when he invited me to become the chairman of sub-committee E on law. I felt very honoured for two reasons. It was obviously a personal tribute which was most unjustified but I felt honoured, also, that, to use his words, he felt it would be tidier and perhaps equitable from a purely administrative point of view that perhaps one of the chairmen of a sub-committee should be a member of the Liberal Party which had been so concerned with EEC matters, and this had not gone unnoticed by him. I found that this sub-committee was no sinecure. Alone of all the subcommittees, it had to read all the documents produced; whereas the other subcommittees dealt with a chosen number, a much smaller number.
As this sub-committee appears likely to be reconstituted, I should like to pay great tribute to the work done by members of it—the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, whose great experience of the United Nations was so valuable to us, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who worked indefatigably, at times when he was not very well; he never failed to find the important substance of so many of these complicated documents. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who was Quain Professor of Law in the University of London and of great assistance. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was indefatigable and avid in his reading of the papers; and on one occasion we had the honour of having the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, sitting with us when we took evidence from a member of the secretariat of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The load on the secretariat was immense. Lord Diamond has referred to these matters. I should also like to pay a tribute to the initial administrative work of Mr. Grey, who now sits at the Table, and also to Mr. Brendan Keith who has succeeded him. At all times we also had the great assistance, as Lord Diamond has mentioned, of our legal adviser, Sir Charles Sopwith.
634
May I say a word about the general impression that we, as members of the sub-committee, had about the contents of the documents that we had to examine? It was to me very exciting and educative, though sometimes rather disturbing, to see all the papers on multifarious subjects that issued from Brussels. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, when he explained to us the nature of so many of these documents. I must say that when we read through all these documents we were often at a loss to appreciate the reasons for their publication. We often felt that many of the documents were unnecessary. We often felt that it would be interesting to know what procedure was adopted at Brussels to prompt the issue of many of these documents.
It seemed clear that many of the draft rules and regulations were often very Germanic in form, and we have speculated on the reason for, and perhaps the advantage of, this phenomenon. However, I had had the advantage over my colleagues that as a Silk at the Patent Bar I had been closely associated professionally with many EEC documents. I soon learned to appreciate that perhaps the Anglo-Saxon approach to legal regulations, as to their substance and interpretation, is not always the most helpful and effective or attractive way to approach these matters in this technological age. I also appreciated that perhaps we have a lot to learn from the often experimental and certainly modernistic approach which is made to these matters by Continental lawyers and legal draftsmen.
May I, in conclusion, take this opportunity of congratulating Lord Diamond's successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, on her appointment. Her success will be inevitable, and I hope that this work will bring her great interest and happiness.
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to every noble Lord who has been good enough to wish me well in this very difficult task that I have undertaken in following the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I have already found out from previous experience his enormous capacity for work and his exact mind, and he has on so many occasions served this House well. I

635
have listened to this debate with the very greatest interest. I should like to say to all noble Lords who have spoken that I will study again what they have said, because I feel that it is both wise and constructive advice.
I know very well that this Committee cannot be a success without the enormous work which is undertaken by the chairmen of the sub-committees, and also by those who are co-opted to them, and it is only with the help of your Lordships' House that I will be able to undertake this task. I would only say that I feel it a great honour to have the opportunity to serve the House in this way. I thank your Lordships for your good wishes and I hope, with the noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I shall have the luck as well.
5.35 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is the first time this House has debated a Report of this European Communities Committee which has been in existence since May. The Committee is indeed to be warmly congratulated on the Report and on the encouraging picture which it gives of its activities to date. In its brief life the Committee has completed consideration of 347 proposals and has started consideration of 63 more. It is very encouraging that the Committee should already be in a position to say that the number of proposals awaiting consideration is not an unmanageable one. Its regular reports have brought a variety of proposals to the special attention of the House, together with very useful comments. Very great credit, of course, is due to the members of the Committee, those who have been full voting members of the Committee and sub-committees, and indeed those who have attended, and sat in, even though they had no voting powers; the value of their service is not to be minimised because, for reasons that we all understand, they cannot share with the other members the right to vote.
But our particular thanks and congratulations must go, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for this very happy result. It is with very real regret that we allow him to give up the leadership of this Committee, which he has got off to such a splendid start. However, we are all delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie,
636
has accepted this important role. It must be reassuring, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but to the whole House, that one of her great Parliamentary and administrative skills and experience should now undertake this truly vital work. We are grateful to her. We wish her well. We know she will serve this House and this country, as always, with grace and distinction, and for my part I can assure her that Her Majesty's Government and indeed my noble friend the Leader of the House will be more than ready to co-operate with her in her task.
It is a major aim of Her Majesty s Government to ensure not only that British interests are fully reflected in all decisions reached in Brussels, but also that the views of Parliament, as representing the people, can be brought to bear before British Ministers subscribe to those decisions. We regard this as an important aspect of Britain's relationship to the Community on which the people have a right to be reassured before they are asked to take the decision on the results of renegotiation. They need to know that there cannot be what my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary so aptly described as an involuntary loss of sovereignty.
We seek to ensure a double safeguard against this danger. The first lies in the Council itself, where British Ministers defend our interests. To those who are doubtful of membership of the Community, may I emphasise that no piece of Community legislation, or for that matter any other important Council decision, can be agreed without the assent of the British Government. This is the meaning of the Luxembourg Agreement. Her Majesty's Government are, and will make sure they remain, in a position to see that nothing is agreed that would conflict with the essential interest of this country. This, of course, is the view of the other members of the Community. That is the first safeguard.
The second one is that we provide here for democratic control. It is here, in Parliament, that the Government place such importance on the role of the European Committees—the Scrutiny Committees, as they have been called by many noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon—in enabling Parliament to bring its influence to bear on Ministers. Here Lord Inglewood's point that the

637
reports, and the outcome of the debates on the Floor of the House, should be brought to the effective attention of Ministers, who then proceed in due course to Brussels to speak and to decide for us, is of paramount importance.
It would clearly be impossible for Parliament to examine every piece of Community legislation affecting this country, however short lived or trivial. A great mass of this paper is concerned with quite small and even ephemeral matters, but it is crucial that the views of Parliament should be brought to bear on proposals of significance. This is where the procedures and processes invented and promoted by my noble friend Lord Diamond have so signally served this purpose, and this country, in that it does seem, does it not?, that he and his Committee have hit on the right way, through the sifting process, to identify the matters which are of such significance that they should in due course be discussed by Parliament.
It is the task of the European Communities Committee to draw to the attention of the House all such proposals. As one noble Lord said, this work cannot be skimped. It has not been skimped, but in dealing with this important matter carefully and in detail they, and we, run up against the question of availability of time on the Floor of the House to discuss and debate those proposals. We must see how we get on. We have indicated from this Box, and in another place, how ready the Government are to help to provide the time for these discussions. I personally would like to reinforce that. We must all co-operate to ensure that this House finds the time to discuss proposals of significance which the Committee and its subcommittees suggest to the House. A number of noble Lords suggested that sub-committees might do this (I am not going to prejudge the decision of the next chairman, of course) without recourse to the parent Committee. We must cooperate on this. It is vital that proposals of significance should have time found for them to be properly debated in this House.
I think that we were all glad to read the kind words in the Committee's Report about the help that they had received from the Government and from Departments. I particularly appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in this
638
connection. I can testify—and I am sure that the new chairman of the Scrutiny Committee would join me in this—to the extraordinary dedication of our civil servants, not least those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in regard to this important work. They are tireless, and indeed I believe they are the best in the world. They are objective, and at all times ready to respond to requests for assistance, guidance, and information.
It has indeed been the aim of the Government to give the Committee full assistance in its important role, and I think that we can fairly claim to have done this. I can also say that we shall continue to do it, because it is part of our intention that the work of this Committee should effectively be taken on to the Floor of Parliament, and in due course find expression in what we have to say in international gatherings outside this country.
In the first place we make sure that all Commission proposals for Community legislation are sent to Parliament within two working days of their receipt in London. We also send, with the minimum of delay, a wide range of other documents issued by the Commission—reports on the situation in the Community, and general policy papers setting out Commission thinking on certain topics. I can well understand the somewhat rueful comments which have been made this afternoon about the volume of paper involved. My point here is that within two days of the receipt of Community legislation in this country it is on its way to Parliament.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Proposed legislation.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: And we endeavour also to be as expeditious as possible in regard to the non-legislative reports—indeed interim assessments—which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, reminded us form a very important part of the work of the Commission, and therefore of our work here. In order to help the committees digest all this information, Departments provide an explanatory memorandum for each document. This memorandum is prepared by the responsible Department in the form recommended by Parliament, and is signed by the responsible Minister. This is the first link we have set up between the Government and the committees.

639
It has been a major effort for Whitehall Departments to provide these memoranda, usually within the target of two weeks of receipt in London of the document concerned; that is, we aim to make available the explanatory memoranda within two weeks of the receipt of the document concerned. Equally, we stand ready to give the committees further information about any particular proposal in which they express interest. On occasions, as we have heard this afternoon and read in the Report, this has taken the form of further written information. But the Special Report also makes clear that officials and, on occasions, Ministers, have also been ready to come before the Committee in person. I should add that there is absolutely no limit to the readiness of Ministers to attend in person meetings of this Committee.
To help the committees decide the priority they should give to the documents before them, the Government provide a monthly written forecast of business which is expected to come before the Council for Ministerial decision in the following month. Noble Lords will have seen in Tuesday's Hansard a Statement made by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe which is an example of this kind of information: a forecast of the business, with dates as to when the specific Councils—foreign affairs, agriculture and so on—will meet during the following month. We shall also continue the practice, introduced at the end of the last Parliament, of accompanying this by a monthly Ministerial Statement. Sometimes there will be a composite statement giving the projected timetable as well as the Ministerial comment upon it.
It is indeed good to know that these arrangements have been appreciated by the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Diamond knows, he has been most welcome at any time to discuss with myself or my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any problems which may arise in his Committee's work. The same will be equally true, as I said, of his successor. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has a special responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's relations with the Committees in both House, a
640
role to which he attaches great importance.
I look forward to a series of debates during the coming months on items that your Committee has singled out as raising important matters of policy or principle to which the special attention of the House should be drawn. We shall in fact be having the first two debates of this kind this very evening. If our system of Parliamentary scrutiny is to be effective, it is clearly of considerable importance that when the Committee reports on a particular proposal as raising matters which require the special attention of the House an early opportunity should be found for debate. This was stressed by a number of noble Lords, among them my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—if I may say so without presumption—made a speech which contained a great deal which I and other Members of the House will wish to ponder very carefully when we read it in Hansard to-morrow. He stressed that perhaps the only flaw, if flaw it is, in our arrangements so far, is how to make sure that the Committee's valuable work is not nullified, first, by the lack of an early enough opportunity for discussion in this House; and, secondly, nullified because it has not meaningfully been placed in the possession of Ministers as they proceed to decision in Brussels. This is a central and important point about which we must all think carefully.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I wonder whether I may put this point to him. It is a point that I think troubled the Committee. At this time of the year there should not be any great difficulty in bringing to the early attention of the House and getting an early debate on matters that are important, but the timetable of the Council is different from the timetable of the Houses of Parliament, and it may prove very difficult towards the end of the Parliamentary Session to get time for matters that may be urgent and may require decision before the House resumes. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give special consideration to that point.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Indeed I will; I have been seized for some time with the peculiar difficulty of the incidence of time and distance which

641
arises in the case of both Houses. The noble Lord and I have experience of the other place as well. Then there is the dichotomy between our own Parliamentary timetable and what happens in Brussels—that is, the timetable of the Council. August does not mean quite the same thing in Europe as it does in this country. There must be greater harmonisation of timetables as between Europe and ourselves. There is this disparity of pace and of occasion, and it can create very great difficulty. This I would say: if towards the end of a Session it is seen that an important decision in Brussels cannot be taken with the advantage of its having been debated in Parliament here, then special measures should in my view be taken to see that the relationship is corrected. I take the noble Lord's point very fully and I believe that the Government are seized of its importance.
We also recognise that if the views of Parliament are to have their proper weight in the overall decision-making processes of the Community, not only should such debates take place before final decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers, but also the arrangements for debates should be such as to make it possible for both Houses to have been able to express a view before decisions are taken. I have some reservation, and I join here with one or two noble Lords who have canvassed the possibility of relating the work of both Houses in such a way that there is less overlapping in the light of experience. Possibly—I am offering a purely personal view now as I am entitled to do on a procedural debate of this kind (I do not always have to talk as a Minister) I can speak as a Member of this House—debates, at least on certain categories of matters, should not have to proceed in both Houses. We have already sequestrated the financial issues to the other place so that we in this House are not obliged, indeed as a result of the deliberations of the Scrutiny Committee we do not intend, to discuss those matters. There is room here perhaps for further rationalisation—I tread very warily; I do not for a moment wish to indicate to another place what it should do—but I think we are all entitled to throw out ideas about further efforts at rationalisation in the future.
Of course debates on reports of the Committee will not be the only way in
642
which we shall be able to express views on Community matters. There will also be opportunities provided by other debates on the general range or particular aspects of Community matters. There will continue to be other normal procedural opportunities, such as Questions by which Ministers are held accountable to Parliament.
There will also be made to Parliament twice a year a general report on developments in Community matters. The Government share the view expressed in the Special Report that these could provide a useful opportunity for a general debate on EEC matters at which consideration could also be given to the work of our Committee. The Committee's remarks in the final paragraph of their Report, that the time may come when the European Assembly is in a position to discharge the responsibilities which are at present those of this Committee, deserve attention and thought. We had a most stimulating debate about the European Assembly in this House on June 25 when a Bill on direct elections introduced by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was discussed. I think everybody will agree that the Assembly has not developed far enough to fill the democratic gap which faces the Community now and that national Parliaments have an indispensable and essential role for the foreseeable future.
This has been an extremely useful debate. I think it is one of those debates which pre-eminently will lend itself to re-reading in Hansard and further consideration in cold print. But every speech I have heard to-day has been made by noble Lords who know the area. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for instance, has already made a notable contribution in hard practical study of the question of direct elections, something that has to be done before we start translating any idealistic theories into practice. Other noble Lords have indicated through their own special expertise how the procedures of the Committee may be further strengthened. For instance, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was of that order.
I find it difficult to pick my favourite points from what has been said this afternoon and to address myself to them specifically. This debate is valuable as

643
a whole. I have no doubt that the new Chairman will herself wish to study what has been said to-day. It has been a debate brimful of highly important suggestions, many of them, I believe, susceptible at least of experimentation; but here one does not wish to intrude upon the prerogative of the new Chairman to study and decide for herself how far and how fast a number of these suggestions may be implemented.
The second aspect of the debate has been the kind of question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who referred to what, constitutionally speaking, I would call the hierarchical organisation of the European system. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan also referred to this matter as did others. There is the Summit, which is, of course, a negotiating body. There is the Council, which is a meeting of Ministers with powers. There is the Commission, which is not only below but rather to the side of the Council of Ministers in that it is substantially a non-Parliamentary agency. Then, of course, there are the national Parliaments and (who knows?) there may be some relativity to the newer Regional Assemblies which this country and others may be inventing in due course. It will be an interesting life at all levels.
The debate has given us all food for thought about the future of the Committee. It has also called our attention to fundamental questions relating to the constitutional future of Europe. I do not think we ought to be in too great a hurry to solve so massive and complex a question as the constitutional structure of any regional arrangement in Europe. That is my view. Hard work and hard thought must proceed on the kind of structure which we think will fit a viable and acceptable Europe.
Well, it is debates like this in which we find suggestions, criticisms and, above all, a readiness to exchange views and ideas, which will help us on our way. I repeat that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Diamond for having made it possible for us to have such a very useful debate. I look forward very much to the contribution which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, will make in due course.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure at this hour that even those Lords
644
who have addressed very specific questions to me would not wish that the House should be detained by a detailed response to all of them. However, may I say that every member of my Committee who sat in the last Session will share with me the view that we are indeed indebted to the House for the splendid way in which it has received our Report. It is most encouraging. To the Minister may I say how glad I was to hear him remark that by co-operation all round, time must be found for debates. I am sure the key is that if we all bear in mind that there is need to slot in time for debates of this kind then time will be found, as indeed it must. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has said that she will think carefully about all the suggestions which have been made and which are for her and the future Committee to decide upon.
May I mention one or two points of interest which have been raised in important speeches on the past. First, yes, there has been a system of direct reporting by sub-committees so as not to hold up the work of Parliament, by the simple procedure of a sub-committee submitting its Report to the Chairman of the main Committee and that Chairman, by authority of the Committee, having the responsibility of issuing the Report, if he thinks fit and if he considers it is urgent enough. That has happened on more than one occasion. Secondly, although there has been some difference between an estimated 5 per cent. and an eventual 30 per cent. it would not, I am sure as a member of the previous two Committees, have made any difference to our conclusions had we thought it might be 30 per cent. or 5 per cent. The important point is that we are working on those proposals in ways which are turning out to be effective and capable of handling the number which have to be reported on and examined, be they 5 per cent. or 30 per cent.
The question of publicity and the members of the European Parliament—and members of the public as a whole being made aware of what is going on and when—engaged the minds of the Committee early on. We are back to the same problem of printing. The second Report which was printed on June 12 and which was brought out just before the printing

645
delays started, referred to this matter in two paragraphs, one of which—Paragraph 7—stated:
"Further details of the agenda, time and place of the meeting of the Sub-Committees will be circulated in the fortnightly report from the main Committee, in which the division of all proposals between A and B lists will be recorded."
Under the heading of "Publicity of Proceedings" at Paragraph 17 it stated:
"A list of all current Community proposals to be considered by the European Communities Committee and its sub-committees will be appended to the fortnightly Report of the main committee. This will indicate to Members of the House and to the public which proposals are to be considered by the Committee and its sub-committees."
So this was a point which was well made, well taken and would have been well understood by Members of your Lordships' House had we not had the printing difficulties.
My Lords, I conclude on one simple note. I am sure we all understand that these arrangements are to enable this democratic gap to be filled until a European Parliament can carry out a full democratic function as we understand it. Nevertheless in the meantime it is important for us to be able to demonstrate that there is nothing inconsistent between democratic control, as we understand it in this country, and the functioning of the Community as it exists at present. It is my hope that the House has been satisfied by our Report that this is the case..
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
6.10 p.m
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION rose to move, That this House takes note of the Tenth Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on the future sugar policy of the Communities (R/1900/73 and R/1957/ 74). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should explain at the outset that it falls to my lot to move the Motion on the future sugar policy of the Communities, because I was the chairman of the sub-committee that presented the report which was adopted by the main Committee and which is before the House to-day. In accordance with the traditions of the House, I declared to the sub-committee the fact that I have a pecuniary
646
interest in the British Sugar Corporation, and I now declare it to the House. It is a small one, but nevertheless I must declare it. Although I realise that such a Motion as I am now moving is a peg upon which to hang a very wide debate on the sugar problem, I conceive it as my task to stick fairly closely to the report itself, leaving it to other noble Lords to discuss the wider aspects and to my noble friend Lord Beswick to tell us of the present position and to answer for the Minister of Agriculture.
My Lords, the report attempted to achieve the virtually impossible: that is, to set out the general effect of the proposals in some six paragraphs, and this meant boiling down some twenty pages of closely-typed material into that small compass. Clearly, much detail had to be omitted, but anyone particularly interested can of course get the full documents from the Printed Paper Office; they are, in fact, available there. All I can hope is that what we have included in that report makes sense, that it is in no way a distortion of the policy, and that there is enough information to enable the House to decide whether or not to note the report. Perhaps I ought to add that, by our debating the report to-day, the Minister will be made aware of the views expressed in this House when he participates in the discussions at the EEC Council meeting on the 18th and 19th of this month.
The sub-committee had before them two memoranda dealing with the future sugar policy of the EEC, the first dated July 13, 1973, and the second dated July, 1974, the latter embodying some necessary amendments which were caused by the course of events during the year between the two memoranda. That policy can be set out under three heads: first, the EEC position in relation to any negotiations that might take place for a revival in some form of the International Sugar Agreement; secondly, the obligation of the Community towards the developing countries; and, thirdly, the Community's own internal arrangements for the five years from the marketing year 1975–76. The International Sugar Agreement expired on December 31, 1973, and the Community clearly has to decide whether it will participate in the United Nations Conference which is intended to try to bring into being a new international

647
agreement on sugar; and, if it does so decide, what will be its stance at any negotiations that have to take place.
Perhaps I ought, very briefly, to remind the House of what the International Sugar Agreement was intended to achieve. That Agreement, signed by the United Kingdom in 1968, came into force in 1969 and it sought to bring about a measure of stability in the international market for sugar. The Agreement was slanted towards raising the level of international trade, mainly, I stress, to increase the export earnings of developing countries. To achieve that end sugar prices were to be maintained at a level which, while reasonably remunerative to producers everywhere, would not encourage further expansion in the developed countries, such as ours. At the time of the Agreement, most of the world's sugar was sold under agreements such as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and only a comparatively small proportion of the sugar produced anywhere entered into the world market. This led to such a degree of instability that, on that market, prices fluctuated wildly between £12 and £100 a ton, but the mainly prevailing low prices during this period caused a worldwide neglect of the sugar cane industry. Production fell, and world shortages brought about an increase in the price on the free market to, eventually, the present level of what I believe to be £400 a ton, with futures quoted at £500 a ton. Under the stresses brought about by the world demand exceeding supply, the International Sugar Agreement inevitably broke down, and up to now has not been renewed.
The proposals in the memoranda are that the Community should join a new international sugar agreement as a net importer of sugar, and in the context of such an agreement it would undertake to limit its exports of white sugar to the world market to the level of 800,000 tons, with a proviso that in times of world shortage the Community could export without quantitative limitation. Perhaps I should explain that the Community-would be a net importer of sugar because of its intention to import 1·4 million tons from the developing countries; so your Lordships see where the net importation will take place. That import would come under the accepted obligation of the Community towards the developing countries.
648
Those countries are mainly those which were parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, under which Britain guaranteed to buy sugar at an agreed price from specified countries of the Commonwealth; and also included in the term "developing countries" are the associate countries of the other members of the Community.
My Lords, the arrangements for these imports would fall to be negotiated within the framework of Protocol 22 of the Act of Accession. Under the arrangements the Community would undertake to purchase the 1·4 million tons at a price no higher than the lowest Community price, so that Community producers would be no worse off than producers in the developing countries; and in return for such a guarantee the developing countries would be expected to guarantee to deliver the agreed tonnages to the Community. Of imports into the EEC of the raw cane sugar, 85 to 90 per cent. would be allocated on a quota basis among the specialised refineries; that is, those port refineries which have traditionally refined raw cane rather than beet sugar.
Under the third head—the Community's own internal arrangements for the production of sugar beet—the existing production régime would be continued for five years from the marketing year 1975–76. That régime can be summarised as a continuation of the allocation of quotas for each enterprise producing sugar from Community-grown beet; this with a price system designed to ensure some production in areas unsuited to the best beet sugar cultivation—this for social reasons—and to encourage some production above the basic quota in the areas best suited to beet growing, but at a lower price. On the Community's proposals the sub-committee had to give its opinion and make such recommendations as it thought fit. We had to take our decisions on August 20, which is now a long time ago in terms of sugar movement, in the light of the evidence we had taken and in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
The terms of reference of the EEC Committee say that it must make representations on the matters it has considered which
"… raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn."

649
Clearly, my Lords, within those terms, the Committee must decide whether the Community's proposals are to be viewed from the wide, European point of view or from a more parochial, national standpoint. We tried to achieve a balance between the two and I hope that we succeeded, because I agree with those noble Lords who participated in the previous debate this afternoon that we have to consider both points of view when thinking in terms of what is being said to us from the EEC.
We were of the opinion, from the Community angle, as we said in our report, that the proposals in the memorandum provide a satisfactory framework within which negotiations between agricultural Ministers may take place; and, in particular, provide a reasonable basis for negotiations on a possible reincarnation of an International Sugar Agreement. They would provide, too, we say, for the future production of adequate supplies of sugar, which I hope is an assurance that will meet with the good wishes and acceptance of this House. We were also of the opinion that the price structure ought to continue to maintain the sugar beet industry in the Community, as well as supporting cane sugar production in some of the developing countries.
From our national angle, we were very critical of the proposal to fix quotas on the basis of a producers' total average production between 1968 and 1973, for the reason, which we gave, that our own sugar producers' share was restricted during that period by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That Agreement made the provision that we would restrict our production to ensure that we could take the agreed production of our Commonwealth. We also had doubts about the proposed allocation of imported raw sugar to the specialised refineries. In this matter, our comment might have been very much stronger, except that we were by no means clear what exactly was meant by the phrase which appeared in the memorandum. I will not repeat it, but it was not clear enough for us to take a firm decision on it. Having regard to the very vulnerable position of our refiners—and we are hearing a great deal about this at present—we believe that the Minister himself must carefully explore the words that appear in the memorandum
650
when he considers this policy, and perhaps take a very firm stand to ensure that our refiners do not suffer from neglect as a result of decisions by the EEC.
My Lords, we made other criticisms, but the unfairness of the quota basis to the United Kingdom producer was certainly the one to which we wish to bring the special attention of the House and the Minister of Agriculture. After rereading our report, I do not think that any of our comments or recommendations have been invalidated by subsequent events, except that our main critcism that the quota basis was unfair to the United Kingdom was met by the EEC Council of Agricultural Ministers when it met on October 21. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom now has a very generous allocation.
I hope it can be claimed for the subcommittee that our criticisms helped the Minister to put right an obvious injustice. As has been said this afternoon, it is not only what this House thinks as a House when it discusses matters that is important. I believe that it is also important that the decisions taken by the main Committee on the recommendation of the subcommittee help the Minister to make up his mind and to fight, if necessary, in the Council of Ministers. This is the first of the reports of the Committee, which has emanated from a sub-committee, to be considered by the House and I hope that it is in substance, form and manner, such as meets with your Lordships' approval.
My Lords, may I end by thanking the members of my sub-committee for their co-operation and assistance, as also the clerks who served the Committee. I must, too, add my meed of praise for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as Chairman of the main Committee. As everyone has done this afternoon, I wish the noble Baroness—his successor—all that she can possibly wish herself. I would only on my own behalf apologise for the fact that my personal circumstances mean that I shall not be there to help her, but I shall certainly be watching everything she does and hoping that everything goes right. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Tenth Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on the future sugar policy

651
of the Communities (R/1900/73 and R/1957/74).—[Lord Champion.]
6.27 p.m.
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, this Report appeared on August 29, which is not far away, but a good deal has happened since then to affect the situation. There is what could be called a sugar crisis created by those events, though the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to it as a sugar problem in his deliberate, thoughtful exposé of the Report. His was a speech which gave an admirable background to far more general speeches than I shall be making. This is an occasion which entails a need for urgency and also a need to tread delicately. It is not, therefore, an easy, straightforward debate in which to take part, yet as a member not only of the European Parliament but of the Agricultural Committee of that Parliament, it would hardly be proper for me to sit by silently this evening.
Yesterday, it had been my firm intention to join in the general agricultural debate, but I was struck down by some wandering virus and forced to spend the day, reluctantly and fumingly, in bed. Had I spoken, my words would have been in total agreement with those which my noble friend and European colleague, Lord Mansfield, spoke in that passage of his speech in the debate on the gracious Speech when he referred to the Common Market and, in particular, to agriculture. The urgency of this situation is partly created by the fact that beet farmers in this and other countries of the Community are about to sign their contracts for next season's sowing, and they need to know what prices to expect before deciding on what acreage they can afford to devote to this crop.
With the profit and loss margins—all too often loss—as they are to-day, farmers are required to make fine judgments and to make them in time. I speak as a farmer and as a beet farmer on a moderate scale. The urgency is evident to many; the delicacy is not so evident. This debate is about consumption and supply and, with regard to supply, there are a number of options. Negotiations within the Community are in progress and our country is part of them, and those negotiations could be upset or inhibited by an unwise word inside or outside Parliament.
652
Mr. Peart has a difficult task. Neither as Minister nor as friend (as he has more than once shown himself to be) would I wish his task to be harder. For this reason I have eliminated from my remarks to-day anything which could, even mistakenly, be taken as controversial. It is also more proper, in my view, to inform the House that if I am to show even the semblance of good manners towards the next place in which I am expected, I shall unfortunately have to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, winds up the debate. I must therefore beg his forgiveness in this respect.
This self-denial on my part does not make for a truly robust speech, but I hope I can carry into this House some of the measured and fundamental confidence which I feel myself. During Monday and Tuesday of this week I spoke in the Agricultural Committee in Brussels, and the spirit which governed those discussions (which I find is normally the case) was one of co-operation—which did not prevent special interests being deployed where they could be shown and accepted as genuine and reasonable. As an instance, I felt free, when the question of national quotas of beet was being debated—quotas based on the 1968–69 and 1972–73 crops—to point out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, a minute or two ago, that this did not constitute for Britain an entirely satisfactory or even fair base.
The reason, as we said, was perfectly honourable in that our domestic crop had been restricted for a considerable period to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Common Market Sugar Agreement. This was accepted in spirit clearly and explicitly by the Committee, and I think it may be reflected in future quotas. If it is, I have no doubt that more thanks will be owed to the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, than to my own. On the other hand, I also stressed the essential need of the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth. I did this more for the sake of the Record than in argument, because there is a full recognition of this requirement within the Community.
The two Commissioners most closely concerned are Mr. Pierre Lardinois and Mr. Claude Cheysson. Having listened to and conversed with Mr. Lardinois over

653
the past 19 months, I am aware, as we all are in the work of the Community, how deeply pledged he is to the honouring of Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession—that part which gave reassurance to those Commonwealth countries. Mr. Cheysson, who deals with matters concerning developing countries as a whole, is totally dedicated to their interests and to ensuring that the Community's duties are fulfilled to the maximum extent. Neither of these, as my noble friend, Lord Chelwood said in an earlier debate, could possibly be accounted "faceless", still less "soulless".
Knowing this as I do, I have been taken aback, especially during the last 36 hours, by so many constant declarations of mistrust in the intentions of the Community towards those countries and the constant reiterance that "nothing is signed". It is true enough that nothing is signed, but the Commission are negotiating on the basis of a continuance of the 1.4 million tons to be imported in the course of next year from the Commonwealth countries. This was made clear in July, 1973, and it has not been changed as an intention. The doubt lies not in the willingness of the Community to maintain the quota, but in the ability of the developing countries to fulfil it. It will be remembered that they failed by over 300,000 tons to fulfil it in the year just ended. However, it seems to me that it would be fatal at this juncture to juggle with possible figures, proportions and statistics, because these make a great deal of difference to the life of every individual in this country.
I have heard it stated, formidably enough, that the Community is unlikely to obtain more than a million tons of raw sugar from the Commonwealth countries, at the most. I have heard an estimate which brings the figure down to 600.000 tons. The fact is that we do not know: quantities and prices are still being negotiated. The aim of the Commission, in the face of what is recognised as an almost certainly serious sugar deficit, is that this deficit should be shared.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, as the noble Lord will not be here, as he said, when I wind up, I wonder whether I might ask him this. He told us that he has
654
put forward a case and is satisfied about the argument on price and quantity. But what about the duration of contract?
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, this is all being negotiated, as the noble Lord well knows. But what I am saying is that the will is there on the part of the Community. I must not claim too much for myself. This was pushing at an open door in the Agricultural Committee. I am not claiming that my eloquence has affected anybody's views.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord's judgment is that the will is there on the part of the Community to enter into a long-term contract?
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, that is certainly the wish of the Community and it is backed up by the will of the Community. But the negotiations are still in progress and nobody—not even the noble Lord and, still less, I myself—can say what will emerge from these negotiations, because the negotiations are rendered more difficult by the present uncertainty which hangs over the duration of our membership of the Community. However, that is a matter that I do not wish to press this evening.
I have said that the aim is that this Community deficit should be shared; that is, that the "have-somes" should share with the "have-lesses". As Britain in the coming year will be the member of the Community with the most serious deficit—more than Italy and far more than the slight shortfall expected by Ireland—this represents a positive and immediate advantage for our coutry. What is most fortifying, if it can be maintained, is the good will which exists within the Community and which has practical expression, as I see it, in cases such as this. Long may that good will embrace our country, and long may it find a response.
6.39 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I should first declare an interest in that I am an adviser to a firm of retail distributors selling sugar. But I can assure your Lordships that this gives me no privileged or special position in regard to the purchase of a very scarce commodity. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Champion and his colleagues

655
on the thoroughness and deep thought that they gave to the problems which they had to consider. I am sure they will not mind my saying that the Report has been largely overtaken by events.
I should also like to say at this point that I shall be controversial and therefore will not be able to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald. I think that the position is so serious that it would be very hard to avoid being controversial. To talk of quotas, to talk of surpluses, in a situation of acute world shortages seems to me unreal. The fear of these shortages is indicated by the sugar futures market. December sugar was well above the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Champion. The top price of December sugar was £650 a ton yesterday. I do not for one moment claim to be an expert but I foresee a serious shortage of sugar during at least the first half of next year, and that fear is reflected in the market.
As I said in the speech that I made in the debate on the gracious Speech, Commonwealth sugar producers are no longer so dependent on sales to Great Britain. They have concluded sales with China, Venezuala, North Africa and North America. Not only has the situation of supply been serious through 1974, but the 1975 supplies are threatened by the current difficulties in the harvesting of European beet because of weather conditions. This bad weather for harvesting is also being experienced in the Eastern European bloc. They are already putting out feelers for sugar supplies in addition to the existing arrangements with Cuba. So in my opinion this all underlines the seriousness of the world supply of sugar for next year.
I very reluctantly criticise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I had a happy relationship with that Ministry over many years during the last war and immediately afterwards, as one of their retail advisers. But I say this definitely: the Ministry have been over-optimistic during 1974 that the sugar shortage in the retail shops in this country was going to be overcome within a matter of weeks. The sugar shortage, which practically every housewife in England can confirm, is still with us. The sugar shortage was created, according to Ministry statements, by panic buying and
656
hoarding. Every housewife would say that they got it the wrong way round. The panic buying and hoarding—if there was any in any great way—was created by the shortage. They are optimistic about the prospects in 1975. In the opinion of experts, as I have already said, there is a danger of a real shortage of sugar in this country next year.
What is the Ministry going to do? It is not sufficient to say that during the course of one season you have as much sugar as in the previous season because anybody engaged in food distribution, with the movement of population during holiday times, et cetera, knows that unless you are going to have local shortages which start the run on sugar, you must have 100 per cent. plus and not 100 per cent. of the supplies that you had during the previous period. I cannot help feeling, as one who has repeatedly indicated in your Lordships' House his support for British membership of the European Economic Community, that it would have been very much more fortunate had the Minister of Agriculture been able to deal direct with the Commonwealth producers independent of the quotas and complex price arrangements by which we are bound.
However, other methods of coping with the shortage have to be found. Nobody wants rationing, especially in peacetime; but, going back to the lessons that some of us learned in the early days of the last war, it is essential to start rationing before the shortages arrive and not afterwards. I hope that in this very difficult situation that faces the Government, and particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, at the present time they will bear this in mind.
6.38 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that he was going to be controversial. I did not think he was controversial. I thought he spoke in exactly the way he thought, which was certainly of very great interest. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for having introduced the Report and for referring to the draft European Instruments to which it refers. They are indeed extremely important. It is our relationship with the European Community, both present and future, which has become so important of late,

657
particularly for the supplies of sugar, and I want to use this opportunity mostly to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to clarify certain points.
I had a certain amount to say yesterday about sugar. As I explained then, the Minister is on a tight rope; he has to keep the refineries going, he has his obligations to the European Community, and he has to keep adequate supplies in the shops. All this is made worse by the fact that our Commonwealth Sugar Agreement comes to an end and the new Community agreements have to be started up at a time of a world sugar shortage. Therefore, it is very easy to try to blame either the European Community or the ending of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, when in fact a great deal of the trouble does not relate to either of those but to the world trade situation.
I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, either. On the other hand, sugar is important and many words have been spoken about it, some doubtless accurate and some doubtless less accurate. I want to take this opportunity of asking him to be kind enough to clarify some of the points which are in doubt. The concern is really threefold. First, there is the shortage of sugar in the shops. That is of major public concern. Secondly, the refiners are concerned that they will not have enough sugar to keep refineries going after the end of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Agreement ends on December 31 and the supplies end in February. The third concern is where we are going to get our supplies from to fill our needs next year.
To take the first point, there is immediate concern about supplies of sugar in the shops. We hear of children being sent out and told not to come home until they have bought some sugar. We hear of sugar being sold in some shops only to people who have been prepared to purchase a pound's worth of goods—and that bears hardly on the old-age pensioners. We have the Christmas demand coming up, and of course when there is a shortage of sugar there comes a shortage of golden syrup. I would ask the noble Lord this question: Do the Government believe that stocks are adequate in this country at the moment, and if they are, why is is that they cannot be purchased? Can the Government give any assurance that there are adequate stocks
658
and supplies to fill the needs of both housewives and manufacturing industries, especially at this time of the year when everyone is buying for the Christmas trade?
With regard to the second point, refiners have traditionally refined from the 1·7 million tons which have been supplied under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—1·4 million tons came from the Caribbean, and the other 300,000 tons came from Australia. We know that the 300,000 tons from Australia will not be forthcoming in future. But I think that what concerns the refiners is whether they will be able to obtain the 1·4 million tons from the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. Originally the doubt was whether the European Community would accept the 1·4 million tons, and great concern was expressed at the time because of our relationship with the Caribbean countries and about how we should press for this amount still to go through the Community. We got the famous aura à coeur in the Treaty arrangements. But, of course, the difference is considerable because at that time the price to the Caribbean countries was something around £64 a ton when the world price was £40 a ton. Now the doubt is whether the Caribbean countries will, in fact, sell to the Community the 1·4 million tons, even if they are prepared to take it at anything like the price at which the Community is at the moment purchasing, which as I understand it from the document is about £140 a ton. My understanding is that of the 1·4 million tons originally sent to us, and which it is hoped we would still be able to get by their selling to the European Community, only about 600,000 tons can actually be relied upon to be sold to the Community at anything like the price which the Community is offering at the moment.
My questions are therefore these. Where are the refineries to get the sugar from after February of next year when the shipments cease? Have any contractual arrangements been entered into for the supply of sugar to our refineries next year? If no contractual arrangements have been made by now, how do the Government expect the refineries to be in business in February, as it leaves only two months to buy sugar, load it, ship it and get it into the pipeline? In the present state of the world market this

659
could prove to be an inadequate period, and it is certainly running things very fine indeed.
The third point relates to future supplies. The general impression when the Minister of Agriculture came back from Brussels was that the European Community had guaranteed to provide 200,000 tons of subsidised sugar to the United Kingdom. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would clarify this very clearly, because my understanding is that the European Community have only guaranteed to earmark funds with which to subsidise 200,000 tons, but that companies in any member State of the European Community can bid for the subsidy. If that is so, then it is by no means assured that the United Kingdom will receive all of the subsidy or indeed any of it, or all of the sugar if there is any, or any of it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify that point, because it is an area of considerable misunderstanding. I would also ask him whether the 200,000 tons of sugar is physically there in the Community, or whether it is to be purchased on the world market, and also how the balance of the shortfall of our requirements is to be found—the balance of the shortfall is considerably more than 200,000 tons.
Am I also right in understanding that the subsidy is not to be paid for out of EEC funds direct, but is being paid for by selling forward on to the world market the anticipated surplus of next year's crop in the Community, which is not yet sown, and using the cash from that anticipated surplus to fund the subsidy? Is it a fact that the company, and indeed not the country, which purchases the sugar which is liable for subsidy has to fund the deal at world prices until the subsidy comes in from the Community? I am not criticising these arrangements; I am asking for clarification, because I think they are important. If during the current sugar year beginning in October of this year our requirements, both for what we consume and to replace our strategic stocks which have now been used up, are 2'9 million tons, am I right in believing that the only assured supplies are 600,000 tons from our current sugar beet crop and 600,000 tons from our Caribbean countries which used to supply under the
660
Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? If that is so, that leaves a deficit of 1·7 million tons of sugar to be filled. If the Caribbean countries supplied all the 1·4 million tons to the Community, that would leave a deficit of 0·9 million tons. Where is this to be purchased from? Will it be from the Community or the world market?
My Lords, this is largely a question of price. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement comes to an end in December and it is all too easy to say, "If we weren't in the Community all we would do is to carry on with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement." I do not think it would have been nearly as easy as that, because circumstances are wholly different from what they were when the original Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was made, when there was a world surplus of sugar, and when there is now a world shortage. But I hope that the Minister will do his best not only to persuade the Community to take all the 1·4 million tons, but also to persuade the Caribbean countries to sell to the Community the 1·4 million tons. The shortage points to what I was trying to say yesterday: that there really is a substantial argument for the increase of our own British agriculture, and in particular British sugar. However, I am glad that the Minister achieved this improved quota, because I think that it will make a great deal of difference. But if we are going to produce not 900,000 tons, which is our normal amount, but the 1,500,000 tons which we could produce under the joint A and B quotas arranged by the Minister, this will mean a considerable increase in acreage and we shall have to increase both slicing capacity and factory capacity.
My Lords, at the end of all this may I say that the most important point is the need to complete negotiations urgently, whether they are with the European Community, with the Caribbean countries, or with the refining companies. The Government have a direct responsibility here. They must ensure that in one way or another sufficient sugar stocks come to this country. It is inadequate for companies and countries not to know where their stocks will come from, and it is inadequate also for the British public to be unsure of whether they will get the sugar that they require. In the

661
profession of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I think there is a saying that if you have stocks amounting to 995 per cent. of demand you have a shortage; and if you have a shortage you need 150 per cent. of your requirements for six weeks in order to overcome it. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to clarify some of those points, about which I am certainly concerned.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I join with those who have expressed their gratitude to my noble friend Lord Champion for the way in which he examined the sugar situation up to last August? I only wish that the clarity of that examination had been extended up to, say, half-past twelve to-day. Then, maybe, we could have saved the noble Earl from asking so many questions, because the Committee could possibly have explained it much more clearly than I can.
My Lords, may I comment first of all upon the three heads of policy implications on page 3 of the Report? The first is on imports of 1·4 million tons, and they should be metric tons of white sugar. The Government have re-affirmed this commitment to the developing Commonwealth, and have assured them that we shall seek a price of not less than £140 per ton f.o.b., the present price paid under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This means a producer price of not less than this amount, to which has to be added the cost of freight and that of refining the raw sugar, which is about £50 per ton. We have emphasised the importance of an early decision on this question, and the urgency of it has been accepted by the Council. T hope that the necessary decisions will be taken at the November meetings, but this must mean that the Community is ready to be reasonably flexible about prices and other matters including, crucially, duration.
It is all very well giving a guarantee to developing countries that we shall accept 1·4 million tons, but of course they can sell those 1·4 million tons this year, and possibly next year, anywhere in the world market. What they are interested in, and what they were interested in before, is a guaranteed market over a period of years, and it is that stable market situation that we wrecked when we went into
662
the Community. Therefore duration is crucial to the decisions that will have to be taken.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he means when he says that that stable market situation was wrecked when we went into the Community, because the stability would have come to an end, anyhow, on December 31?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will remember that this was a revolving agreement. The whole point of it was that it was renegotiated every five or seven years. It was stable in the sense that we were sure of supplies. Of course there were times of shortages and times of surpluses, but they always knew how much they were going to get, and they always accepted the fact that, although they sold under the market price one year, they might be selling at over the market price the following year. This gave a stability which was very valuable and, which we have lost.
I do not want to become involved in an argument over this, although I should like to go into the situation; but that was a fact. The noble Lord said that there is no point in talking about the CSA; the CSA is a thing of the past. However, I am saying (hat if you want your 1·4 million tons from the Commonwealth countries now, it is not only a question of price; it is not only a question of amounts; it is a question of the assurances given over a period of years, and unless that is accepted nothing else will follow. This is a matter which will be very much to the forefront of the discussions which we shall have in Brussels.
Secondly, on the question of limiting Community exports, the internal needs of the Community must be the first priority. World prices and shortages mean that the present is hardly a propititious time for meaningful negotiations on regulating the world market. But when that time comes there is no reason why the Community should not be willing to accept the same obligations as other developed communities, should the need arise, since the Community system of quotas means that production can readily be controlled from, one year to another.

663
Thirdly, on the internal régime we have secured agreement to a substantial increase in our own beet quotas for internal consumption within the Community from a maximum of 990,000 tons to one of just over 1·5 million tons, all of which attracts the full guaranteed price. Thus, the element of discrimination against the new member States that was inherent in the Commission's original proposals has now been removed. We have also expressed our intention to move to full Community prices from January 1, 1975, as a further step to encourage farmers to sow this valuable crop. In these respects, therefore, substantial progress has been achieved since the Committee reported.
However, as I have indicated, much remains to be settled—not only the arrangements to be made with the developing producers, but also the detailed arrangements to ensure that the sugar can be bought and processed in the most efficient and economical way. This means that the cane refineries, particularly those in this country, can be certain that they will get cane sugar. Therefore we are determined to press at Brussels for a substantial proportion of these imports to be reserved for these refineries, as in the Commission's original proposals. This, we believe, is essential to protect employment and investment in this important industry which, unlike the beet industry, is geared to a continuous process of production.
My Lords, the question of the Community's scheme for subsidising 200,000 tons of imports from the world market was raised by the noble Earl, and he asked me what was the position. What we have secured is a commitment from the Council to take whatever steps are necessary to make good the Community's deficit in the coming year. The subsidy will have exactly the same claim on the Community's funds—that is on FEOCA—as any other item and there will be no fixed ceiling on expenditure.
The noble Earl asked about setting the loss of one year against the profits of the next. No doubt that will be a balancing factor, but the point is that the Community have agreed that the sugar can be bought in the world market at world market prices and made available to Community countries at Community prices.
664
This is an enormous guarantee and I can only assume that they understand what they have committed themselves to; but this is the way in which the Community are proposing to work. I have tried to understand the technical details with the aid of charts on a piece of paper; I think I possibly understand it, but I cannot hope to talk about it in this House, and in any case, as I have said, the details still have to be worked out. It is a novel and an experimental scheme and there will need to be considerable adjustments.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am not quite clear what my noble friend means by "a noble and experimental scheme". When he was the Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and I was the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture I well remember the vigorous opposition he put up to our growing beet sugar in England, and I well remember on one particular occasion he said to me, "You can grow pineapples anywhere if you want to pay the money". Do I really understand that he is saying that the argument for the EEC is that even he, the ex-Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, now accepts that there is a way by which our farmers can make a living?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not say it was a "noble" scheme; I said it was a novel and experimental scheme. I said that the details still had to be worked out and that I was not capable of explaining the possible details over the Floor of the House. But I should be very happy to have further discussions with the noble Earl about this.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about just one point which is important. Am I right in believing that it is the subsidy which can be bid for by other members of the Community?—in other words, if they bid for it they will get the subsidy which will not come to Britain. Or is it a guarantee that we will have 200,000 tons, all of which will be subsidised to this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not quite like that. Bidding does come into it but it is a bid by an importer. He may be of one nationality or of another; he may be a French importer who may

665
distribute the sugar in this country. It is a bid by an importer who then has to secure this amount of sugar in the world markets. If he can secure this amount of sugar in the world markets it does not matter what the price is; the Community is prepared to pay to him the difference between the world market price and the Community price. That is the way in which it is hoped the scheme will work out; but, as I have said, the details of this very complicated scheme still have to be decided.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me once more. He said he was willing to discuss this with the noble Earl opposite. But with great respect, is he willing to discuss it with some noble Lords on this side of the House as well? Some of us understand and know about it, and there is no very special reason why he should do it in a cosy way with the noble Earl opposite.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am quite prepared to discuss anything with my noble friend. All I am saying about the "nuts and bolts" of this subject is that they are very complicated, and if we are to have a proper and useful discussion on this, quite honestly I would prefer to have advisers with me. If my noble friend Lord George-Brown wants to come in on this I am quite happy to have him with us, but these are the "nuts and bolts" of the details of the machinery. So far as the principle is concerned, that is quite clear. The Community has said it is prepared to guarantee that the price that has to be paid in the world markets will be met by them as between the Community price and the world market price. The fact that these deals are done over a period of years and that next year there may be a lower price which would be offset against this year's higher price is a matter for very detailed arrangement, the details of which I find it difficult to put over on the Floor of the House. Does that satisfy the noble Lord?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him one question. Is he now speaking about the period between the present and the time when the document we are now discussing will come into force? Is this an interim willingness to
666
guarantee the difference in price during that period? Is that right?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this arrangement is in force and contracts are now being urgently sought. The machinery is now in operation. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury suggested that we were in error for not setting up the apparatus of rationing. Of course he is absolutely right when he says that the countries of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are now no longer able to supply us with sugar because they have made contracts with the American continent. I accept that, but I must remind him that they have made these contracts with the American markets because the old traditional market here was not guaranteed and they were able to get these very high prices at the present time.
But that being so, and there being this abnormally high demand at the present time, does not necessarily mean that we should be justified in setting up the apparatus of rationing. The noble Lord says that if we are to stop panic buying we should have 110 per cent. of supplies. I am advised that since October in the United Kingdom there have indeed been 100 per cent. plus of available supplies. That is the situation, and one can say that rather than an absolute shortage there is an abnormally high demand, and if one of our most important refiners and if the adviser to one of our most important retailers paints a picture of shortage then of course little children will rush out to get supplies wherever they can and this abnormally high demand will be created.
But I must emphasise that the Community has committed itself to making good shortfalls in supplies by buying on the world market regardless of quantity and regardless of cost. This may not be the most sensible way of doing business, but that is the undertaking that they have given. Moreover, we have still to conclude negotiations with the Protocol 22 countries, supplies from which play such an important role in making up the total. Therefore the Government would not regard rationing as being appropriate in the present circumstances.
I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary as well as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will be going to Brussels

667
to discuss these matters. The urgency emphasised quite rightly by the noble Earl is accepted by them. That sense of urgency in getting agreement in Brussels will be emphasised by the British representatives there. One would hope that they would be able to come back with a sense of security in supplies which would damp down the present abnormal demand. More than that I am afraid I am unable to say this afternoon.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I put one point to the noble Lord about which I am still concerned? I asked today, and I asked yesterday, whether in fact subsidised sugar will come to this country, or whether it is a subsidy for which any member country can bid. I asked this question yesterday, and I gave the noble Lord notice that I would ask it. I do not think he has yet replied to it. Would he be kind enough either to let me know the answer by letter, or should I put down a Question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared not to answer the question. This subsidy is committted to the total supply for the total Community demand, of which we are a part. I cannot follow the fears of the noble Earl in this regard. As a member of the Community, the United Kingdom is guaranteed her share of sugar at this guaranteed price.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, no shafts have been aimed at the sub-committee, and I have therefore nothing to reply to. All I have to do is to thank those who have spoken warmly of the Report of the Committee. I hope that the Motion will now be carried.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
7.23 p.m.
THE LORD DRUMALBYN THE LORD DRUMALBYN rose to move, That this House takes note of the Fourth and Seventh Reports of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on Prepackaging of Liquids and Prepackaging of certain products (COM(72) 202 and R/2628/73. The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I should like to pay tribute to the quality of the evidence we have received from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. It was plain
668
that the witnesses had been closely associated with the progress of the proposals, and had pressed very strongly the British point of view. They had had far-reaching consultations with the trade interests and consumer bodies concerned. Of course, we were under some pressure to catch up with the backlog of Commission documents; but we would not have hesitated to invite the interests I have mentioned to give evidence, should they have wished, had we not had the assurance not only that no further consultation was necessary, but that our own consumer protection bodies had, in general, accepted the proposals, albeit without enthusiasm.
Secondly, I must apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for not being able to stay for this debate. Indeed, I had counted on at least one member of our sub-committee being present to support me on this occasion, but as the hour is late I am sure noble Lords will forgive him, and for that matter me, for not having mobilised my own support on this occasion. I do not think this debate will give rise to quite the same problems that we had in the last debate where, as I understand it, we were talking about plans for a future product year. We are now dealing with proposals which relate to a continuing process of checking, and the general control of packaging.
There are really three draft Council Directives here of which I am asking this House to take note, two dealing with prepackaging of liquids, the first of which contains two proposals for Directives, and are dealt with in the Fourth Report of the Committee. One is, and I am using the words in the text,
"For the approximation of laws of the member States relating to prepackaging by volume of certain liquids in prepackages".
The second is
"For the approximation of the law relating to bottles used as measuring containers";
and then there is the other set of proposals which contains a proposal:
"For the approximation of laws relating to the making up by weight or by volume of certain prepackaged products".
I should say right away that this is a matter which is bound to be of considerable concern both to those who have to produce goods and those who consume them. Although this is quite a late hour for the House, and the Chamber is not quite as full as it can be on some

669
occasions, nevertheless, I should like to get on the Record what the Committee has been doing. I think also it is worth giving an indication in broad terms of what the proposals are about, and of the evidence we have received. I do not intend to go into any great detail, or to deal with this as if one were introducing the Second Reading of a Bill and going through the proposals in detail, for one reason.
Of course, the proposals, when they came to us, were still being negotiated. It was hoped at that time, according to the evidence we received, that some certain modifications towards the British point of view would be conceded by the Commission. I hope it may be possible to-night for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who is going to speak in this debate, to give your Lordships some indication whether the efforts of the Government in this respect have been successful. First of all, just to tell your Lordships what this is about, the liquids with which the first proposed Directive is concerned, are wines, ciders and perries, beer, spirits, vinegar and vinegar substitutes, edible oils, milk, waters and soft drinks, non-fermented fruit juices and vegetable juices. The remainder of prepackaged liquids which come under the heading of foodstuffs is covered by the third proposal, and the headings covered by that proposal are listed in the Seventh Report of the Committee.
Your Lordships will note that all these proposals are for Directives, that is for Instruments to be implemented through legislation by member States in so far as their provisions are not already part of the Statutory Law of the member States. Of course, complete liberty as to the form of the legislation is left to the Governments of the member States to decide. The broad purpose is to remove obstacles to trade between the member States in the foods and liquids concerned, and to ensure freedom of access of them as between member States, provided they conform to the Directives when made. It is proposed they should be brought into force by member countries eighteen months after approval by the Council and notification.
In both its Fourth and Seventh Reports the Committee expressed the opinion that the proposals should be drawn to the attention of your Lordships,
670
because of the principle involved, which is the same in both draft Directives. It differs from the principle on which our weights and measures legislation is based.
First I should explain what we are talking about, what this word "prepackages" means. The word "prepacked" of course, is used in our weights and measures legislation and is defined in it, but it is not quite the same with the Directives. The draft Directives define "prepackages" as
"A combination of a product and the individual package in which it is prepacked."
In the case of the liquids, the subject of the first Directive, the product is prepacked when contained in any kind of packaging prepared in advance and sealed before presentation for sale. In regard to the third Directive, in the case of the products, mainly solids, the elements in the definition are, first, that the product should be in a container or packet; that the contents should be of a fixed amount and cannot be varied without breaking open the container or packet, and, thirdly, that the purchaser should not have been present when the container or packet was filled.
The principle on which Section 24 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 is based is that the quantity of all goods which are prepacked in a container on which the quantity of the contents is indicated must not be less than the quantity so indicated. If they are less then an offence is committed, with certain defences that I need not go into. I should add that this requirement applies to liquids and solids and alike to weight and volume. In other words, this is the principle of minimum quantity. This means that the control is effective at the point of retail sale; that is, that the local Weights and Measures authorities, now the trading standards authorities, make test purchases in the shops, either as a matter of routine or if there is reason to suspect that an offence has been or is being committed.
The principle on which the two draft Directives is based is that of average contents. Control is required to be exercised by the packer or, in the case of imported prepacked goods, by the importer. The main point of enforcement is the factory or packing centre. The Directives lay down the content requirements in considerable detail but leave the method to

671
member States. Each batch or run at the factory would have to be tested to ensure that the average contents of the prepackages, taking the batch as a whole, is not less than the nominal weight or volume—that is the quantity that is marked on the packet—and a specified number of samples, varying with the aggregate of the batch or length of the run, would have to be examined to ensure that deviation from the average (that is, deficiency errors) do not exceed maximum tolerances. In taking the evidence we did not go extensively into this question of maximum tolerances because of the fact that this had already been discussed with the trade interests and with the consumer bodies. Proper records would have to be kept for inspection by the competent authorities, who are required to carry out also sampling tests on the premises of the packer or importer.
Incidentally, the second Directive divides products into two classes and fixes different levels of tolerances both in relation to the quantity in the packet and in relation to the nature of the product. The tolerances are greater, for example, in relation to products the flow properties or density of which cannot economically be kept constant. In such cases the tolerances are greater. The second Directive lays down that no prepackage having an error in deficiency greater than twice the maximum permitted deficiency shall knowingly be marketed under the EEC symbol—this "E" that has to be put on—and that symbol indicates that all packages bearing it conform with the requirements.
The first Directive on liquids prescribes the permitted nominal contents of bottles and other containers, and the second directive deals with what are called "measuring container bottles". I regret that there is a little confusion between first, second and third Directives. There are two Directives under the first set of proposals and then there is another Directive. This deals with measuring container bottles, which the Directive requires shall be filled to a constant level and so marked as to indicate the nominal contents and the firm that fills them. Each liquid, beer, spirits, milk, whatever, may be packed in several different sizes, the volume in each case being designated in litres. As a transitional measure there
672
is an additional list of "provisionally permitted" signs which may be used up to the end of 1980. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will no doubt tell us about any special arrangements which have been negotiated since then, for example, for milk. In the case of products covered by the third Directive, quantities may be indicated during the transitional period in both imperial and international standard measures at the same time; they can carry both the imperial and the metric measures at the same time. There is no issue of metric versus imperial units involved in the proposals, since this country is already moving progressively towards metrication.
Translated into practice, the two principles are known as the minimum system and the average system. The advantage of the minimum system is obvious. The consumer is entitled, come what may, to the quantity indicated on the package. If the quantity is less, the packer commits an offence, and so does anyone who sells the goods or has them in his possession for sale, unless he can produce the necessary defences. But, of course, the consumer pays for this protection. In order to be sure that the quantity indicated is supplied in all circumstances, the packer has to err on the other side. In other words under the minimum system if the packer packs one million kilo packets or litre bottles he will have to supply in order to be sure, perhaps one million and twenty thousand kilos or one million and twenty thousand litres, for which consumers in the aggregate have to pay. Actually, he has to pack more than is indicated on the package. Even so, it is difficult to ensure that no kilo package will ever contain less than a kilo, allowing for loss of moisture, "rogue" units and the like. I refer to kilos merely to avoid confusion between pounds sterling and pounds weight.
One argument in favour of the minimum system is that in theory it should encourage packers to improve their quantity control techniques and machinery. But we are told in evidence that the Department has no evidence that we are ahead of countries which have adopted the average system in this respect. At the end of the day the protection offered to the consumer depends more on the efficiency and determination with which a system is enforced than on

673
the nature of the system, given that it is a reasonable system. If one country considers that another country is not enforcing the system effectively within the Community, a procedure is laid down in the Measuring Instruments Directive of 1971 whereby a complaint may be made to that other country, and failing satisfaction the complainant may take the complaint to the Commission. So that there are safeguards and arguments both ways here.
As I said at the outset, the object of the Directives is to ensure that goods may pass freely between member States. Any goods bearing the prescribed symbol to show that they comply with the system will not be treated as imported goods and will not therefore be subject to quantity checks; it will all be treated as one trading area. Whatever the intrinsic methods of the two systems, it does seem plain to the Committee that the average system is more suitable for inter Community trade. The Directives do not require that all goods covered by them should conform to the system, but only that goods which do conform will have freedom of access, and this is what is called "optional harmonisation".
To quote the evidence we were given:
"The concept is that a common standard should exist through the whole of the Community, so that producers of a given good in one country could be sure that within the limits of the subject matter in this directive,"—
that was in fact the liquids Directive—
"no legislation in any other member State could forbid freedom of access to those countries."
The question is, then, which of the two systems—minimum or average—should be adopted for common use. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were the only countries to press for the minimum system. Apart from the Netherlands, no support for it was forthcoming from the other member States. Moreover, the Codex Alimentarius, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation body of the United Nations, favour the average system. As the witness put it to us—these are questions 147, 151:
"It became very obvious that we were out on a limb in supporting our system as against the virtual unanimity of the world in favouring … the average system.…."
I am quoting the relevant words:
674
"I would say it is fairly clear from the discussions we had in the Codex Alimentarius that the great majority of countries have adopted an average system already, and others which have not yet done so, such as the Netherlands, have gone on record then or since as intending to change over."
In these circumstances it seemed plain to the Committee that the advantage from the point of view of our trade, not only with other member States of the Community but with the rest of the world, lay overwhelmingly with changing to the average system, however distasteful it may be for us to make a change from a system to which we have become accustomed and which many people in this country would regard as superior, at least in theory.
As I have said, the chief interest of consumers lies in having a system that is capable of being, and is efficiently and effectively, enforced. It is apparent that other member States are broadly satisfied with the average system, and there seems no reason why consumers in this country, once they have become accustomed to it, will not find it equally satisfactory.
The main point, however, is that in the view of the Committee there would, in the long term, be penalties for our international trade if we did not come into line with the proposals in the two Directives—penalties which would outweigh the advantages of adhering to our present system. At the same time, it appears that the interests of consumers will be satisfactorily secured, and that the high standards of enforcement which our trading standards authorities have achieved will be fully maintained. For these reasons, the Committee found it right to support the proposals that are made in the Directives, but because of the question of the principle involved, to invite the attention of your Lordships to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Fourth and Seventh Reports of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on Prepackaging of Liquids and Pre-packaging of certain products (COM(72) 202 and R/2628/73).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.45 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord and his Committee for the work that they have done on this question, and for the

675
Report which they have submitted to the House. From this Bench I would welcome the Report and commend it to the House. With the development of consumer protection throughout the world, there has been increasing weights and measures legislation throughout the world. This has led to an increasing number of differences between the legislation on weights and measures of different States. These differences are a very important technical barrier to international trade. This Committee had placed before them an example showing how our trade in foodstuffs with West Germany was greatly hindered, because of the differences in the weights and measures of West Germany as compared with ours. At this late hour I shall not repeat the example, I shall merely refer your Lordships to it in the evidence placed before the Committee.
These Directives are optional harmonisation solutions. This means two things: it means that each of the States in the Community must allow free access to goods which comply with the Directives; but it also means that they are equally free to operate less stringent provisions. For example, we can still sell our pint of milk; that is a less stringent provision. Furthermore, since we knew that the milk trade had already said that they would either prefer to keep to the pint, or, alternatively, to have the 0·6 litre bottle if they had to metricate, provision has been made, as a result of the work of the United Kingdom representatives, to get the 0·6 litre for milk included in the Directive up to 1980 so far as intra-Community trade is concerned. But so far as the domestic trade of the United Kingdom is concerned, we can sell the 0·6 litre indefinitely, so that our milk trade and our milk distributors are amply covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean 0·56?
LORD JACQUES: No, my Lords, 0·6. The pint is 0·57. We can sell the pint, 0·57, indefinitely because that is less stringent. In addition to that, so far as milk is concerned, we have had put into the Directives 0·6 for intra-Community trade, and that will be there until 1980. Quite apart from that, in the same way as in the domestic market we
676
can sell the pint or 0·57 litre indefinitely, we can sell the 0·6 litre indefinitely if the milk trade so wish.
There are three Directives involved here. First, let me deal with the Directive covering bottles which are used as measuring containers. This Directive sets out the provisions under which bottles can be used as measuring instruments in the filling process. It prescribes the tolerances within which the bottles must be made; it prescribes the means of testing that have to be adopted; and it prescribes the way in which the bottles have to be marked. We have no comparable legislation in the United Kingdom. We take the view that if the filler of the bottle is subject to regulation, and it is known that the bottle is a measuring instrument by all concerned, it is reasonable that the bottle manufacturer should be subject to regulation. We therefore regard this Directive, if adopted by us, as being an important and useful addition to our present weights and measures legislation.
I come now to the second of the Directives, which is concerned with certain prepacked liquids. This Directive controls the way in which prepackages of certain specified liquids are made up for sale. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, it includes wines, spirits, beer, milk, edible oil, fruit juice, soft drinks, and vinegar. It also specifies the range of quantities in which they are to be marketed in the intra-Community trade but not in the domestic trade. One good piece of work that the United Kingdom representatives have done in this particular respect is to advocate that the quantities which are going to be used for the intra-Community trade should, so far as possible, be the quantities that are already used in the country of origin. For example, in the case of whisky they have had accepted for intra-Community trade the sizes that we are using now for the bottle and the half-bottle, and that is an example of the useful work that has been done by our representatives.
I come now to the third Directive, which is concerned with prepacked products, mostly solids, but which includes liquids not in the previous Directive. These solids include both food and cleansing materials. The provisions are very similar to those of the previous Directive

677
dealing with liquids, but, there is one important difference, where, in the case of the Directives dealing entirely with liquids, the range of quantities in which the products have to be packed is laid down. That has not been done in this Directive. So far as solids are concerned the quantities in which the products are to be marketed in the intra-Community trade will be subject to a separate Directive which will come later. The drafts which are before the House, particularly the draft relating to solids, is not up to date. There have been many amendments and in due course we shall get more up-to-date drafts.
I come now to the central core of the problem so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. These Directives lay down the methods of control from the point of view of consumer protection. They lay down that it shall be by way of control at the point of manufacture, and that there shall be permitted tolerances according to the product and the size of the sample. They further prescribe that there shall be a declaration upon the package of the average contents, and this will be based upon the sampling, testing and tolerances as at the point of manufacture. This is the most widely accepted practice throughout the world. Only a few countries, of which we are one, are operating a different system. We have not got control at the point of manufacture; we have it at the retail point. We have not got the average system; we have got the minimum contents system. It must be accepted at once that our system is simple from the point of view of the consumer in that she knows that she should receive the quantity which is put on the package. If she is dissatisfied she can go back to the retailer, or in the last resort to the trading standards officer, and complain.
While this is accepted, I would venture to say that there has been gross exaggeration of the benefits of our particular system. If noble Lords will refer to Section 26(7) of the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, it will be seen that we have acknowledged that we have the average, that we have even acknowledged tolerances. That subsection lays down that a reasonable number of samples shall be tested and regard shall be had to the average. So that anyone who is prosecuted could point to the average, and say that on the average he was not defrauding
678
the public in any way. I would say that if the margin of error on the individual articles which compose the sample was not too great he would very likely get away with it. So we have already acknowledged the average and in a small way we have already acknowledged tolerances, for in this particular subsection it is also said that if only one article is tested any inconsiderable deficiency or surplus shall be disregarded. In other words, we have accepted that there is a tolerance which should be completely disregarded.
Therefore, I do not think this change is so violent as it might appear theoretically. Furthermore, there are certain advantages which the consumer can get by having the average system. Certain commodities, for example, tobacco, wine and knitting wools, are liable to change in weight after they have been prepacked but before they are sold. When you have the minimum quantity system at the point of retail sale it is extremely difficult to legislate for that kind of commodity, but if you have the average system at the point of manufacture you can further protect the consumer by legislating for those particular commodities because you have not got the same difficulty.
Furthermore, certain commodities are packed in a juice: for example, canned goods are packed in the juice of the fruit; meat is often packed in a gravy. By our present system we have very little control over the amount of meat or gravy or the amount of fruit or juice, as the case may be. We have to have separate Orders to deal with these questions. With the average system and control at the point of manufacture we could exercise far greater control over the solids which go among the liquid in the case of fruit or meat. There I think there would be two solid advantages for the consumer. But there are also advantages for the manufacturer. At the present time the manufacturer is in difficulty. Any one of the scores of local authorities throughout the country can pick up one of these commodities in any retail shop and have it tested, and from my own personal experience I would say that the attitude taken varies considerably from one local authority to another in, for example, how much regard they would have to "average". Under the average system the manufacturer is not concerned with the attitude which might be taken by all the local authorities throughout the

679
country. He is concerned with the attitude of the local authority inspector in the area in which the goods are manufactured. So that so far as the manufacturer is concerned there is considerable simplicity.
The manufacturer will also get a technical advantage from the averaging system. The enforcement officers will be going to the factories in their area and specifying the kind of routine they want for the purposes of checking. They will act as communicants as between one factory and another, communicating in such a way as to get the best system in all the factories. In so far as the enforcement officers will be able to convey information and will be aiming to get the best system of control in factories in their area, we can hope to get a technically more satisfactory system under the average.
Furthermore, there are advantages to the enforcement officers. Obviously, there are far fewer manufacturing points than retail points, and our very scarce standard trading officers are not going to have their time wasted in travelling from shop to shop. They will go into a factory and spend more time there doing the job for which they are trained, than in travelling from one place to the other. Your Lordships will therefore see that in the average system there can be considerable advantages.
In conclusion, I would suggest that we have to look at this question outside the context of the EEC. Whether or not we go into the Community, in the final analysis it is in our interests as a trading nation that there should be some standardisation of weights and measures legislation, so that it does not act as a barrier as between countries in international trade. In the appropriate United Nations Committee to which the noble Lord referred in a discussion at a recent meeting on this question of the methods of testing for weights and measures, all the countries except three supported the average system with sampling at the point of manufacture.
The three concerned were: first, Holland, who has already declared that she is prepared to accept the average system; secondly, Japan, who had objections only so far as certain liquids were concerned—the objections being
680
extremely limited; and, thirdly, ourselves. The rest are already on the average system with sampling at the point of manufacture. It is therefore in our interest as an important exporter to play our full part in obtaining some unanimity so far as weights and measures are concerned. The only way we can obtain that unanimity is by accepting the average system.
The noble Lord mentioned that each of the States would be allowed 18 months to put Directives into operation once they had been confirmed. I would point out that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned we are given until December, 1979, to put them into operation. So we have far more than 18 months. We have five years plus. Therefore, I assure the House that there will not be any great hurry in amending our legislation because it is not necessary that it should be done in a hurry. There will be the fullest discussions about any contemplated changes with all the interested parties—the enforcement officers, the consumer representatives and the manufacturers—to ensure, in the final analysis, the least difficulties for the manufacturers, the easiest enforcement for the local authorities and the maximum protection for the consumer. In all the circumstances, my Lords, I hope that the House will note this Report and by so doing will at least indirectly be recommending its acceptance.
8.1 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the way in which he has dealt with the subject and the additional clarification which he has furnished. I found myself in a rather amusing position tonight in that I tried to put forward a balanced view as between the two systems in the belief that the Government had done their best to get our own system accepted elsewhere. I am sure that this was so. But tonight along comes the noble Lord and he makes an almost impassioned support of the system to which we are moving. This is satisfactory, I am sure. It merely confirms that the evidence which we were given and the judgment which we reached was, I am certain, right. I am not certain that the whole country will view it with quite the same enthusiasm as the noble Lord. Never

681
theless, I am extremely grateful to him for the way in which he has presented the arguments in favour of the new system and welcomed the Committee's work on this subject.
I have one matter about which I wish to ask him. The noble Lord mentioned the concessions which were made on the whisky content. As the original draft concerned the present whisky content, which was provisional only until the end of the transitional period, is he now saying that this has been accepted and transferred from the transitional column to the permanent column? I am not certain about this point. I understood him to say that it had now been transferred to the permanent column. Also, I am not clear about what he said on the subject of the transitional arrangements. The
682
impression I gathered was that the eighteen months applied to the general provision, but that we had the special provisional arrangements, such as the use of avoidupois measures, pints and so on, in inter-Community trade until the end of the period. It is important that we should get the matter right so that the public know where they stand. I am sure it will come out in the wash and elsewhere. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said tonight.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in the case of whisky, I can confirm that the transfer is from provisional to permanent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.