Sitting of 1 August 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. D. Foot: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present to this honourable House a Petition signed by 10,146 electors and residents in the Borough of Ipswich. The grievance to which the petitioners call attention is the inadequate salaries paid to nurses and other hospital staff, the fact that such salaries compare unfavourably with those paid in other comparable occupations, and the need to increase salary scales as a matter of urgency and to review the whole salary structure.
  The Prayer of the Petition reads as follows:
  Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will give further consideration to the salaries of nurses and other hospital workers and will find means of prevailing on Her Majesty's Government to reward them more adequately for the services which they render.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Independent Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the control of the British nuclear deterrent and its rôle within the Western alliance.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 25th July.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are glad that he is as resolved as his predecessor to keep an independent deterrent on our side of the Atlantic? Will he ensure that everything possible is done to make even more widely known the terrible effectiveness of the V-bomber force and its necessity to British independence and international peace?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it should be widely known that the V-bomber force in this country, of which we are deeply proud, plays a great rôle in preserving world peace.
    Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what British nuclear deterrent is left over which Britain has independent control? Arising out of that, is it true, as reported in the Press, that Blue Water is to be abandoned?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: On the question of the nuclear deterrent, the V-bomber force is a force over which we have complete control. I do not think one need go further than that.
    Mr. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to stress the technical efficiency of the V-bombec force? Does he agree that in relation to the total defence budget and also with regard to other less important items on which this country spends large sums of money this deterrent is secured at an extremely reasonable price indeed and gives very good value for money?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps it is sufficient to say that we have got the V-bomber force and we intend to keep it.
    Mr. Mulley: While not questioning at all the technical efficiency of the force, because I think that it is technically very efficient, may I ask if the Minister's answers imply that the British Government are not participating in the N.A.T.O. discussions following the Athens Conference to work out a form of joint control within the Alliance?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one.

    N.A.T.O. (Supreme Commander)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Defence whether Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,

    555
    were consulted on President Kennedy's proposal that General Lyman Lemnitzer should succeed General Norstad as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Europe; what is the procedure for consultation on such appointments; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The appointment of a N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander requires the approval of the Governments represented on the North Atlantic Council. Her Majesty's Government were consulted about General Lemnitzer's nomination for the appointment of S.A.C.E.U.R.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that full consultation takes place between the allies before names are bandied about?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am absolutely satisfied that Her Majesty's Government were consulted.

    National Service Men (Compassionate Release)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the success of the recruiting drive for the Armed Forces, he will now arrange for more applications by National Service men for release on compassionate grounds to be granted.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Applications for compassionate release will continue to be considered on their merits.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a large number of people, including some of my constituents, feel that there is very great hardship because their cases are not being considered on their merits? Surely, as recruiting is going better than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, he can now ask those who are examining the cases to relax some of their difficult opposition to any application on compassionate grounds?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot deal with individual cases without understanding the particular aspects of each one, and that, I think, would be more appropriate to the Service Ministers, but the cases will continue to be considered on their merits.

    Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a
    556
    statement on the official Anglo-American talks in London on the detection of underground test explosions.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prme Minister to Questions by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 17th July. I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that recently a small underground test in France was detected by an American station 5,000 miles away? Further, since it is understood that both American and British scientists now agree that small tests underground can be detected by existing means, what is preventing acceptance of the proposals made by the neutral nations?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The fact that some advances have, happily, been made in the detection of underground tests, and in distinguishing them from earthquakes and other disturbances, is important, and its importance should not be under-rated, but it is not, of course, a complete solution to the problem; it is only part and not all.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Defence what advice he has received from his scientific advisers regarding the availability of instruments which are able to detect all underground tests within a range of 1,400 miles.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on 17th July in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there have been certain improvements recently in detection techniques and in the methods of assessing the results. This is not the same thing as the invention of an instrument to detect underground events infallibly, or to distinguish all earthquakes from nuclear explosions.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of reports in reputable newspapers that a considerable advance has been made in the recording of underground explosions, whether by earthquake or otherwise, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government gave the nation a little more information on the subject, more especially as the question

    557
    of on-site inspections appears to be the main difficulty in the way of securing a nuclear test ban agreement? Can we not have some information of the advances that have been made?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Very full statements have already been made on this subject. I do not think that I can really add to them, but can only repeat that they are important advances but not a complete solution of the problem.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister say how many seismic events took place in the Soviet Union in 1961 about which there was any doubt whether or not they were of nuclear origin?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly not without notice.

    Thor Missiles
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the period for which Thor missiles are to be retained in this country.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We have decided that the arrangements under which Thor missiles are stationed in this country should be brought to an end during the course of next year.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that information will be very widely welcomed, at least on this side of the House, as it is something we have urged on the Government for a long time? We are very glad indeed that the Government have come to this conclusion.

    United States Air Force Bases, United Kingdom
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the United States Government regarding a reappraisal of the military necessity for the United States strategic air force bases in this country.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 26th July.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the Minister agree that the new missiles that the Americans are now installing cover
    558
    all the targets that could be covered from bases in this country, bringing nearer, at any rate, the day when these American strategic bases will not be any longer necessary? Is he aware that whereas we on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to support American bases of this kind as long as they are necessary, we are now beginning to doubt whether this is any longer true?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The precise disposition of the nuclear strike force—how much by missiles and how much be aircraft—is a matter of military judgment at any particular time, but I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the party opposite fully supports American bases in this country.
    Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that these bases are becoming obsolete by reason of American rocket developments? Are not they— as well as, perhaps, the V-bomber bases —becoming obsolete because of Russian developments? It surely is the case that this island is no longer very useful as a deterrent base.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we could dispense with all bases in this country for a nuclear strike, I think that the answer is clearly "No"; and that answer would be given whether in the United States or here.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what new proposals he has for reducing defence expenditure.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My problem is to keep within bounds its tendency to rise.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister, in his desperate effort to keep expenditure within bounds, aware that defence expenditure has gone up by over £200 million since he resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he thought that defence expenditure was too high, and talked about it being one of the causes of a slithering from one crisis to another and bringing the value of the £ from 20s. to 12s.? Is he now to devote all

    559
    his energy to this matter, and can we rely on him to keep a very vigilant eye on defence expenditure?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is nothing desperate about my activities. I am giving calm consideration to the subject.
    Commander Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his first duty is to see that the country is properly defended?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is. I also have the duty to see that the money that is available for defence is spent to the best advantage.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of reports in The Times today, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the abandonment of Blue Water is among the measures of economy that he is considering?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I exclude no possibility from an examination of measures of economy.
    Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of giving up our independent nuclear deterrent, or of sharing it with other countries?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different question, but I have already made it quite plain that we have a British nuclear deterrent, and we are keeping it.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Meantime, can the Minister of Defence say when defence expenditure in this country was last reduced?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: A very long time ago.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what is now the United Kingdom's daily expenditure on defence in Germany.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: About £287,000.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not this a splendid opportunity for the Minister of Defence to wield the axe, and could he not be inspired by the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is, before he underwent this resurrection?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I draw my inspiration from many sources, not excluding
    560
    the hon. Member, but I do not think that withdrawal of our troops from Europe would make a great contribution to economy in defence costs.

    N.A.T.O. (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what consultations there have been with General Norstad and his successor in regard to a nuclear policy for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the light of the possession of independent nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom and France.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: General Norstad's views on nuclear policy are well known to the North Atlantic Council. No doubt the Council will wish to know the views of his successor in due course.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the Minister of Defence resist any attempt to create a N.A.T.O. nuclear organisation? Is he aware that while I am somewhat sceptical of the value of what is called the independent nuclear deterrent, I would rather have that than have us place the whole of our nuclear defence in the hands of N.A.T.O., which would include various Continental countries about which I am very suspicious?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions in mind.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is the statement in the Question accurate—that France has an independent nuclear weapon?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: She certainly has the capacity to make an independent nuclear weapon, and the knowledge of how to do so.

    British Forces, Germany (Pay and Allowances)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence if he will arrange for British forces stationed in Berlin to receive the same overseas allowance as is paid to our forces stationed in the German Federal Republic.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Local overseas allowance is intended to compensate for essential extra expenditure incurred in living overseas as compared

    561
    with living in the United Kingdom. The cost of living in Berlin is no higher than in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the Government give up this fiction that the troops in Berlin are living in exactly the same conditions as if they wore living in barracks in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that there is strong feeling among the troops there, particularly the Air Force, that when they are transferred from another part of Germany to Berlin their costs are the same and their responsibilities are greater yet Her Majesty's Government do not make any allowance for the difference?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that there are certain differences in these matters. For example, in Berlin they receive family rations and domestic services at concessional rates which they do not get in the rest of Germany.
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence why Her Majesty's Government pays their forces in Berlin in an artificial currency: and if he will withdraw British Armed Forces vouchers.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The British Armed Forces Special Vouchers with which troops in Berlin are paid are not an artificial currency: they are fully negotiable within the limits defined on them. The arrangement has proved to be generally advantageous.
    Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister aware that the other two Western occupying Powers—France and the United States— have abandoned the idea of this special currency for their troops and pay them in their own currencies? Is he aware that a great number of troops feel that there is some "fiddle" in this arrangement? If there are reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should continue the cost of providing these special vouchers, will he give the House a full and proper explanation of why the British Government feel that this expenditure is necessary?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My information is that it is generally regarded as fair and acceptable, but if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) would like to have a word with me about it some time I should be only too pleased.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if what the men call
    562
    this "Mickey Mouse" currency in fact helps us? Is it an economy or would it cost more, or would it make no difference at all from our point of view, to maintain a special currency which we do not maintain in the rest of Germany?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is not an unknown arrangement to pay troops who are in an operational or near-operational rô1e with currency of this type. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has any difficulty in understanding this, I will willingly discuss the matter with him.

    Service Departments (Permanent Buildings)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Defence what is his policy for co-ordination of expenditure by the three Service Departments on permanent buildings which may become redundant within a few years if the policies of Her Majesty's Government for progressive disarmament succeed.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Services' building programmes are kept under constant review in relation to long-term needs. No useful purpose would be served by a special review at the present time in the light of discussions at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of Question No. 20 on the Order Paper and the Answer which will be given to it, because there is a proposal to build a large number of houses for the Culdrose Airfield in the small Borough of Helston? As houses are an investment for a century, would it not be wise for them to be sited in places where they are likely to be absorbed by the civil population if we get disarmament within a reasonable period?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly have a look at that particular point. While I wish the disarmament conference every success, I do not think that we can look to it to solve all our housing problems in this way.

    Defence Policy and Nuclear Strategy
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence how closely the defence policy and nuclear strategy of Her Majesty's

    563
    Government are integrated with those of the United States' Administration and Strategic Air Force; and for how much longer Thor missiles and United States strategic bases are to be retained in this country.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Very closely. On the subject of the Thor missiles, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).
    Mr. Driberg: In view of the first part of that very informative Answer, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether he has noted that passage in Mr. McNamara's recent speech which has been interpreted by most commentators, in Washington and elsewhere, as indicating a change from a second-strike to a first-strike nuclear strategy, whether Her Majesty's Government accept that interpretation, whether they were consulted about such an important change and whether they agreed to it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I doubt whether the interpretation which the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has put on the speech is very widely accepted, but I will consider all these matters. The question here is "Are we closely integrated in our discussions with the United States"?, and the answer is "Very closely indeed."
    Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are closely integrated, it is also true that we can operate independently and that this situation is more important now than it has been in recent years? Would he not also agree that it is absolutely vital to carry public opinion with Government policy on this matter? Can my right hon. Friend undertake that the Service Ministers and himself will do more at times, other than when presenting the Service Estimates, to explain defence policy in detail throughout the country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I think that it is right that both aspects of this should be emphasised; that we have this independence to which my hon. Friend has referred and about which fee talks a great deal in the House, and that we also have the closest integration with an important ally.
    Mr. M. Foot: Would not the Minister agree that the statement made by Mr. McNamara and the interpretation placed on it, as has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), is of the highest importance? Will he, therefore, undertake to make a public statement, say, next week—even though the House may not be sitting—on the British Government's attitude to Mr. McNamara's statement and the implications which many have placed on it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. McNamara's statement was of the highest importance, but I doubt if all these glosses put on it are.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Employees, Portsmouth Dockyard (Pay)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men working in Portsmouth dockyard, at the latest convenient date, earned less than the national average of £15 12s. l0d.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The "national average" figure of £15 12s. l0d. relates to the working week ending 13th April, 1962. In this week there were 3,670 adult male workpeople in Portsmouth dockyard who earned more, and 9,288 who earned less, than this figure. Any such figures are, of course, largely influenced by the amount of overtime worked. Nevertheless, the dockyard average was £14 8s. 10d., although this figure relates to a working week of half-an-hour less than the national average.
    Brigadier Clarke: Do the average figures which my hon. Friend has quoted include the recant pay award which was published last week?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, they do not include the latest pay award which took effect on 9th July; of 6s. for the skilled, 5s. 6d for the semi-skilled and 5s. for the unskilled. These figures should be added to those I gave.

    Artificers
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many are at present on the advancement rosters for

    565
    chief engine room artificer, chief mechanician, chief ordnance artificer, and chief electrical artificer, respectively.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Forty-nine engine room artificers. There are at present no mechanicians, ordnance artificers or electrical artificers waiting on roster for advancement to chief.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the apparently recurring difficulties experienced on this point in these technical branches, is it not time that the Admiralty really examined the rating structure again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) knows that this matter has been continually examined and debated. It is important that we should do all we can to draw the attention of all ships and establishments to this deficiency. We have recently put out an A.F.O. emphasising the number of men whom we need to qualify for advancement, and I have also made arrangements for the Second Sea Lord to write a letter personally to the commanders-in-chief drawing their attention to the deficiencies which exist.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see why these rosters cannot be kept full?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are doing that.
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many of Her Majesty's ships at present in commission do not carry their full complement of chief electrical artificers and electrical artificers.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Nine, Sir. In addition forty-six, while having the correct numbers overall, carry senior electrical artificers or senior electrical mechanicians in lieu of chief electrical artificers or chief electrical mechanicians.
    Mr. Willis: Does not this indicate that there is a shortage of electrical artificers and chief electrical artificers? What are the Government doing about it since, of course, this is related to the previous Question?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The main remedy, I think, lies in an increased entry of artificer apprentices and a greater share of them going into the electrical specialisations. This we are undertaking
    566
    at the moment. The other remedies include the cross-training of other artificers so that there is more flexibility of employment. The recent introduction of a mechanician apprentice entry into the radio-electrical branch, announced last July, will help in this direction.

    Naval Aircraft (Accident Prevention)
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the lower accident rate achieved in the United States Naval Air Service as a result of increased expenditure on safety measures; and if he will increase expenditure on accident prevention in order to reduce the number of accidents to naval aircraft.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am unable to say how far the lower accident rate in the United States Navy is attributable to any increased spending on flight safety. Comparisons with the United States Navy tend to be misleading owing to differences in the methods of classification. In the last eleven years the major accident rate in the Fleet Air Arm has been reduced per 10,000 hours from 24 down to 10. We are at present considering various ways of improving still further our flight safety.
    Mr. Wells: Could my hon. Friend give some outline of the new steps he intends taking? Can he say why it is impossible to get a straight comparison in the number of accidents in a number of flying hours?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Consideration is being given to setting up a Flight Safety Centre to distribute flight safety information and to run flight safety courses. It is difficult to compare like with like, because the endurance of United States naval aircraft is greater than ours and one cannot, therefore, say that 10,000 hours of their flying time would represent the same number of deck landings. If one takes the major accident rates and compares them with the number of deck landings, our figures are favourable compared with theirs.

    Recruits (Eyesight)
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the large number of candidates rejected for

    567
    service in the Royal Navy through inability to satisfy the eyesight requirements, and the resultant loss of good men to the Service, the will authorise a review of these standards.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. These like all other naval entry standards are constantly under review and it has recently been decided to lower the eyesight standard for the junior electrical branch, all categories of the engineering branch and all artificer apprentices. Candidates for all these branches will now be permitted to wear glasses.
    Captain Litchfield: While I agree that Lord Nelson did quite well with only one eye, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will be careful not to go too far in relaxing the standard in branches where two good eyes are essential, whether any other branches are to have the standard relaxed, and also whether recent rejects will be considered if they apply again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We shall communicate with recent rejects to see if they wish to apply again. The question of extending relaxation in the other branches is being examined and I will bear in mind the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend about the need for good eyes in some branches. I have been trying for three-and-a-half years to get some relaxation here and I am delighted that at last we have done it.

    Houses, Helston
    Mr. Haymanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement showing the number of houses built by the Admiralty within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at Culdrose Airfield; what was their cost; how many such houses are proposed to be built; when they are to be built; and what will be their cost.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty has built 230 houses within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at R.N. Air Station, Culdrose, at a cost of £580,000.
    We plan to build a further 228 houses at a cost of about £600,000. We hope these will be started in about twelve months' time and completed in the spring of 1965.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Civil Lord take account of the fact that the Admiralty's first suggestion that some of these new houses, or the whole of them, should be built in Camborne—Redruth seemed a very sensible one? In view of the fact that these houses will be a century investment, that disarmament will come at some time—in our time we hope—that the population of Camborne—Redruth is five times that of Helston, and that recently his own Government decided to cut off the branch line to Helston, will he reconsider the proposition?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We always wanted to build at Helston and we have re-examined this matter and think that it is now the right decision. I think that Cam-borne is a good deal further away than Culdrose and that if the 'branch line is not to be run the roads will be even more crowded and the difference in travelling time will be greater still.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who in the first place suggested that the houses should be built at Camborne? Is he aware that in the winter it would mean half an hour's drive for personnel going to and from Culdrose whereas, from the present housing estate, it is only five minutes, and that in the summer it would mean anything between three-quarters of an hour and an hour's drive to get there?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that is a very good justification for building the houses at Helston.
    Mr. Hayman: I beg to give notice that, as the answer is so unsatisfactory, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    H.M.S. "Victorious" (Successor)
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he has yet decided on the requirements for a successor to H.M.S. "Victorious".
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am afraid I cannot usefully add very much to my reply of 28th February to the hon. Member. He will understand that there are various complex requirements to allow for, at least one of which first emerged in the 1962 Defence White

    569
    Paper: namely the aim of achieving a range of common aircraft with the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend at least say whether the design work for a carrier of about 50,000 tons referred to in last year's Defence White Paper is proceeding, and if it is proceeding satisfactorily what is the earliest time that we can expect such a ship to be laid down?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Design work is proceeding, but I cannot state without notice when a decision will be reached, because no decision has yet been taken about laying down the ship.
    Mr. Willis: When is it proposed to take a decision about this? It has been on the boards now for a very long time and something should be done to approve or not approve.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As with many other decisions in the defence sphere—there was a Question to my right hon. Friend earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to address his question to the Minister of Defence.

    Commissioning Ceremony, Lossiemouth
    Mr. Dribergasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what religious service took place on the occasion of the commissioning at Lossiemouth of a naval aircraft designed for the delivery of hydrogen-bombs; to which denomination the chaplain who conducted this service belongs; if he will circulate in HANSARD the text of the form of service used; and by what authority this form of service was used on this occasion.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the commissioning ceremony of 801 Squadron at R.N. Air Station, Lossiemouth, which included a short religious service. The chaplains of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland took part, and no special authority was required. I am circulating the text of the service in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the Civil Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it occurred to any of those concerned that there was a certain incongruity about these proceedings?
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, I do not think that it did occur because I do not think there was any incongruity. As I said in my reply, this was in respect of the personnel of the squadron and I think that it is right to ask God's help for all those who play a gallant and dedicated part in deterring aggression and keeping the peace of this country.
    Mr. Driberg: If this was confined to asking God's help for the personnel, most of us would agree, but if it was asking God's help for the ultimate object of projecting hydrogen bombs on a defenceless civil population, was there not a certain incongruity?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As I made clear, this was directed to the personnel.
    Following is the information:
    ORDER OF SERVICE
    After the playing of the National Anthem the Ship's Chaplain shall begin the Service with these words: —
    BRETHEN, in the course of our duty we are set in the midst of many and great dangers, and we are gathered here today, at the beginning of this new enterprise to ask in all humility for the blessing of Almighty God upon this Squadron, and to seek His gracious and ready protection upon us who are called to serve in it. Let us therefore now join in asking far these things.
    THE BLESSING

    Chaplain: Our help is in the name of the Lord.

    Answer: Who hath made heaven and earth.

    Chaplain: The Lord be with you.

    Answer: And with Thy Spirit.

    Chaplain: Let us pray: —

    In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit we humbly ask to bless this Squadron here assembled. May He watch over your going out and coming in; may He keep you from all evil and mischief and preserve you throughout all dangers to body and soul, so that in the end through all the changes and chances of this mortal life, you may come through His love and mercy to His eternal and everlasting kingdom. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
    THE DEDICATION
    The Church of Scotland and Free Church Chaplain shall then say the following prayers of Dedication: —
    In the name of GOD who Creates, Redeems and Strengthens, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:
    We Dedicate this Squadron
    To the service of the Queen in the fellowship of the Royal Navy;
    To the protection of her Realm and Commonwealth;
    To the preservation of Peace throughout the World.
    Let us pray:
    O LORD GOD, when Thou givest to Thy servants to endeavour any great matter, grant us also to know that it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory, through Him that for the finishing of Thy work laid down His life, our Redeemer. Jesus Christ. Amen.
    Our Father….
    Here the Squadron Commanding Officer will read a short lesson.
    Then shall be sung the hymn:
    "HE WHO WOULD VALIANT BE".
    The Service will conclude with the Blessing said by the Chaplain.
    Unto God's most gracious mercy and protection we commit you. May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May He lift up the light of His countenance upon you and give you peace, now and evermore. Amen.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Depot, Scunthorpe
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes his Department is using the former ordnance depot in Cottage Beck Road, Scunthorpe; what proposals he has received from the interested bodies concerned for its transfer and use as a sports centre for young people; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): This depot is surplus to Regular Army requirements. Part of the site will be used by the Territorial Army and the rest will be transferred to the General Post Office if terms are agreed. My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals for its use as a sports centre for young people.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this has been transferred already to the Post Office? Is he aware that I was today informed at the headquarters of the Post Office that this was not the case? Is he further aware that the highest authorities on physical education in the Ministry of Education believe that this is a perfect building for a youth sports centre, and would it not be a tragedy to use it for storing Post Office material? Will the hon. Gentle-
    572
    man see that nothing is done until he has received the views of the Scunthorpe Borough Council, the local education authority and the county education authority, all of whom want this building transferred to the Borough of Scunthorpe for the use of the youth in the locality?
    Mr. Ramsden: I am aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's views and those of his constituents. It is part of our normal disposal procedure that surplus buildings have first to be offered to other Departments to see if they have need for them. The Post Office has indicated a need. The transfer to the G.P.O. is not finally setttled and if it does not go through we should gladly consider other proposals.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that nothing final will be done until he has heard those views at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Ramsden: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General whose Department has indicated its interest.

    Trooper Walton
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for War why Trooper Walton of Bovington Camp was placed under close arrest on 11th May; why the commanding officer did not communicate with Bensham General Hospital regarding the serious illness of his mother; and why no action was taken to grant compassionate leave until the intervention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.
    Mr. Ramsden: Trooper Walton was placed under close arrest because he had threatened his commanding officer that if he was not granted leave he would go absent. The commanding officer had been in close touch with the family doctor about the health of the soldier's mother. As soon as a diagnosis of serious illness was made, the hospital informed the unit, and it was as a result of their subsequent discussions, and not, with respect, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that compassionate leave was granted to the soldier.
    Mr. Short: While I am delighted that the outcome is that this young man has

    573
    been posted near to the hospital where his mother is a patient, may I ask whether it is not clear to the Minister that nothing happened until I intervened? Will the Minister agree that if a recruit, who has applied for compassionate leave because of the very severe illness of his mother, is being questioned by his commanding officer, and the latter says to him, "What will you do if I do not grant leave?", the commanding officer is really provoking him to say something for which he could be put under close arrest? Is that not exactly what happened in this case? Secondly, will the Minister say why this commanding officer did not follow the universal rule when he heard that this woman had gone into hospital of telephoning the hospital or the police to get to know the facts? He did not do that. Why not? Is it mot time that comparatively junior officers had these powers of arbitrary arrest withdrawn from them?
    Mr. Ramsden: No, the hon. Gentleman really has got the background wrong. The background to the young man being put under close arrest is that the unit had been in close touch with him and with the family doctor about his mother's illness and his wife's illness, and nothing had transpired to show that either of these were serious. He had been generously treated in the matter of leave. Events took quite a different turn when we heard from the hospital that there had been a much graver diagnosis of his mother's illness. It was for this reason that he was, quite rightly, granted leave.
    Mr. Short: Is not the Minister aware that when he says that events took a turn for the worse, what really occurred was that this young man's sister telephoned to the unit to say that her mother had been taken into hospital and that the commanding officer then told her to get a medical certificate, when leave would then be considered? Should not the commanding officer then have telephoned to the hospital? Why did he not do that?
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. I do not accept that the commanding officer did anything wrong. It is true that he heard from the sister, but he had no reason to suppose that this was not a further report about the conditions of illness of
    574
    which he was perfectly well aware already. He was quite right to ask for confirmation. It was while this was being sought that the hospital itself telephoned to the unit. Confirmation was received by that call, and leave was given at once.

    National Service Men
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the latest number of National Service men given notice that they will have to serve an extra six months' conscription; and how many others he estimates will receive such notice.
    Mr. Ramsden: 9,912 National Service Men have been warned that they will be retained for an extra six months. No more are required.
    Mr. Allaun: While I am very glad to know that no more are required, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many people feel that it is a double injustice that men should have to serve this extra six months in peace time, and that for the one in three of these men who are married it is even more unfair?
    Mr. Ramsden: We have debated this matter on many occasions. All I can say is that we are constantly scrutinising the numbers we need, to make sure that men are not kept back unnecessarily. We are glad that it has been possible to cancel some of these notices. But nobody who is kept back should be under any illusion about the essential nature of the service that he is performing.
    Mr. Ross: May I first congratulate the Minister on getting back to the figure he gave me on 27-th June of 9,912? It is rather strange that the figure he gave in answer to the same Question one month later was 9,121. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me, which is much more important, how many men have appealed against this decision and how many of these appeals have been heard?
    Mr. Ramsden: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Gentleman will study my right hon. Friend's answers he will see that these figures relate to different categories.
    Mr. Ross: No, they do not.
    Mr. Ramsden: That is the explanation of the discrepancy. To date 1,764 men have submitted appeals, of which 1,109 have been considered and 655 are awaiting examination. Of the appeals so far considered 198 men have been exempted on hardship grounds.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain sense of frustration among many of these men who are being kept on, because they have not the feeling that they are required to do a useful job of work and many of them have immediate and useful occupations to go to? Their further retention from their ordinary civil employment is imposing great hardship. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assaurance that every individual case is reviewed regularly to see if retention is really necessary in each case?
    Mr. Ramsden: In general, we review categories, obviously, but if individual cases are represented to us—and I think I remember one from the hon. Gentleman—we do scrutinise them each on their merits.

    Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the loss of earnings by some workers at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, consequent on transference from productive work to day-rate jobs; and what steps he is taking to provide more productive work for this factory.
    Mr. Ramsden: The main rifle programme has been completed, and there is now less scope for piecework at this factory. My right hon. Friend regrets that there is at present no prospect of getting fresh production orders for the factory on a scale that would alleviate this situation.
    Mr. Albu: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for receiving my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and myself on this matter, and may I ask him whether he has yet been able to give consideration to the gross injustice done to a small number of men whose earnings have been reduced from £3 to £4 a week because of this transference?
    Mr. Ramsden: I have promised to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as
    576
    I am ready to do so. Also, I discussed these matters with the union yesterday in the course of a routine meeting and I understand that the union is making representations in another direction. I would rather not be pressed to say more, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly consult with my colleagues to determine whether anything further can be done within the scope of existing legislation.

    Gibraltar (War Department Employees)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War what priority is being given to Gibraltarians during the scaling-down operations announcd in the Defence White Paper for the Services there.
    Mr. Ramsden: Gibraltarians employed by the War Department will be given priority for retention provided they are under 65 and able to do the job.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am extremely glad to hear this, but it is contrary to the information which appeared in the Press? I am delighted that the Government have evidently reconsidered the matter.

    Durham and North-East (War Department Orders)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War what measures are being taken by his Department to place more orders for Army requirements in the County of Durham and the North-East.
    Mr. Ramsden: The orders we place in a particular area must ultimately depend on the tenders submitted by manufacturers. But we do give special consideration to firms situated in development districts.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that I have addressed similar Questions to various Government Departments? As this matter of contracts comes within his own purview as Financial Secretary, will he go a little further than he has indicated and not wait until the tenders come in but ascertain whether it is possible, within the ambit of the North-East industrial centre, to place more orders in that area?
    Mr. Ramsden: If as a result of tendering no firm in a development district would secure a substantial part of a contract, we offer the lowest tenderer in one of these districts a part of the contract at a price which would entail no extra cost to us. Further than that, if there are any firms which the hon. Gentleman knows whom he thinks we should consider for submitting tenders, I should be glad to hear from him and discuss any proposal the has in mind.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that what I am suggesting fits in with the Government's general economic policy of promoting more work in a development district? This is a way out. Is it not possible to ascertain whether there are firms in the area ready to tender for these contracts?
    Mr. Ramsden: We certainly do our best to do that, but in general the initiative comes, and I think it is right that it should come, from the firm.

    Honest John Rockets
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions members of the public 'have been invited to press the button to fire Honest John rockets in mock demonstrations at Lark-hill, Wiltshire.
    Mr. Ramsden: An Honest John rocket was fired at each of the School of Artillery's open days on 27th and 28th July this year by the owner of the souvenir programme with a winning number. One rocket was similarly fired by a member of the public at a demonstration last year.
    Mrs. Hart: Is it not the case that on occasions schoolboys have been invited to fire this rocket? Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that an invitation to press the button as a reward for winning a raffle ticket is compatible with the pacific intentions of the British Government?
    Mr. Ramsden: The point of these open days is to arouse public interest in the Services and to establish a means of liaison between the public and the Services. The preparation of the rocket for firing is part of the normal military training. Pressing the button is rather fun for the people who attend these open days.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this apparatus was named after the Secretary of State for War?
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is a much more satisfactory exercise for young people to undertake than many of those which they undertake with fireworks, which they are not prevented from doing, and which is much more dangerous?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we are rather far away from fireworks.

    B.A.O.R. (Sport Facilities)
    Mr. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities there are for sport in the British Army of the Rhine out of normal working hours.
    Mr. Ramsden: All the normal sports are available in barracks and all ranks are encouraged to take part in them. Outside barracks there are facilities for sailing, canoeing, swimming, cycling and ski-ing.
    Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that difficulties arise in connection with sports equipment, in that soldiers finish their work or exercises at a certain hour and by the time they return to barracks and have had their evening meal the sports equipment storekeeper has gone off duty? Will he ensure that sports equipment is available at reasonable hours in B.A.O.R.?
    Mr. Ramsden: Certainly I will look into the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if there is anything that we can do we will do it. I should like to emphasise that it is the job of platoon commanders and. indeed, of every regimental officer to help and encourage their men to gat what sporting activity they can in their spare time.

    Privates Edwards and Anderson
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War from whom a complaint was received as to the conduct of Privates Edwards and Anderson; and what was the disturbance which they caused
    Mr. Ramsden: It was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who complained that the conduct of these soldiers was disturbing him.
    Mr. Paget: What did they do?
    Mr. Speaker: Are we involved in any proceedings here? I should like to be sure about that.
    Mr. Paget: No proceedings, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Ramsden: According to my right hon. Friend's statement, the soldiers marched past his compartment on the train making a great deal of noise and shouting, "Marples is in there". Also, they entered the compartment and woke him up.
    Mr. Paget: As a consequence of this incident, two young soldiers were met by an escort, summarily arrested and marched to barracks. Is not this quite outrageous?
    Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. They were not arrested and marched to barracks. I believe that my right hon. Friend, who is, I think, the only ex-R.S.M. in the House, correctly appreciated the situation on the train After his action, he was able to complete his journey undisturbed. I believe that the commandant, who saw the men on their return to barracks and, with a caution, dismissed the charge, also correctly appreciated the situation.
    Mr. Grimond: Although the commandant appears to have correctly appreciated the situation, was not this one of the most noncommital and complimentary remarks made about the Minister of Transport for some time, and was it really a breach of discipline to wake the right hon Gentleman up?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that falls within the scope of the Minister's responsibility.

  SCOTLAND

    Drainage Machinery Depot, Lanark (Transfer)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to transfer the Drainage Machinery Depot from Whitelees, Lanark, to Bishopbriggs.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): No, Sir. The buildings which are held on a sub-
    580
    tenancy, and the site at Whitelees have never been very satisfactory, and some time ago it became evident that there was no reasonable alternative to finding new premises. These are being provided by the Ministry of Public Building and Works which is adapting surplus Government accommodation at Bishopbriggs for the purpose.
    Mrs. Hart: Is not the Secretary of State aware that there is much profound dissatisfaction in the whole of my constituency about his decision? Further, is he aware that, apparently, no attempts were made by him or his Department to get the Lanark Town Council's agreement to extend the lease of the site and that less money might well have been spent on adapting the present premises than is involved in the removal from an area where there is, and is likely to be, severe unemployment?
    Mr. Noble: I am advised that completely new buildings would be required and that the cost of erection would considerably exceed the expenditure on adaptations at Bishopbriggs. The people concerned in this matter were warned over a year ago that the move was to take place.

    Betting Shops
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of betting shops established in the last two years in Scotland.
    Mr. Noble: I am collecting statements of betting office licences in force on 1st June, 1962. These will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. Meantime, I should not like to estimate what the total will prove to be.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would it be accurate to say that many hundreds of betting shops have been established during the last two years or so and that the number employed in the betting industry in Scotland during the past ten years has increased by more than 65 per cent.? Is this an indication that the Scottish economy is getting going under the present Government?
    Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of licences is a matter for the licensing courts. As

    581
    regards employment, the hon. Gentleman will remember that the President of the Board of Trade in his speech two weeks ago gave figures of considerable increases in one or two other sections of our economy.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much building material and how many building workers are currently employed either on building new betting shops or on modernising existing buildings for the provision of these facilities?
    Mr. Noble: That is a good deal beyond the scope of the Question.

    Salmon Industry
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the need to reinvigorate the salmon industry in Scotland, what plans have been made by Her Majesty's Government regarding its further development.
    Mr. Noble: The development of the salmon industry is primarily a matter for the owners and lessees of salmon fishings and for Salmon Fishery District Boards; but I shall, of course, take into account any suggestions which may be made by the Hunter Committee when it reports.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the old days in Scotland salmon used to be as common as brown trout and that many varying interests will benefit if we can once more recreate that situation? Further, is he aware that many people believe that a more vigorous policy against the seal menace and against the pollution of our rivers and in favour of more salmon hatcheries would do very much more good to the salmon industry than merely restricting inshore fishing?
    Mr. Noble: I share my hon. Friend's hope for the future of the salmon industry in Scotland. I am sure that these points will come out when the Hunter Committee reports.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important step he could take for the purpose of improving salmon stocks in most of the Scottish rivers would be to get rid as soon as possible of the pollution which is still killing far more fish than all the illegal methods put together?
    Mr. Noble: I agree with the right hon. Gentelman.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that this industry has for genenations provided whole colonies of fishermen with a livelihood for themselves and their families and that the present absence of a constructive plan is imperilling all that? Will he be a little more constructive so as to give some hope for the workers in this industry?
    Mr. Noble: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It was for that reason that we brought in the Orders to prevent drift netting for salmon. I am sure that any further constructive ideas will be considered when the Hunter Committee reports.

    Forestry Commission (Land)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the total area of land held by the Forestry Commission in Scotland; how much of this is classified as agricultural and grazing land not to be planted; how much is unplantable and miscellaneous; and how much land has been sold since 30th September, 1961.
    Mr. Noble: At 30th June this year, the Forestry Commission held 1,475,000 acres in Scotland; 413,000 acres of this area were agricultural and grazing land; and 264,000 acres were unplantable and miscellaneous. Between 30th September, 1961, and 30th June, 1962, 5,000 acres were sold, and at the latter date the sales of a further 26,000 acres were being negotiated.
    Mr. Brewis: I am glad that the Commission is this year selling some of its land, but will not my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Forestry Commission's main job is to plant trees, it should sell as much as it can of the land which it does not intend to plant in order to acquire land which it does intend to plant?
    Mr. Noble: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he appreciates that a great deal of this land is on the extreme tops of hills, being land which can neither be planted nor easily used.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not one thing which is restricting the Forestry Commission

    583
    from expanding its work the lack of suitable land for planting? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make it possible for the Commission to get land on which it can extend its work?
    Mr. Noble: I think that the use of our hill and marginal land for forestry and agriculture is of extreme importance, and I am looking into this matter very carefully to see how the balance can best be improved.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: As the reserve of planting land is a very important part of long-term forestry plans, would it be possible to consider the acquisition of planting land as part of the five-yearly review of long-term policy for forestry which, I think, is about due now?
    Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to another Question today, will be announcing the appointment of a working party of officials to carry out this stage of the review of forestry policy in Great Britain foreshadowed by his predecessor four years ago in the statement he then made on the subject.

    Probation Service (Negotiating Body)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation, contained in paragraph 349 of chapter 12 of the Departmental Committee Report on the Probation Service, regarding consultation with the interested parties with a view to the establishment of a sole negotiating body for Great Britain.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Morison Report relating to the establishment of a single negotiating body for probation officers.
    Mr. Noble: I intend in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the organisations concerned to consider this question. But I have, in the first place, referred the recommendations of the Committee on pay and conditions of service to the existing negotiating machinery. This seems right in view of the time which would necessarily be
    584
    involved in any reorganisation of the machinery.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of this problem? Why the delay in implementating a relatively simple proposition of this kind? Does not he recognise that the probation officers in Scotland have an even greater grievance than their counterparts in England in that they will lose money by the delay in implementing proposals on any pay increase which is given and that the 2½ per cent. is miserable enough without adding this insult to the injury already suffered?
    Mr. Noble: I think that if I had taken any action other than to give it to the existing negotiating machinery the delay would have been much greater.
    Mr. Ross: We have been given no indication as to when the discussions will take place. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when they will take place and how soon after that he will introduce the necessary legislation in order to put this matter right?
    Mr. Noble: I understand that the negotiating committee has met once already and has not made any recommendation to me because it has not agreed. As soon as it does and if it makes a recommendation to me, I will deal with it as quickly as I can.
    Mr. C. Royle: Will the Secretary of State say what use it is to refer this to the joint negotiating committee when in England the committee's recommendation has been turned down by the Government?
    Mr. Noble: Because if we tried to set up any alternative system and had to go through the problem of getting the bodies concerned to agree on a quite new system we should not even have got started.

MALAYSIA (FEDERATION)
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys):With permission, I would like to make a statement about the proposed Federation of Malaysia.

585
The British and Malayan Governments have received and studied the Report of the Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold which visited North Borneo and Sarawak earlier this year to ascertain the views of the inhabitants on the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia embracing Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The Report is being published today and is now avalable in the Vote Office.
The two Governments are most grateful to the Commission for its valuable Report and have accepted almost all the recommendations on which the Commission was unanimous. The two Governments have noted, in particular, that the Commission was unanimously agreed that a Federation of Malaysia is in the best interests of North Borneo and Sarawak and that an early decision in principle should be reached.
In the light of this Report and of the agreement reached between the Government of Malaya and the Government of Singapore, the British and Malayan Governments have now decided in principle that, subject to the necessary legislation, the proposed Federation of Malaysia should be brought into being by 31st August, 1963.
To give effect to this decision, the two Governments intend to conclude, within the next six months, a formal agreement which, among other things, will provide for:
first, the transfer of sovereignty in North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore by 31st August, 1963;
secondly, provisions governing the relationship between Singapore and the new Federation, as agreed between the Governments of Malaya and Singapore;
thirdly, defence arrangements as set out in the joint statement by the British and Malayan Governments dated 22nd November, 1961; and
fourthly, detailed constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interests of North Borneo and Sarawak, to be drawn up after consultation with the Legislatures of the two territories.
These safeguards will cover such matters as religious freedom, education,
586
representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State constitutions.
In order that the introduction of the new Federal system may be effected as smoothly as possible and with the least disturbance to existing administrative arrangements, there will be, after the transfer of sovereignty, a transition period, during which a number of the Federal constitutional powers will be delegated temporarily to the State Governments.
An Inter-Governmental Committee will be established as soon as possible, on which the British, Malayan, North Borneo and Sarawak Governments will be represented. Its task will be to work out the future constitutional arrangements and the form of the necessary safeguards for the two territories.
The Minister of State for the Colonies, Lord Lansdowne, who will be the Chairman of this Committee, and the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tun Abdul Razak, will proceed shortly to Sarawak and North Borneo to conduct discussions.
In order to maintain the efficiency of the administration, the British and Malayan Governments are agreed on the importance of retaining the services of as many of the expatriate officials as possible. The Minister of State will discuss with the Governments of the territories and with the staff associations how this best can be done.
The British and Malayan Governments have informed the Sultan of Brunei of the agreement they have reached and have made it clear that they would welcome the inclusion of the State of Brunei in the new Federation.
Mr. Healey: My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the conclusion of an agreement to set up a federation which I think the great majority of hon. Members on both sides believe will be in the interests of the inhabitants of all the territories concerned. However, experience has taught us to be a little cautious about proposals for federation in Commonwealth and Colonial Territories. Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on three particular issues referred to in his account of the agreement?

587
First, does the description of the agreement as being "in principle" mean that both parties to it are free to withdraw from it if they are dissatisfied with the course of negotiations before the Federation is actually set up? Secondly, is it the case that the Sultanate of Brunei is totally free to decide whether to join the Federation and that the Tunku of Malaya has decided that the Federation shall go forward whatever decision is taken by the Government of Brunei? Finally, is it intended that expatriate civil servants shall continue to administer the territories concerned until the end of the transitional period under the sovereignty of the local administration?
Mr. Sandys: First, when we say that the agreement has been decided "in principle", we intend that this shall, in fact, take place, but, as I made clear in my statement, before the process is complete, we have got to conclude a formal agreement which will set out all the various points which have been under discussion and which will be further discussed with the Legislatures of the two territories. Naturally, if we fail to reach agreement on what the treaty shall contain, which, I think, is extremely unlikely, it will break down. But, in view of the wide measure of agreement which we have already reached, I think that that is a most unlikely eventuality.
Secondly, the Sultan of Brunei has already declared publicly that he is in favour of the creation of the new Federation. I therefore think it unlikely that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will arise.
Thirdly, in regard to the transition period, it is the hope and wish—I I thought that I had made this reasonably clear in my statement—that as many as possible of the expatriate officials shall continue to undertake the administration of the territories for as long as possible.
Sir J. Barlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. While we all agree that this new idea of a greater Malaysia is a good thing, does he realise that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak are not universally in favour of this new proposal? Will my right hon.
588
Friend take great care to ensure that there are proper safeguards for these two peoples, who are not so far advanced as those of Singapore and Malaya?
Mr. Sandys: The Commission, in its Report, which my hon. Friend will see, came to the conclusion that, provided adequate safeguards were secured, the majority of the people of these two territories are in favour of the proposed Federation. We recognise, of course, that the securing of proper safeguards to meet their special interests is of cardinal importance. That has been the major topic which we have been discussing during the past ten days with Malayan Ministers in London, and we shall continue to discuss the matter in further detail through the medium of the Inter-Governmental Committee to which I referred in my statement.
Mr. Grimond: In welcoming the Minister's statement, may I ask him whether any of the unanimous recommendations of the Cobbold Commission Which have not been accepted are major recommendations? Can he give the House any information on this point? Secondly, is the date of 31st August, 1963, a firm date? I take it that if all the preliminaries are concluded satisfactorily, that is a firm date for independence and federation.
Mr. Sandys: It would not be a good thing for me to try to summarise the points on which the Commission was not agreed. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will study that for himself.
I have stated that we have agreed in principle that the new Federation should be brought into being by 31st August, 1963; that is to say, a date not later than 31st August, 1963.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that any hopes placed in continued service by expatriates will not be endangered by their having any reason whatever themselves to lose confidence in their careers and in their treatment?
Mr. Sandys: That, of course, will be our intention in the talks which we are proposing to have with the staff associations in the two territories.
Mr. Creech Jones: Having had some responsibility for the separation of

589
Singapore from Malaya and the inclusion of Sarawak in the Commonwealth, I should like to express my sincere congratulations to the Minister and to the Prime Ministers of Malaya and Singapore on the discussions which have taken place and my hope for the success of these arrangements in the future. I would only inform the Secretary of State, if I may, that this is a stage in the consummation of a policy which some of us ardently desired in the early days after the war.
Mr. Turner: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in the consultations that will take place in North Borneo and Sarawak, in addition to the Legislatures outside bodies will also be consulted about the safeguards?
Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that the Inter-Governmental Committee will exercise wide discretion in deciding with whom it is appropriate to have consultations. The Cobbold Commission has, however, been over the whole of this ground and has consulted a whole variety of bodies in the two territories. Therefore, our primary task now is to consult the Legislatures of the two territories concerned.
Mr. G. Thomas: Will the inter-Governmental discussions on religious freedom in Sarawak ultimately be referred to this House in view of the deep anxiety which, as the Secretary of State will
590
know, has been expressed by Christian communities in Sarawak at the prospect of an Islamic State?
Mr. Sandys: My belief is that when this matter is fully discussed with the peoples concerned, they will be satisfied—certainly, we want to be absolutely sure on this point—that there will be complete religious freedom in the two territories after the creation of the new Federation.
Sir C. Osborne: Will there be an opportunity to discuss the Whole matter in this House before a final decision is taken? Secondly, did I understand my right hon. Friend correctly to say that one of the items was control of immigration? What degree of control will be exercised and who asked for control of immigration—the Malayan Government or the British Government?
Mr. Sandys: The control of immigration was one of the safeguards which was vary much wanted by the peoples of the two territories. I think that they want a control of immigration much greater, perhaps, than this House would have approved in the discussion of a Bill earlier this Session. They are afraid, in particular, of large-scale immigration and land settlement which might affect the character and balance of the country.
As to a debate in this House, before the process can be completed legislation will, of course, be required.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
3.45 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 25th October, at Eleven o'clock.
I think that it would be convenient if I followed the usual course of listening to any comment that hon. Members will wish to make and replying at the end of the debate. Therefore, I will simply make one or two purely factual points and reply to one particular point which was raised with me yesterday by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well).
The Motion suggests that the Recess should be of 82 clear days. Looking back over recent years, that is about the average period. Secondly, there is no need for what is called a spill-over part-Session for parliamentary reasons, so that if the House passes the Motion these dates will be altered only if the House if recalled. The House will be aware of Standing Order No. 112, with which hon. Members are familiar in discussions of this kind and which I will not read at this stage.
The only other point which I should like to make is to reply, as I promised yesterday, to the right hon. Member for Easington, who asked whether, before Parliament met again, we proposed to present proposals relating to the purchase of the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon, which was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The position is that the Civil Contingencies Fund will be used for the purpose. It has been used repeatedly since the war, It was used in 1960 for a similar purpose and was used in April, 1961, for the purchase of the two Renoirs. In due course, a Supplementary Estimate will be put before the House. It will be taken with the ordinary batch of Supplementary Estimates on the next occasion, which, presumably, will be in February.
The authority for using the Civil Contingencies Fund, which has been used on similar occasions in each of the last two years, is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, when Parliament specifically discussed and
592
endorsed the need for such a fund. Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Civil Contingencies Fund will be used, that it is common form for it to be used in this way and that in due course a Supplementary Estimate will come before the House.
3.49 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: We have an important debate ahead of us to which we want to give time—on the Common Market—but before we part with the Motion I wish to put one or two points to the Leader of the House, because upon his answers to them depends whether we can approve the Motion in the form in which it appears.
My first point is obviously the one to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted some of his remarks at the beginning, concerning a possible recall of Parliament. When we have had the Common Market debate today, which I believe to be urgent and important, we will, nevertheless, be in the position that vital negotiations are going on in Brussels of which, in the very nature of things, we can today be given no inkling and certainly no final answer.
That being so, the Prime Ministers' Conference would, in the ordinary way, be meeting—in early September, I think—and some far-reaching arrangements might well be entered into. Therefore, I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that, quite apart from whether the Government themselves wish to make representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House should be recalled earlier than the date set out in the Motion, if the representations are made to them from other quarters of the House, and notably, of course, from the Opposition benches, the Government will, on this occasion, not hesitate to make representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should meet again in advance of 25th October.
I come to the second point, though I believe that this has been answered; but I should like to make sure I have understood the answer. From time to time public statements will be made by the Lord Privy Seal about the progress of the negotiations. As we shall not be here to raise them, or for the statements to be made here, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will issue those statements in the form

593
of a White Paper, or Papers, so that Members, though they are not sitting in their places, nevertheless will have the parliamentary facilities for knowing what is going on?
Thirdly, if we are recalled, then, I understand, the rules governing our proceedings will prevent Oral Questions from being taken on those days. Written Questions, I gather from what was said yesterday, are in order, but, of course, there is a world of difference, as we all know, between a Question which gets a Written Answer, other than an inspired Question, and a Question which is put down in order to bring a Minister to that Box. What I want to impress upon the Leader of the House is that if we do come back it will be tremendously important that Ministers are willing to make statements on all issues on which otherwise there would have been Questions. We have certain opportunities in that respect, but they are not Question opportunities and we must have some co-operation from Ministers on this matter.
There are two other questions I want to raise, one very briefly, and one of outstanding, urgent importance. The one I want to refer to briefly is probation officers' salaries. I am aware that an hon. Member, on the Adjournment tonight, proposes, if he is successful, to raise this subject, but we are still left with the fact that a proper debate, occupying some time, in which a number of hon. Member might have been able to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, was prevented the other morning by a sad lapse from grace in accordance with the previous bad habits of the Chief Patronage Secretary. I want to ask that the Government shall consider, since this is a very important matter, whether, if we do come back, quite apart from the short discussion there may be tonight, there should be provided an opportunity then for an effective debate on this issue which is of tremendous importance to a number of our most important citizens who are doing a first-class job and who believe they are being very badly treated indeed.
But the most important issue before us now is unquestionably the events which have happened over the last week or so, culminating in the events at Ridley Road, Dalston, last night, and repeating
594
events which happened earlier in Trafalgar Square and are now threatened at Birmingham and at other places. This, it seems to me, is a moment when the House of Commons must surely stand and consider recent history. We have all walked this road before—totali-tarians, Fascists, setting out to hold meetings, exercising what they claim are the rights of us all to free speech, but they set out to hold them, for the most part, in places where the only possible purpose is the maximum provocation, by insulting people, and decent people at that, in the places where they are living peaceably and quietly.
There was no purpose in going to Ridley Road last night, any more than there was in going to Cable Street when I was young and took part in the battles, or in going to Green Street, Bethnal Green, or elsewhere—no purpose other than to insult some of Her Majesty's fellow citizens and ours just because of their race and religion. It seems to us who put all our faith and trust in free speech that people are setting out to use it to destroy it, and that really is not good enough.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot trespass on your kindness in this debate by going into the merits of the issue, but I do feel, and I am sure that most Members of the House feel, an extreme sense of shame that, after all that happened in the 1930s, and even more, the casualties which occurred from 1939 to 1945, we should be made to walk this road again. We have no opportunity to debate this today, of course; we have no opportunity to debate it before we rise, under the proposal of the Leader of the House. We have had a Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), and we shall Shortly, I gather, be asked to hear—
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just announced his awareness that he cannot trespass too far. I am not myself exactly aware how far any of the nest of us will be in order in commenting upon what the has said—
Mr. A. Woodburn: Leave it to Mr. Speaker.
Sir K. Pickthorn: I am leaving it to Mr. Speaker. I am putting a specific question to Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if we could have your guidance on that.
Mr. Speaker: It is always very difficult and it nearly always, one sees if one looks at the record, results in the Chair's talking almost as much as other hon. Members on these occasions. What is in order is what is relevant to the issue before the House, which is whether we should adjourn on Friday and come back on 25th October. I do not myself take the view that the right hon. Gentleman is trespassing on my kindness in any way yet. But there is a line: it is a matter of degree, of not going into the merits of issues and debating them, as opposed to considering them in relation to the Question before the House.
Mr. Brown: I am coming immediately to the point which affects the Motion. We have had one Bill. We are to hear shortly a proposal that we should have another Bill introduced, but that will not now give us an opportunity to debate the matter.
I do not want to suggest, in order that we may have time for such a debate, that we should not agree to the Motion, but I do think that at least the Leader of the House should give us some assonances. Clearly, we cannot leave this issue for long undebated. Therefore, I want to ask the Leader of the House to help us make up our minds whether we should let the Motion go in this form.
Tomorrow there are some Oral Questions on the Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has one, I have one, there may well be others. In the ordinary way they would not—or might not—be reached. I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would arrange with the Home Secretary to seek your leave, Mr. Speaker, to answer those Questions tomorrow at the end of Questions if they should not be reached. That would at least give us a staement of the Government's views.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Not a debate.
Mr. Brown: Further, I would ask the Leader of the House, in order to help us, this. I have to phrase it conditionally, although few of us have much doubt
596
about it. If we are recalled before 25th October, will he arrange that the recall is for a sufficient period to enable us to have adequate time to debate this matter, as well as the subject for which we might be recalled? I submit that we may well have had developments between now and then; it may well be very much more urgent then.
The right, hon Gentleman knows that proposals have been made, notably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) an ex-Attorney-General, about possible amendments of the Public Order Act. I am conscious that the Home Secretary can plead tomorrow that he has not been in his present post long enough to have given his mind to the matter, but before we are recalled, if we should be recalled, that would no longer seem to apply.
If the Leader of the House were able to give me an answer affirmatively on these two points—that the Home Secretary will reply orally tomorrow and that if we come back earlier than 25th October time will be found for an adequate debate on this subject—I should, for my part, feel disposed to let the Motion go in its present form.
The issue is very serious and its consequences for democracy are potentially dangerous. It is not only the people who are insulted who react; extremists from the other end find this very profitable ground on which to play, and democracy is then under assault from two extremes which find it convenient to co-operate with each other, as they did in London before the war, and as they did in Berlin, with tremendous consequences in the 1930s. The whole business is so potentially dangerous, so distasteful, so shameful and so horrible to many of our fellow citizens that I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give me an affirmative answer on these points so that we can then, I think, leave the Motion to take its course.
4.2 p.m.
Sir Robert Cary: In view of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I hope that it will be possible for the Home Secretary to answer certain questions tomorrow, be-cause, in the light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves and in view of the unwanted and tragic events which

597
took place at Manchester on Sunday and at Dalston last night, it would be helpful if a word could be heard from the Home Secretary.
There is another point which I should like to put to the Leader of the House for information. Yesterday, we had a most important debate on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting and the Government White Paper. Only seven hon. Members spoke from the back benches. The novelty of the debate was that some of the back bench speeches exceeded in time those of the Front Bench, which is rather a change from the usual pattern and complaint. The tragedy of the debate was that on so important an issue only seven voices wore heard from the back benches. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that that was an adequate sounding of the House of Commons on so important a matter.
I put it, seriously, to my right hon. Friend that when so important a matter is left until the last moments of this part of the Session before we rise there ought to be a revision in the arrangement of Government business just as much as a self-denying ordinance on the part of hon. Members about the length of their speeches.
4.4 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I oppose the Motion, and I shall give the reasons for my opposition to it.
The Leader of the House has said that if the Motion is accepted, we shall have 82 clear days. But if we come back on 25th October, I understand that we shall return for only one day, for Prorogation. Therefore, the House will, in effect, not be sitting until the beginning of November. Unless the House is recalled for a specific purpose, that means that we shall have no chance of putting points to Ministers for more than three months.
I know that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House and perhaps some on the other side, are in the position that I am in. Although I am a Scottish Member, I have no grouse-shooting engagement on the "Twelfth", or on the days that fallow the "Twelfth". Many hon. Members are in that position, and Scottish Members, in particular, are seriously worried about the position of our country at present.
598
Yesterday morning, the Patronage Secretary, with the full support of the Leader of the House, who was sitting in his place, moved the Closure on the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. When the Leader of the House was questioned about this yesterday he tried to show that much more time had been given for the Consolidated Fund Bill on this occasion than had ever been given before. But that was not the question. I was here the whole night long, and, from 6.15 a.m., until the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure, not a single hon. Member on this side made a contribution to the debate, although some of my hon. Friends were waiting to speak. Therefore, the last two and a quarter hours of the debate on the Bill were used by the Government's own back benchers and Ministers.
The Leader of the House tried to tell us that at least four and perhaps as many as six hon. Members had given notice that they wished to speak. I very strongly question that statement by the Leader of the House. Being an interested party, I wished to know when I might be called, and I saw the list at least twice. My name was last on it, and the name before that was my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the one before that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner).
We were the only three Members on this side of the House who wished to Speak, and no hon. Members from the other side of the House—unless they had put their names down very late indeed in the early hours of the morning—had signified their desire to speak. We on this side of the House have a suspicion that once the Government had ensured that every back bencher on their side of the House wishing to speak had made his contribution, contributions by hon Members on this side of the House did not matter at all.
I tell the Leader of the House, finally, that I and many of my hon. Friends are not at all satisfied with the statement which was made by the former Secretary of State for Scotland about pit closures and what would follow to give us alternative industry. We were given only a bald statement. We have since tried to get more information, but we have been unable to get any more. It

599
is because of the state of industry and the great unemployment in Scotland— 3,000 more Scotsmen and women are unemployed today than at this time last year—that I very strongly oppose the Motion that the House should adjourn for three months.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. William Yates: I desire not necessarily to oppose the Motion, but to obtain some better assurances from the Leader of the House about recall of the House in the event of further international mistakes, misunderstandings or failures to comprehend over Berlin.
I should have thought that the news yesterday evening, or on the B.B.C. this morning, that the United States Air Force had decided to send helicopters over East Berlin, well within its rights no doubt, was the sort of thing that might at any moment involve not only this country but our allies in a very difficult international situation.
I do not make any complaint, but I am one of those who remember the rising of the House in our polite, gentlemanly way last year for a long Summer Recess, and before we realised what had happened a wall had been built across the city of Berlin. It was suggested to the country that this had all been got up by the Press, whereas the majority of us who know something about it understand that at a certain time in August last year the United States Air Force was at a state of war with the Soviet Union. These sort of things might easily occur again. We should have a wider undertaking by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this occasion.
Under Standing Order No. 112 hon. Members can try to get the House recalled. I have no doubt that hon. Members on this side also think that the House of Commons should have been recalled last year in August, or early September. Hon. Members opposite also sent in requests for that to be done. I am not too satisfied that the same sort of situation might not arise again when, in September, it would appear that both the United States and the Soviet Union will be attempting to test out their nerves again. That might be a very enjoyable
600
pastime for them, but I would have thought that this House should be recalled in the event of any major change in the situation in or around Berlin, or over the question of access to Berlin, and not recalled about four weeks later to discuss something which has already taken place and on which we were never asked for our views nor our agreement.
This would worry me less if there were not British troops actually in West Berlin itself, and we have to take account of the recent statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who said, when discussing Berlin, that the presence of British troops was not a negotiable matter. That is a very important point of foreign policy, and I am one of those who are wondering whether the House should not have another opportunity of debating the Berlin situation before 15th September.
I do not say that I have foreknowledge that things will get any worse, but it seams to me that there is something wrong when diplomatic initiative is taken only by the Soviet Union and the United States and when we ourselves do not seem to be undertaking any major diplomatic moves to attempt to resolve the very difficult situation in West Berlin. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will suggest to the Minister of State that it would not be inopportune if the Government made a further statement concerning our policy in the event of friction between United States ground or air forces and the forces of the East German Government.
I wanted to go to a wedding and I see that I have been talking too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose is it?"] It is not mine. But in order not to take up the time of the House much further, I ask my right hon. Friend for an undertaking that when he receives a request from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to recall the House he will do so. During the Summer Recess last year, I decided to ask the national Press whether it thought that Parliament should be sitting, and I am glad to say that almost all national newspapers thought that it should have been sitting in September.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The views of the national Press about whether or no

601
Parliament should have been sitting then clearly have no bearing on this Motion.
Mr. Yates: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the point remains.
I do not wish to accept this Motion unless I have a categorical undertaking from my right hon. Friend that if the situation changes in West Berlin or over the right of access to the city, this House will be recalled and consulted before action is taken concerning British troops ox interests in and around West Berlin.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I feel so strongly after my experiences of last might that, for the first time in twenty-seven years, I am not prepared at the moment to acquiesce in the passing of this Motion, no matter what any other hon. Member may decide. I fall so strongly last night that I was confident that I would have been in order today in taking advantage of Standing Order No. 9 to raise a definite matter of urgent public importance.
I content myself now, however, with asking the Leader of the House for an undertaking on many questions I shall ask, and with asking the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department how much longer the Government intend to continue to acquiesce in the provocation which is causing such bitter feeling among our people and is giving rise to the disorders which we had last evening—disorders which, after the last war, we thought we ware finished with.
It is now thirty-one years since I first had the privilege of opposing the rich aristocrat who is now allowed to challenge the democracy which the people I belong to have paid so dearly for in life, limb and sacrifices throughout the ages. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Nobody wants to waste time. The hon. Gentleman is being so careful not to go into the merits that we really must let him go on.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I should have thought that that warning should have been given to others.
Mr. G. Brown: It was.
Mr. Ellis Smith: As far as I am concerned, I am keeping within the rules of order. I respect Mr. Speaker and the
602
Chair. But I intend to be worthy of those I belong to and represent, no matter what it means to me personally.
I raise this matter because it represents an urgent challenge to the constitutional government of the country. It is a challenge to our people, and, therefore, I want to ask the Government whether the Home Secretary intends to go on acquiescing in these grave disorders during the Recess, and whether chief constables should be allowed also to acquiesce in these provocations, which are bound to give rise to the bitter feelings that we saw last night. These activities are repugnant following the last war in which so many of our people lost their sons.
Before we agree to this Motion, will the Joint Under-Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will consider what action can be taken to stop these provocations? I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom we all respect for his record and his knowledge of these matters. He informs me that there are steps which could be taken without the introduction of any new legislation. While my right hon. and hon. Friends are supporting proposed new legislation to deal with this kind of thing, racial hatred is being whipped up. If the situation can be dealt with within the limits of the present legislation, then I ask the Government to take the necessary action.
Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a full investigation into the conduct of the police in Ridley Road at eight o'clock last night? Included in that investigation, will he ask for witnesses of what took place? Between 7.45 and 8.15, the crowd along that road was as orderly as we are in this Chamber, but, at 8.10, 10 mounted policemen arrived and I charge the inspector of those mounted policemen with being responsible for what occurred.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member wants to help me and the House, but I think that he is going into the merits of this matter rather too much now. It is sufficient for the purposes of his argument to urge the extreme urgency of not allowing a repetition of such events, but the detail is rather far from the Motion.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall respect that advice, Mr. Speaker, and apply my observations to the urgency and the public importance of the matter which I am discussing. I hope that I shall be in order as long as I keep within those limits.
Standing among those people aroused my best emotions of pride. Unless we can have an undertaking that the constitutional rights of our people will be used to prevent this provocation, we shall be forced to take action to safeguard the democratic rights which we have won.
There is no doubt what was at stake in Trafalgar Square, in Manchester, and last night. Some of us know this rich aristocrat and all he stands for. I am asking the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that what has been said will be considered. I shall support the Motion if it is found that present legislation can be used to prevent provocative action of this kind, which is causing so much bitter racial hatred. But we must have that undertaking before we can agree to the Motion.
Mr. Iain Macleod: May I intervene to deal with this point which has been raised by three hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? I will reply to other points later.
In response to the feeling of the House, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions, which have been tabled on this matter, at the end of Question Time tomorrow. Perhaps I may also say that there is another matter in which hon. Members are interested and about which my right hon. Friend will also be making a statement tomorrow. That is the case of Dr. Soblen. I intervene now merely to say that.
Mr. Tom Driberg: Arising out of what the Leader of the House has just said: when the Home Secretary answers Questions tomorrow, will he be able to answer on a matter which is strictly the responsibility of the Minister of Public Building and Works, that is, the use of Trafalgar Square during the Recess?
Mr. Macleod: The Home Secretary is a senior member of the Cabinet, of course, and I will convey that point of view to him.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) suggested that we might have more than one subject to discuss if we were recalled during the Recess, namely, that which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). If we are to do that, is there to be a list of other subjects put forward by hon. Members?
My right hon. Friend will have noticed from the Press yesterday and today that it seems likely that very important decisions will be taken about weapons to be available to the Armed Forces. Those decisions may be taken during the Recess. It would be very disagreeable to some of us if we did not have an opportunity to discuss those decisions, which are likely to have very far-reaching effects.
Secondly, may I raise an entirely unrelated matter, the Leonardo cartoon, and ask for a further explanation? From what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, I was not clear whether we are to have an opportunity to debate the matter before a decision is taken, or whether that time has already passed. If it has already passed, is not this an extraordinary way of doing things? If the people wanted the Leonardo, and wanted to pay for it, they would have been able to subscribe to it, but they did not do so. We are now asked, ex post facto, to vote a very large sum of money which could have been spent on modern art, helping modern artists and theatres, for instance, who could have used the money. Many of us feel that this grant is a retrograde step and an extraordinary thing to do without reference to the House.
Mr. Speaker: There is great difficulty about what the hon. Member is saying in relation to the Motion. Whether the step was good or bad, it having been taken, it does not affect the problem arising on this Motion.
Mr. Kershaw: Are we to have an answer to what I have said before we rise or not?
Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is not the point of what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has been saying not the merits

605
of the case—I recognise that that is not a matter for debate at present, although it appears to me, with great respect, that several matters of merit have already been raised—
Mr. Speaker: All that that would mean would be that I have been unduly indulgent. Sometimes, keeping people, including all of us, in order, wastes rather more time than not doing so.
Mr. Shinwell: I am not asking for any indulgence, Sir. I direct your attention to this point, which is relevant to the Motion. The Leader of the House said that there would be some expenditure from the Civil Contingencies Fund for a cartoon which is to be purchased. The question which arises is not the merits of that purchase or the grant which the Government propose to make, but whether the money should be expended before the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter and either approving or disapproving of the proposal. That is the point and not the merits of the case, not whether the cartoon should be bought, but whether the money should be expended before the House rises.
Mr. Speaker: I desire to keep the House off discussing the merits of the purchase, which, clearly, would be out of order. I intervened when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was speaking because I thought, I hope not wrongly, that he was in that field and was not dealing with the opportunity of discussing the expenditure, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was suggesting.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: There are two dates in the Motion, one Friday 3rd August, and the other 25th October. But it must be appreciated that 25th October is a day of pure formality and ceremonial and that the effective date of Parliament's return is 30th October. So we are faced not with 82 days when Parliament is not sitting, but with three complete months.
It would be hypocritical of anyone to suggest that we should not rise for a holiday on Friday, for Friday will mark the end of what has been virtually the bloodiest Session of Parliament which we have had for a long time. If nothing
606
else, we should give the Leader of the House time to clean up his Guillotine.
This Session five major Bills have been passed under a Guillotine, and the administration of those Measures is about to start. Today, a Question was answered on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, when it was said that 9,912 National Service men ware to have their conscription extended for another six months. If we go on holiday for three months—and we have no power to complain about that directly to a Minister —what are the troops to think of us?
It is not good enough to say that the legislation has bean passed and must be accepted, and to reply to their comment that we should be looking after their interests by adopting the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister to the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland—"I'm all right, Jack."
The question is whether we have sufficient faith in this administration to allow it off the lead for three months. The answer is that we have not. The first step under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—which was the second of the Measures dealt with under the Guillotine—caused a furore in the House and the cancellation of the decision which had been made. What would have happened if the House had not been sitting? In other words, with this immature Administration nobody knows what may happen—and it is an immature Administration. The members of the Government have been described as the young ones, although the prima donna is ageing and has lost confidence in himself, and has caused other to lose confidence in him.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), whose speech about access to a school I have heard "unclosured" six times is not here. She has shown an interest in this next point. We have been promised a Pensions (Increase) Bill next Session. The longer we delay the start of the next Session, the longer it will be before these increases are paid. Why is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not complaining about the Government service pensioners having to wait so long for an increase in their pensions, merely because the House proposes to rise for this length of time? It must be

607
remembered, too, that these proposed increases will apply only to those who are superannuated or are receiving pensions as former Government servants.
What about the 5 million old-age pensioners? The longer we are in recess, the longer it will take the Government to remedy their situation. At the moment, they are losing £1½ million a week on the basis of the deterioration in the value of money since their last pensions increase. It follows, therefore, that while we are in recess they will lose nearly £20 million. They will lose this sum solely because of the failure of the Government to take steps to raise the retirement pension.
The longer we are in recess, the longer it will be before anything can be done. The first week of our return will be spent in discussing the Queen's Speech. Nothing can be done before the second week of November, and before we know where we are we shall rise for the Christmas Recess. This is the nonsensical situation which arises from the present arrangement of the sittings of Parliament.
Further, when we come to discuss this increase in pensions, it is more than probable that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will say that because of administrative difficulties it will not be possible to pay the increase before April. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to prove that they mean what they say about providing increases for old-age pensioners by taking steps to convince the Government that the proposed Bill should be introduced as soon as possible. To do this they should sacrifice some part of their holidays. After all, if we can toll 10,000 troops in the B.A.O.R. and elsewhere that they must stay in the Army for an extra six months, hon. Members who voted for that should be prepared to come back from their holidays a little earlier and deal with some of the problems confronting us.
My next point relates to the Morison Report. We were told today by the Secretary of State for Scotland that there would have to be considerable consultation before anything could be done about the problem of probation officers in Scotland.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am following the hon. Member very carefully, but I find it difficult to understand how that matter concerns whether we adjourn on Friday and return on a certain date.
Mr. Ross: The point is that if Parliament is not sitting we cannot discuss the problem. It is as simple as that. If Parliament is not sitting we cannot debate legislation which may be necessary to ensure that probation officers in Scotland are treated on the same basis as those in England and Wales.
The Morison Report makes the point that they should be so dealt with in any negotiations over pay. I want to press this point on the Government every week. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would be willing to do something if we could persuade him to do it. I therefore think that it is relevant to the discussion that we should continue to press the Government to ensure that probation officers in Scotland are justly treated.
There is one other point. We have had from the Secretary of State for Scotland just one speech, lasting thirty minutes, by which he broke a silence of two and a half years. In fact, those Members who were present at Question Time today probably heard the right hon. Gentleman for the first time in their lives. One of the cynical reasons given for his appointment to this position was that the Prime Minister had not heard him. In the Scottish Press today the Scottish Trades Union Council expressed surprise that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not proposing to meet the Council until 31st August to discuss the deteriorating situation in Scotland.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member yet again, but I cannot see that whether the Secretary of State for Scotland meets the Scottish Council is relevant to the actual dates of the Recess.
Mr. Ross: It has this comparative relevance. If people in Scotland are bitterly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is not to meet them in Scotland until 31st August, how much more bitterly disappointed will they be when they learn that Parliament has decided that we shall not be able to meet him here until 30th October to impress on

609
him the need to take further action in relation to the situation in Scotland?
I should have thought that every Scottish Member, irrespective of where he was sitting, was aware of the deteriorating industrial situation in Scotland and would want to do something about it. Before winter sets in 100,000 people will be unemployed in Scotland. The situation is so bad that in Lanarkshire last week, when a job as a greaser in a factory was advertised, there were 300 applicants. Yet we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about the shortage of labour.
Are we to be denied for three months the right to press the Government to take action to deal with the situation in Scotland? That is what this Recess will mean. The last act of the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland was to announce the closure of pits in Scotland which will mean the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs, and we still do not know what is being done to bring new industries into the area. That is why I want the Leader of the House to consider the points that I have made. It will take more than the gags and Closures of the Patronage Secretary to prevent us talking about our country when we want to do so.
For those few reasons I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about bringing us back at such a late date. Certainly, the Recess should be cut by at least two months.
4.40 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the temporary absence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to whom I wanted to make an appeal, perhaps I can appeal to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to reconsider the conditions that he has attached to supporting the Motion. As I understand, there were four. He should withdraw three of the four, on further consideration. His first condition was that if we are brought back specially to discuss the Common Market there should be Oral as well as Written Questions. I do not object to that. It is up to the Leader of the House to see if that can be arranged.
The second condition was that if any group of Members asked the Government to recall the House that course should automatically be taken. I do not
610
agree. It is the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Government in general to assess the situation, and to judge whether there is a need to recall the House. It is for them to make an appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, if they think that that course is merited. If the Leader of the House agrees to take full and sympathetic account of any representations made by the official Opposition, or any group of Members, that should be sufficient. But it must be the Government, and nobody else, after they have taken all relevant matters into account, who should decide whether an appeal should be made to you, Mr. Speaker.
The third condition was that we should automatically talk about an increase in the salaries of probation officers, and the fourth that we should discuss the stupidity of the Mosley riots. I do not think that such conditions should be specifically attached to a special recall which has in mind a discussion of the Common Market negotiations. If either of those subjects, standing by themselves, merit recalling the House, that is one of the representations that could be made to the Leader of the House and taken into account.
If, two months before the date named, we attach those two specific items to a possible recall, how are we to know that by the time Parliament is recalled there will not be a list of other subjects of equal importance? It would be sufficient if, at this stage, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew these specific conditions and merely asked the Government to give full and sympathetic consideration to the merits of any case put forward.
I make that suggestion because we expect a special recall to discuss the possible outcome of discussions on the Common Market, which is a matter of outstanding importance. It is fundamental. That should warrant the recall of the House. But to tie to a discussion of that subject discussions on one or two other subjects—which at this stage we may not be aware of, but may be of real importance when the House is recalled—Would be to dilute the significance to be attached to the debate on the Common Market. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to insist by all

611
means that full and proper thought should be given to any representations he may make during the Recess, but not to attach specific conditions, as I under-stood the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Whether my right hon. Friends set conditions, or modify or withdraw them, it will be all the same in the long run. The Government will do what they please. It is surely obvious that the Government will not recall the House unless, as a result of the Common Market negotiations, they believe that they have been successful, and hope to gain the support of the House. They will not recall the House otherwise.
I have listened to these debates for many years, and a good deal of humbug is talked in them. Almost every hon. Member—even if he is one of those who wants to curtail the Recess—is very glad to get away. I am not surprised. I am at variance with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said in this respect. It is not that I disagree with the merits of his case— the need for further discussion of unemployment and the like; all that is far from objectionable. But I say that it is quite a mistake to suppose that by curtailing the Recess by one month, or even by two months, as my hon. Friend suggested, the Government would be induced to produce beneficial legislation, or legislation which was satisfactory to the Opposition—or, for that matter, to suppose that any questions asked by hon. Members on this side of the House would lead to a satisfactory response from the Government.
I take it further: if my hon. Friend, as the result of the recall of the House somewhat earlier than is intended under the Government Motion, ventures to protest at the Government's action or inaction, the only result will be that the Government will still have their own way. What does anybody think will happen? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) says that it is not necessary. Does he believe—
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I did not say that.
Mr. Shinwell: I thought my right hon. Friend did. At any rate, somebody said it. I am sorry; I thought it came from just in front of me, but apparently it came from another bench on this side of the House. Whoever may have said it, I suggest that if anybody on this side of the House believes that he can make an impact on the Government Front Bench he is making a mistake. Not even hon. Members opposite can make an impact on the Government.
What has happened in recent years is quite a new phenomenon. The authority of the Executive over the House of Commons is now far greater than it has ever been before. In fact, it is a danger to Parliamentary democracy.
Anybody who supposes—no matter how eloquent he is, however penetrating his argument, or however influential he may regard himself—that he has any influence over the Government and that he can persuade the Government to do as he pleases, is making a mistake. There is an obvious reason why he cannot do so. It is because the Government themselves are at sixes and sevens. Therefore, what is the use of asking that the Recess should be curtailed? The Government do not intend to produce any legislation that is worth a tinker's curse—if I may venture to indulge in such a term. What is the use of all this palaver about meeting a little earlier? The Government will not be having a well-deserved rest, but it will be a much-needed one. As far as I am concerned, if we did not see this Government for many months, I should be delighted. I do not expect anything from them. Does anybody else?
Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes.
Mr. Shinwell: Who? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is one of the most sincere Members of the House. I am not questioning his integrity, but he is very innocent if he imagines that anything that he says in the House will make any impact on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I purposely said, "Yes", because it is surely elementary to expect action to be taken upon the question that I raised.
Mr. Shinwell: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by my right

613
hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and others, about the provocation that has resulted in disorder, and the action of the police— although I am far from complaining about the police until the whole of the evidence is before us. But all that apart, what are the Government likely to do as a result of all these protests? My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper submitted a condition for accepting the Motion. He said that the House ought to be recalled earlier than usual for the purpose of ascertaining from the Home Secretary whether he would be ready to use his authority to prevent meetings of the kind that were held last night in Dalston and quite recently in Manchester.
The Home Secretary will do nothing of the kind. For one thing, he will say that he has no authority. He will produce the familiar argument, that we hear so often, that we must retain the right of free speech. That is complete humbug. I am all in favour of free speech. I have used it many times. But there is a vast difference between free speech and licence—allowing people to say what they like irrespective of whether they offend—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. My difficulty is allowing Members to say what they please, when it may or may not be out of order. I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman does not go too far into details.
Mr. Shinwell: And, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with respect, that is precisely what I thought earlier, when I ventured to suggest to Mr. Speaker that perhaps there was a little too much indulgence with right hon. and hon. Members. But I did it with respect, and one cannot go farther than that.
I do not wish to delay the debate which is to come, because I know that hon. Members are straining at the leash to express views about the Common Market. And, by the way, suppose they do. Does anybody imagine that anything will happen effectively as a result of it? Of course not. It is just a lot of palaver.
Mr. Ross: Does this mean—because my right hon. Friend is expressing these
614
sentiments—that we shall hear no more from Privy Councillors on this side of the House?
Mr. Shinwell: I think that you would agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if I began to discuss the privileges accorded to Privy Councillors I should be completely out of order. I could say a great deal about that. When I reflect on the length of speeches made by hon. Mem-bars who are not Privy Councillors, but who wish they were—and make every effort to become Privy Councillors—I feel that I might suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock that the less said about Privy Councillors the better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. In any event, why not make all hon. Members Privy Councillors? In point of fact, if there is any complaint against the Government it is that they make too many Privy Councillors. I cannot recall all the details, but when I think of hon. Members on the back benches who have become Privy Councillors—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We must come back to the Question before the House.
Mr. Shinweil: I think that it will be conceded, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I did not raise the matter. But if I am provoked, what do hon. Members expect? I am being as respectful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and anyway, I know better than to be otherwise.
There may be some reason for curtailing the Recess on the assumption that the Government will come forward with considered views on the subject of the provocation arising out of meetings held by certain organisations. If that were so, I suggest that we ought to meet in another month to hear what the Home Secretary has to say. There would be some justification in curtailing the Recess to hear what the Government had to say about the new weapons which are intended, as was suggested by an hon. Member opposite, or on the subject of Berlin and the like, which are fundamental issues. But if it is merely that we should come back so that the Government may indulge in a lot of "talkie-talkie" about irrelevancies, the later Parliament reassembles the better.

615
I wish to raise one pertinent issue— indeed, that is all I intended to do in any case. It is this. The Leader of the House promised me yesterday that today he would mention the matter of the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon and give an undertaking regarding the money being expended under the Civil Contingencies Fund. Today he has given an answer which, to me, is quite unsatisfactory. I am not discussing the merits of this matter at all. I do not want to. I am not an "arty" person, I know very little about art. But this I do know—it is unwise to spend money unnecessarily. That is all I want to say about the merits of the matter.
I wish to know from the Leader of the House by what authority will the Government expend £350,000 out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of that cartoon without the approval of the House? It is my contention that the Government have no right to do anything of the sort, unless they have the approval of the House. They have no right to provide the money from the Civil Contingencies Fund or by way of a Supplementary Estimate.
If, as a result, the cartoon goes elsewhere, I do not regard that as an irreparable disaster. I am not concerned about that aspect; it relates to the merits of the case. I am concerned about the authority of this House in matters of finance and I deny the right of the Government to expend this vast sum of money for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of this cartoon until they have received the approval of the House.
4.55 p.m.
Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: We all realise the necessity for a Recess. But when we are considering whether to approve this Motion it is necessary that mention should be made of things which have been left undone and, in fact, to dwell on them if necessary, before Parliament goes into recess for so many days.
An important matter in which I, and, I hope, many of my hon. Friends—certainly, hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—are interested is that we have had no final
616
decision on the future of the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland. We are aware that there are many factors to be considered in this matter—that the new Minister of Aviation visited Northern Ireland, and so on—but we are also aware that the Leader of the House has been unable to give any assurance despite the fact that the firm concerned, Short Bros, and Harland, has stated that by the end of July—yesterday—it would no longer be able to maintain itself as a fully equipped design and production unit. And we are proposing to go into recess without anything definite being done by the Government.
During the Recess we shall have no way of approaching Ministers directly, as is the case when Parliament is sitting, and we are anxious about what will be done during the Recess. We are anxious that the 7,500 men employed in the industry shall not be left without knowing what are their employment prospects in the future. We are anxious to know when the Royal Air Force will decide on its new strategic aeroplane, and we are anxious—this master was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—to know something about the future production of weapons some of which may be made by Short Bros. We are anxious to know when a decision will be taken about what is to happen in connection with this very important industry in this very important part of the United Kingdom
Today, we have discussed whether Parliament should be recalled to hear about the state of the Common Market negotiations. I suggest, humbly, that we might be interested to know what is to be the procedure in a part of the United Kingdom where action is most needed. I suggest, again, humbly, that the Leader of the House might give us some idea or some assurance—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department are present and perhaps they might have something to say on the matter—about what will happen in Northern Ireland. We have no right to approve a Motion relating to a Recess which is to last for three months without knowing some-thing definite about the future of an industry which has been of such importance for so many years. We have had

617
no such assurance from any Minister and I think that we ought to be assured before the Motion before the House is approved.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) spoke in an agreeable vein of mild cynicism and seemed almost to be suggesting that Parliament might as well pack up altogether—
Mr. Shinwell: I meant that this Government should.
Mr. Driberg: —for all the good we might do with this Government in power, and I disagree with my right hon. Friend only on that point. I will give one illustration of the fact that the House and the Opposition can bring effective pressure on the Government on specific matters. A couple of weeks ago there was the incident of the Jamaican girl who was to be deported. Had that matter come up a fortnight hence instead of a fortnight ago, she would have been deported by now, because Parliament would not have been in Session.
Before I come to the two specific points which I want to raise I should like to make two procedural points—if the Leader of the House would be good enough to listen to them. First, the Leader of the House knows that we are using our legitimate right, on this particular Adjournment Motion, to raise a number of points which seem to us to be urgent, or which ought to be dealt with, or about which we ought to get assurances before we allow the Government to have the Motion. But we regret that in doing so we are, it would seem, inevitably, cutting short the important debate on the Common Market. Could the Leader of the House consider suspending the Rule for one or two hours later tonight, if that should prove desirable—if there are a large number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the Common Market debate?
That is the first procedural point I want to make. Secondly, a number of different points have been raised and will be raised which we cannot expect the Leader of the House himself to deal with substantially in whatever further reply he may be good enough to give.
618
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised points concerning the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am going to raise an extremely urgent point which concerns a Colonial Territory and which must be dealt with, if at all, within the next few days. I know that this is a lot to ask, but would it be possible for one or two Ministers or Under-Secretaries of the Departments concerned to be hare to give brief answers on such points as these?
The first main subject that I want to discuss, in a way that is both extremely specific and highly relevant to the Motion on the Order Paper, is the matter which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I am glad that he said: "We cannot leave that issue for long undebated". I am glad also to hear that the Home Secretary tomorrow is to answer these Questions orally if they are not reached. I wish the Minister of Public Building and Works had exercised the same discretion and had asked Mr. Speaker's leave to do that yesterday, when I asked if he would do so, but he said that he would not because he had nothing to say—which is, of course, not an unfamiliar phenomenon. I ask him a Question, which was not reached, about the organisations which have so far been granted the use of Trafalgar Square on Sunday afternoons in the next three months, when the House will be in Recess.
As hon. Members can see if they look at Written Answers in yesterday's HANSARD, eight dates have already been booked for Sunday afternoons, most of them by quite harmless or worthy movements such as the Golborne Rehabilitation Centre—an excellent hostel which cares far people on probation and ex-prisoners—the Metropolitan Templar Federation, Sinn Fein, and the Navy League. But already there have been applications for the use of Trafalgar Square on 2nd September from the British National Party and on 23rd September from the Union Movement. In his reply, the Minister said that the application from the Union Movement had only recently been received—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Again I regret to interrupt an hon. Member, but the question before us is the Summer Adjournment. I think the hon. Member has had ample opportunity to make

619
clear the details which he would like to have answered, perhaps tomorrow, without continuing on this line in relation to the Summer Recess.
Mr. Driberg: The point I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it is dangerous for this House to go away for three months and leave the Government in charge of these matters unless we get an assurance from them that there will not be grave public disorder in Trafalgar Square and other places, as there is bound to be unless they decide to cancel the permissions which have already been given. In his reply yesterday the Minister said that the application from the Union Movement was now being considered. That is the Mosley gang. He also said, unfortunately, that the application from the British National Party for 2nd September had been granted. He said he could find "no grounds for withdrawing the permissions already granted". This, surely, is highly relevant when we are considering whether we can agree to this Motion at all unless we can get some contrary indication of the Government's intention on this matter. The British National Party—I should explain in parenthesis, since it has changed its name so frequently—is Mr. Colin Jordan's little gang of criminal psychopaths, who are even more extreme in in their abusive provocations than the Mosley gang.
It is quite clear that the Minister has been misled in the past. He has told us that advice was given by the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that it would be all right to have those meetings which have already been held. That advice was demonstrably wrong. If the Commissioner has again said that it is all right to have these meetings on 2nd and 23rd September, this House should express itself in a contrary sense by refusing to allow this Motion to be passed today unless we can get some assurance about it.
Quite apart from the merits of the case, which I shall not argue, it is certain—absolutely certain—that there will be grave public disorder on the Sunday afternoons of 2nd and 23rd September if the Minister allows these meetings to take place. I also feel that it is dangerous to go away for so long and
620
leave this matter in the hands of Ministers who fail to distinguish, as most civilised countries can, between the expression of genuine political views, however unorthodox or unpopular they may be—a freedom which must always be safeguarded—and public incitement to racial hatred and discrimination, which is much more akin to obscene or seditious libel.
I shall not continue on that because I do not want to cut across your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The second point —an entirely different point—which I want to raise briefly, concerns the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and Colonies. I am sorry to trouble the House with what some hon. Members may think a very trivial matter, but I do not think it is. It concerns a small minority of people in a Colonial Territory and the reason I have to raise it now is that it is a small community of people in the territory of Jamaica, which becomes independent in a few days' time, as the Leader of the House will know. After Jamaica becomes independent it will presumably be out of order and quite impossible to raise in this House any matter concerning the internal policy or administration of Jamaica.
I am concerned about the future welfare and the fate and freedom of the people known as the Maroons of Jamaica—the Maroons of Accompong and of Trelawney Town. To remind hon. Members who may not recall their West Indian history, I should say that these Maroons have an extraordinarily romantic and interesting history. As far back as the eighteenth century they won their freedom: they won a treaty of independence from the British Government. They were runaway slaves, and descendants of runaway slaves, who escaped to the mountains and fought a number of harassing guerrilla wars against the British. Eventually, in 1739, "articles of pacification" were concluded which guaranteed them—this is the point—their freedom and the possession "for themselves and posterity for ever all the lands situate and lying between Trelawney Town and the Cockpits, to the amount of 1,500 acres."
Whatever has happened since then, the Maroons have always cherished and

621
tried to safeguard some degree of independence. Obviously we all welcome the independence of Jamaica as a whole, and wish the Jamaican people well in future; but I hope, first, that the Jamaican Government will deal tenderly with these interesting people, living as they do in a few remote mountain villages. Secondly, I hope that the Minister—although I know this is a lot to ask—will be able to say something today about them, because this is the last occasion on which it will be possible to discuss them in this House, in view of the impending independence of Jamaica. This is not something I have sprung on the Department without any warning. I have raised this before at Question Time and by letter with the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have a few words from the Government about these matters.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. A. R. Wise: I never thought that I should find myself opposing my summer holiday, but on this particular occasion I think we must have a great deal more assurance from the Government than we have at the moment.
I am unashamedly going to refer to possible events that may occur in regard to the negotiations for our possible signature of the Treaty of Rome. We have been told that the House may be recalled some time in the middle of September for three days in order to be told what is happening. That is not good enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had a number of debates on the Common Market hitherto. How many back bench Members have had the opportunity to speak? Three days is nonsense. We must have really adequate time to discuss something which is of very great moment. This is am attempt to put the clock back—not forward—1,900 years, to the time when Agricola came to this country with an army of Frenchmen, Germans and Italians. We have every right to claim far more opportunity for discussing these matters than in fact we are likely to have under the present arrangements.
More than that, we have a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference sitting in September. Normally, I would be the first to say "Let them conduct
622
their consultations without being bothered too much by speeches in this House", but the situation does not work out that way. As far as we can see, if our Ministers are left alone in these matters they will sell every pass there is, while we have no means of doing anything about it. We have so far had experience of this, and I am afraid I must quote it, in one thing after another. We allowed the Government to enter into exploratory negotiations. A number of points have been gently allowed to pass by without protest, or without as much protest as there should have been.
For instance, there was our original objection to Article 240 of the Treaty of Rome—the "eternity clause"—which passed without discussion. We have compromised on one thing after another. At the moment, we are making concessions on agriculture without getting anything in return, and again without any discussion. We are talking about abandoning our sovereignty, again without discussion. We must have more time. This House has a right to be heard on these matters, and I make no apology for going into them, with your very kind permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this modest amount of detail.
There are other things that arise— things which affect Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. More than one, in the past, has made utterances which we have all welcomed, and to which we were firmly convinced they will adhere. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement in which he said that rather than allow any harm to come to the Commonwealth he will go back into private life. It is only right that, if he should have to make this decision, and I pray that he does not have to make it. he should have the usual forum in which to make the usual final speech of a Minister who, for once in a while, has resigned on a point of conscience, and has not been sacked.
There are many other Ministers concerned, though I would not go into details, who gave unequivocal promises on the question of the free entry of Commonwealth imports, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed himself more than once on this point. There may be many people in

623
the country who firmly agree with his point of view, but I think that this House should be sitting, in order that we may know if things go wrong and express our opinion. We cannot stand another Chancellor of the Exchequer within six months.
For all these reasons, I want to make a very revolutionary suggestion. We should ignore this business of extending the present Session by recalling the House, because I think that it will do little good. We should firmly insist that we need the amount of holiday which we can get, and there is no doubt about that. I should like to suggest that we should start the new Session, at the latest, on 1st October instead of the 30th so that the Government business can follow its ordinary course with the Bills which are necessary and which would have been brought forward anyway and adjourn at the beginning of December instead of just before Christmas, which will give the same length of Session and more opportunity for the Government to conduct their business. If it is necessary for us to come back for a week or more to discuss this one specific subject of the Common Market in the middle of September, I think we will all gladly make that sacrifice in addition.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I want to support, first, the arguments of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), which I believe ought to be taken into very serious consideration by the Government.
It is monstrous that the Leader of the House should stand there and suggest that we should come back some time during the Long Recess to have three days in which to discuss the biggest issue that has arisen in our history since 1066, and that the Government should offer the House of Commons less time in which to discuss the Common Market than we shall have in discussing the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. There is a tradition in this House that we have four days' debate on the Queen's Speech, and I believe that every hon. Member on both sides of the House has an inherent right to make his voice heard on the biggest issue that has arisen in our lifetime.
624
It is offensive for the Government to believe that the results of secret negotiations which have been carried on for nearly a year can be brought to us and that we should be expected to reach a decision in three days, when three-quarters of the House will not have had an opportunity to voice an opinion. I feel very strongly on this question, because I believe that the whole of our national way of life is challenged by the proposals that are under way with the Common Market, and that, at least, there ought to be given to us an opportunity to speak, not only to the Government but to the country, which is our privilege when we speak in this House. When we debate the Common Market we shall be helping to make up the minds of the country, and it is only fair that all people should hear the full case and not merely that of the two Front Benches and one or two other Privy Councillors who are able to get into the debate.
There is another point which I wish to raise and which has kept me jumping to my feet throughout the debate.
Mr. Shinwell: I have been trying to get in, too.
Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is still trying to get into the debate.
I wish to make a point which concerns the Principality. We have heard this afternoon appeals from Scotland and Northern Ireland against the injustices of the Government being continued in the Recess, and I wish to raise a question concerning people in Wales, in particular, but also concerning people in England and possibly in Northern Ireland. It is a question of a statement being made on Government policy on leasehold reform before the House goes into Recess.
A fortnight ago the new Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs made a statement to the Welsh Members in which he poured cold water on the idea of any legislation concerning leasehold reform during the next Session. This statement by the Minister has given encouragement to every ground landlord to go ahead increasing his demands upon our people in South Wales. Not only, therefore, will the long Recess mean that we

625
cannot fight for earliest legislation to deal with leasehold, but it will also mean that during the three months of silence of Parliament the ground landlords will feel free to go ahead with the rapacious demands which they are now making upon our people.
Like hon. Members who have spoken on other issues, I make no apology for raising a matter which is of prime importance to the people who live in my constituency. I should be failing in my duty, and they would think that I had taken leave of my senses, if I did not oppose a long Recess like this without, first, a Government statement on what they propose to do about leasehold reform. If we go down for three months—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: If we go up.
Mr. Thomas: I am not a lawyer. I am more innocent. "Going down" to me means returning to my constituency. If we go into recess for three months it means that the people who are leaseholders, who are faced with ever-increasing demands, will be more than ever at the mercy of these finance corporations about which I have spoken to the House before. It will soon be a year since I presented to the House and to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs a Petition signed by 60,000 people in the Principality asking for Government action on the leasehold question.
Are the Government telling me that I must go back to the Principality and tell them to wait for another three months—and even then we have no guarantee that hope will be held out to the leaseholders? I feel very strongly on this question, as I do on the question of the Common Market, and I hope that on both these issues the Leader of the House will give a satisfactory reply.
As I resume my seat, may I say, as a fellow Celt, that I sympathise with the speeches made by my hon. Friends from Scotland, because I realise that the Celts get a bad deal from this Government. I realise that at one time there would not have been a Tory Government without the Northern Ireland M.P.s—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Thomas: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. That was out of order. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what I said.
rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Macleod.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Iain Macleod: As the House knows we have in front of us still a most important debate. I think that it wouild be right if I tried to reply to a number of most important points—
Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you advise me whether the Leader of the House is closing the debate? There are many hon. Members, including myself, who wish to take part in it.
Sir Barnett Janner: Further to that point of order. I remained in the House until 8.30 a.m. the other day, having been in the House all night, and was then stopped from speaking by a Closure Motion. There are a number of hon. Members who still wish to speak on this important matter. Have we any protection and assurance that the debate will not be stopped by the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me that question. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do. I have called him, and the fact of calling him has no bearing on what he will do.
Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
Mr. Leslie Hale: It is impossible for the Leader of the House—
Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has a point of order to raise, but we must take them one at a time. Mr. Hector Hughes.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Sir B. Janner), may I ask whether I have any protection? I sat out the whole of the censure debate and was not called. I have been sitting out the whole of this debate and I have not yet been called. Is there any prospect that I shall be called?
Mr. Speaker: I should not like to commit myself in advance about any such difficult proposition.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. There may be different motives for continuing this discussion, but I rise to call attention to a letter which I received five minutes ago and which is the most scandalous document which I have ever had at any time since I have been in Parliament. It was written by the new Minister of Pensions about an old case relating to a man who is mentally ill and may be certified as insane—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member rose to a point of order but that does not seem to be one.
Mr. Hale: The point of order is this: how is it possible for the Leader of the House to reply to a point of this kind which up to now has not been put in the debate, about a matter of which he has no cognisance, a matter which is urgent and a matter which is directly directed to this point, because we all know that these letters are sent out every year on the afternoon of 31st July? The House should not adjourn while conduct of that kind—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I cannot decide whether the Minister can reply to this or that question. I have merely called him to speak.
Mr. Macleod: This debate was opened by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who put a number of points to me. I have dealt with one of them. It was raised by other hon. Members. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), both in an intervention and later when he spoke to this Motion, on the question of the use of the Square. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will reply to those two Questions which are on the Order Paper at the end of Questions tomorrow.
Sir B. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Question Time we are entitled only to ask a few supplementary questions and that no debate can take place? What assurance have we that a debate will take place?
Mr. Macleod: I was coming in a moment to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman about a debate, when we are recalled, if there is a recall.
628
On the question of the recall of Parliament, the House is familiar with the terms of Standing Order No. 112, which I do not propose to read, and which says, in effect, that whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to you, Mr. Speaker, by Her Majesty's Ministers that public interest requires an earlier meeting, there is machinery to give effect to that. I could preface the first undertaking for which I was asked by saying that although the final decision is bound to rest with the Government, we should give full weight to ail representations from any quarter of the House particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, from the Opposition Front Bench.
The answer is, "Yes, of course." Nobody could deny the immense importance of this issue. We would certainly give the very fullest weight to representations made, as they frequently are in these circumstances, from the Opposition Front Bench and also to any substantial number of Members of Parliament from either side of the House who wish to make such representations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does 'substantial' mean?"] I withdraw "substantial" and say "to all representations made".
On the question of public statements, the position is that we would wish to try to report to the House as far as we can on the Brussels negotiations, as fully and in the same sort of way as if the House were sitting. It is accepted that the best way of doing this would be for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to make as extended a progress report as he can and that this should be in the form of a White Paper. I give the undertaking that it will be in such a form. I cannot tell how many reports is would be appropriate to have, because that depends on negotiations which have not yet taken place, but the first of these reports would be as a result of the round of talks in Brussels which starts today.
I was then asked about Questions, again in the hypothetical event of recall. As I understand it, the position is that our rules of order rule out Oral Questions, but statements and Private Notice Questions are in order on those days. If there are matters very much in the forefront of the public mind, I give an

629
assurance to the House that my right hon. Friends would be ready in one way or another, either by statements or in reply to Private Notice Questions, to give the fullest information to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised a more difficult point about a debate on a particular subject. The subject he mentioned was probation officers' salaries. As a number of my hon. Friends pointed out, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), there would then be other claimants whose case hon. Members on either side of the House might wish to press. I will gladly consider this request, as long as it is understood that it is considered in conjunction with the others and in relation to the time available to the House. I do not think that it will be appropriate to give an undertaking on this point going further than that.
I do not propose to deal today with what I might call the merits of the case or the arguments for free speech and the law arising from these particularly vicious doctrines which are being preached at present, in view of the undertaking which I have given that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions on this matter.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to this effect? If a solution is found, after consultation with the lawyers, along the lines of the various Bills which are before the House, or which are to be put before the House, or along the lines of suggestions which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the ex-Attorney-General, to the problem of amending the Public Order Act by a single simple Clause which is easily understood, will he undertake to find time, if Parliament is recalled, to pass that amending legislation through all its stages? As it is clearly understood that the minimum debate would be required, this is something which everybody would desire and it would immediately strengthen the powers of the police.
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member will have gathered from the reception which was given to the latter part of his inter-
630
vention that, although we are all at one in loathing the sort of things which are said, we are not at one in the answers which we think should be found. I will put these matters, as they have been put to me, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) referred to yesterday's debate on the Report of the Pilkington Committee. It is often true, especially at the end of a Session when one wishes to bring reports before the House, that there is a rush in these matters. I acknowledge that. We tried our best to expediate publication of the Pilkington Report. I think that we produced very swiftly indeed the White Paper which formed the subject of the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised the question of the Closure which was moved on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Indeed, she raised the whole question of allocation of time. I have a feeling that there is something which is not wholly satisfactory here. I am not talking about the particular instance, but a suggestion occurs to me which I hope that the House will find acceptable. I do not want to go too deeply into details, but I tried to check my facts on the occasion in question and I have tried to check them again since. I think that I said to the House that there were at least four, and there might be six, subjects still to be dealt with. They were as follows—the question of probation officers' salaries, to be raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner); the matters to be raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross); the matter which the hon. Lady herself wished to raise; and, although she has forgotten this, the question of world security, which the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) wished to raise. Further, there was a possibility that other hon. Members would wish to raise questions, because notice is not necessarily given. The hon. Lady will recall that she herself gave notice—I am sure that she will be fair about this—only after the debate had started—in fact, at 9 p.m.
Miss Herbison: It was earlier than that.
Mr. Macleod: However that may be, it was after the debate had started. I am absolutely certain that the time taken— I must avoid using the word "allocated"; the point made yesterday was a fair one —of 30 hours is longer than has ever happened before, as far as we can trace, on the Consolidated Fund and amounts to no less than five full days on the Floor of the House.
One of the reasons why we found ourselves in this situation, although I make no complaint about it, was that some of the earlier debates ran considerably longer than the time we had suggested to the House. Hon. Members will remember that when I announced business— this business, because it came on a Monday, was announced twice on two successive Thursdays—I said that it was hoped that the debates on Southern Rhodesia and on the case of Mr. Rhydderch, of Birmingham, would take about half a day. In fact, they took a full parliamentary day, up to about 10 p.m.
I come now to the suggestion which I think I should make. We have a Select Committee on Procedure. I think that it would be of great advantage for the future if we discussed in this Committee whether it would be right to allocate time to subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in the same way as Mr. Speaker allocates time for the Adjournment debates which we will be having on Friday.
Mr. G. Thomas: That would not be fair.
Mr. Macleod: I assure hon. Members that this would be more fair to them, because there would then be no risk of hon. Members being out out. If, in these circumstances, the main debate of the evening were on London's homeless, it would be perfectly proper to allot 6, 8 or 10 hours or whatever might be appropriate. Some discussion on these lines might prove fruitful.
Miss Alice Bacon: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was remarkable that the Closure was moved immediately at the end of a debate promoted by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), which
632
the Minister who replied to it said was nothing whatever to do with his Ministry but was a local government affair, and immediately before the question of the probation service to be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)? Was this because the Patronage Secretary feared the wrath of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth more than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West?
Mr. Macleod: I do not know—I must ask my right hon. Friend for comparative judgments in that matter—
Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the debate was stopped when there were still four or five hours to go before it would be necessary to overlook the following day? Is he aware that it is because the Executive is taking this kind of action that we want a proper understanding before the Adjournment?
Mr. Macleod: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was—and this is not true of all hon. Members who then wished to speak—in the Chamber all night, wishing to speak, and I am very sorry that he was not able to do so. I understand that there is a possibility that he may be able to speak on has subject tonight. If so, that will be very good. But, frankly, I do not take the view—nor, and I make the point again, did the Socialist Government when they were in similar circumstances, and moved Closures at midnight and at one o'clock in the morning—that it is necessary, in these debates, to keep the whole House, and all those who work in it, until the next day's business begins to run on us at about two o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Ross: The remedy offered is surely unfair, in that it relates to subjects. The rights that pertain under the Consolidated Fund Bill are Members' rights. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think again of the ability of a Minister in timing his reply, and the right of Mr. Speaker to see someone who has indicated that he has prepared something that he wishes to raise, and get a solution in that way.
Mr. Macleod: That might be a very valuable idea, and it is conceivable that

633
we could find a way of relating it to both Members and subjects. I should not have thought that this was beyond the wit of the Select Committee, but we can consider that matter.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why it was that the Opposition did not vote against that Closure?
Mr. Macleod: It is true that the Opposition did not vote against the Closure. Incidentally, one can also make the point that a member of the Opposition tried to count the House out on the Bill, but I do not think that that would have been regarded with much enthusiasm by hon. Members on either side.
The question of Standing Order No. 112 was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). Perhaps I could make one thing clear— because, of course, we are linking this to particular days in September. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) implied that I had announced that we would return for three days. I have not announced anything of the sort, nor have I said that we shall return, or any particular time when we would return if the circumstances arose.
I want to make it quite clear that the Standing Order operates from the moment we rise. To take a specific point put to me in conversation, it has been assumed by everyone that in no circumstances could we return before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. That is not so. Standing Order No. 112 would enable us to return, if necessary, a few days after we have risen. I make that point, because it is important to realise that the Standing Order begins to operate from Friday next, assuming that the House accepts this Motion.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) put with great sincerity his views on the matter on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions tomorrow, and I will convey the hon. Member's questions to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Rosts) has displayed such a lack of faith in the Conservative Government, but no doubt he will return refreshed after an interval
634
to torment us again, though I do not suppose that he will acquire much faith in the meantime.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon and asked whether there is specific authority from Parliament for such use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. The answer is that there is such authority in general, but not, of course, in particular. There never has been. The point of the Civil Contingencies Fund is that this sort of operation—and, again, I do not argue the merits—can be carried out in advance of full parliamentary approval, which is later conveyed by a Supplementary Estimate and, in due course, by the Consolidated Fund itself.
The authority in this matter, which I quoted earlier, is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, when Parliament discussed and endorsed the need for such a fund, and fixed its limit. Therefore, the authority is, in effect, the authority of Parliament itself. I also make a point that this Fund, apart from being used for very many purposes indeed, has been used repeatedly since the war. I gave examples over the last two years, but examples of its use by both sides to finance special grants to purchase works of art in advance of the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate run back for a number of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) spoke of Short Bros, and Harland in the context of the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has just returned—I believe, yesterday—from a visit to Northern Ireland, where he had discussions with those concerned with the aircraft industry. Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Short Bros, is to wait upon decisions on the aircraft requirements, but I will give my hon. Friend an undertaking that those decisions will be taken as soon as possible; and that I will convey her anxiety to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Barking, apart from raising the question with which I think I have dealt, about how far the Home Secretary will be able to go on

635
the general question of the recent disturbing riots when he comes before the House tomorrow, raised a matter with which I have some familiarity although, as he correctly surmised, not in detail. That is the question of the Maroons, in Jamaica, the descendants of slaves, who, for the reasons he outlined, have special historical claims. I will not attempt to dredge out of my memory as an ex-Colonial Secretary the impromptu answer, and I am sure that he will understand that, but I will undertake myself to write to him on the subject, and to go immediately into the points he put before the House.
To take just the one question of Welsh leaseholds—
Mr. Driberg: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but would he deal with the procedural point I raised? Is he going to move to suspend the rule on the later debate?
Mr. Macleod: I had not planned to do that. I always think that for a debate of this nature, on the Common Market, suspension of the rule makes for the least satisfactory form of debate. It puts off the final contributions that are made. I had not intended, even if it were in order—and I imagine that it would have to be a manuscript Amendment—
Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has very properly given a number of undertakings to various hon. Members as to what he will do during the Recess. Will he undertake to press on the new Secretary of State for Scotland the disaster that is overtaking Scotland in the form of increasing unemployment, and ask him to make a statement of plans of a properly constructive Character to deal with that situation?
Mr. Macleod: I will certainly put to him the points which have been made in this discussion, particularly by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked about Welsh leaseholds and I think that he knows the position. The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs put forward, I think to the Welsh Grand Committee, on 18th July, the whole question of the study of the problems of
636
renewal of ground leases and said that it would take some time. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will not, therefore, be surprised when I say Chat I have nothing to comment in advance of that today.
The last point I wish to make concerns the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and a number of others. They asked that if we have to come back—and I must emphasise again that we are discussing a hypothetical situation, as the House appreciates—and we invoke Standing Order No. 112, there should be adequate time in which to discuss the important matter they raised. There are, at that time of the year, certain difficulties, to put it mildly. All the parties are busily engaged and, while no one denies for a moment the over-riding importance of this matter, I must reserve for the Government the question whether we should return.
However, I can give the undertaking that, especially this year, we will look most carefully at all the representations made to us under Standing Order No. 112.
Mr. William Warbey: Can the Leader of the House give a specific assurance on a matter which is worrying my hon. Friends? Can he give an assurance—in view of the fundamental constitutional importance of the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, involving, as it does, the transfer of legislative powers to a non-elected body—that no attempt will be made to obtain Parliamentary approval by means of a vote for the conditions of entry into the Common Market in any debate during the Recess?
Mr. Macleod: I would like, if I may, to leave the answer to that, because it is important that the words I use are carefully used. I would rather leave it to the debate which is just about to follow and which, I hope, the House will now be ready to begin.
Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In my constituency last night there was considerable uproar and I have been sitting here all day trying to bring to the attention of the House important points

637
which affect my constituency. I appreciate that many hon. Members have claims on the time of the House, but I notice that some hon. Members have secured time for an Adjournment debate on Friday. I must ask the House to give me an opportunity, at least of a few minutes, to say what my constituents are thinking about this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I do not observe the hon. Member's point of order. I understand his difficulty, but it is not a point of order. I might make this suggestion. If other opportunities do not arise—and I am not sure that I am right in remembering all the Adjournment debates which are to be taken—perhaps there might be an opportunity for the hon. Member to speak in that particular debate.
Mr. H. Butler: There may be an opportunity for me to speak in the Adjournment debate, but surely it is unfair that I should be second to someone else in an Adjournment debate concerning my constituency.
Mr. Speaker: There is some difficulty about that. Had the hon. Member applied for an Adjournment debate I would have considered his application along with the others. That, to the best of my knowledge, he did not do.
Mr. G. Brown: I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I hope that I may be allowed to do so, only to thank the Leader of the House for the way in which he has met most of the points put to him during this discussion by my hon. Friends and me. I wish, in particular, to express my appreciation to him for the arrangements that he is making for the Home Secretary to make a statement tomorrow on the urgent matter of the incitement to racial hatred and disaffection. We may yet have representations to make and we reserve our right to do so, but I thank the Leader of the House for making those arrangements.
May I now appeal to the whole House, since we have had a long discussion, to remember that we have an important debate ahead of us? This may well be the last occasion on which any voice from this House can be heard in Brussels before decisions are taken. Any further debate might well be after those decisions are taken. I submit, therefore,
638
that some words from this House tonight would not only be in order, but are urgently necessary and I appeal to hon. Members now to let us proceed to debate the Common Market.
Mr. Herbert W. Bowden Mr. Herbert W. Bowden (Leicester, South-West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK and Mr. MARTIN MCLAREN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 25th October, at Eleven o'clock.

PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT)
5.58 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Order Act. 1936.
The Bill seeks to add 12 words to Section 5 of the Act and I think that I can best explain it to the House by reading that Section, indicating the 12 words I wish to add and where they would be inserted. Section 5 reads:
"Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"—
and I wish to add—
"or words inciting hatred of any racial group of Her Majesty's subjects"—
and the Section continues—
"with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
That simply and comprehensively is the entire Bill My Motion gives rise to four questions which the House is bound to consider. First, the House must ask itself whether there should be a limit to free speech at all and the answer to that is obviously "Yes", otherwise the House would not have put on the Statute Book Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The second question is whether, if there should be a limit, a line can be drawn.

639
Again, the answer is obviously "Yes", because a line is drawn in that Section and the criterion accepted is that the limit is reached when public disorder is likely to be provoked. Thirdly, one has to ask, if we are to draw a line, are we satisfied that the line drawn at the present point is rightly drawn? Is it the best of the only possible point?
It is my submission to the House that recent events oblige us to answer "No" to that question. Therefore, if we are not satisfied that the line is rightly drawn, we have to ask, fourthly, whether it is possible to give legislative effect to a line drawn at a different point. My answer to that, quite frankly and honestly, is that I am not quite sure whether it is possible to do so. But there is one thing that I am far more sure about and that is that the House ought to try to do so. This Motion asks no more of the House than that it should accept that duty and the Bill I am seeking to introduce is no more than a cockshy, which the House should consider.
What the Bill seeks to do is to specify incitement to racial hatred as being in a class by itself, distinguishable from other kinds of threatening, abusive or insulting words. May I explain what I mean? I should not seek to prevent, and I am sure that the House should not seek to prevent, anyone publicly advocating the abolition of the monarchy and the setting up of a republican form of government. I should not agree with him. I should regard it as a somewhat old-fashioned and ill-conceived notion. But I regard it as one of the burdens of being a free man, free to advocate my own follies if I choose, to have to listen to the follies of others when they advocate them.
On the other hand, I should seek to prevent, and this House and the common law do seek to prevent, anyone publicly preaching sedition or inciting people to march on Buckingham Palace and commit arson or violence against the person of the Sovereign. I should make a distinction, and this House does make a distinction. Likewise, I should not seek to prevent, and the House should not seek to prevent, anyone publicly proclaiming the merits—if any there be of anarchy or atheism or nihilism or National Socialism or Fascism or Com-
640
munism or any other "ism" in so far as they might present themselves as political or moral philosophies. I should have to put up with it as others have to put up with my publicly proclaimed support for my right hon. Friends.
But there is something that I do want to prevent and I think that this House should try to prevent. I want to prevent the public expressions of opinions that are calculated of themselves to be unbearable to those who hear them and which such people should not be asked to endure or to tolerate. After all, we must have some regard to history and the record of what has happened and the things that we know about. We must recall how literally millions of people have died, and the way in which, God help them, millions have had to survive and go on living. These are the things we must take into account in making a legislative distinction.
If I may seek an analogy from further afield, I should want to prevent in Kenya, for example, an African nationalist saying to a crowd, "Let us take an oath to murder all the white men and their women and children". This is another racial minority group. Consequently, I should not want it to be allowed for an African nationalist to say, "Mau Mau was right", for that is exactly the same thing as saying, "Let us murder all the whites and their women and children".
Mr. Leslie Hale: Suppose he said, "Kenyatta was right"?
Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member will no doubt deploy that very fine distinction when the Bill is introduced on Second Reading. I think that I am entitled to claim, as I do not want to detain the House, that it is conventional that ordinary exchanges across the Floor do not take place under the Ten Minutes Rule.
I do not think that I am normally ungenerous in giving way and I am not trying here to trade upon a special advantage. I should not like it to be said in Kenya, "Mau Mau was right", because I do not think that any Kenya settler should be asked to listen to that and keep the peace upon pain of arrest by the police. I want to prevent in the United Kingdom similar incitements to racial hatred.

641
I do not think that any Jew should be asked to hear—do not let us quibble about whether he would be better advised to stay away from the meeting— the words, "Hitler was night". I believe that to speak those words is a greater offence than to be violent on hearing them. I am asking leave to introduce the Bill so that the House may consider in what way we might best give legislative effect to that idea, and that is my purpose.
Perhaps what I say may be more acceptable to the House because I do not happen to be Jewish myself. I am a pure-bred English mongrel, and, as W. S. Gilbert would say, that is greatly to my credit, I am sure. I only mention it because I hope that it may be of some comfort to our own Jewish people in this country to know that we who are not Jewish have been as affronted by recent pathological outbursts, as anyone else could have been, and that Jewish people need not feel that they are the only ones who feel insulted by these things being said.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the problem of amending the Public Order Act very closely in mind and under consideration because he told the House so, as reported in column 87 of HANSARD on 19th July, in answer to a Question that I put to him. I know that it will be exercising his mind and agonising his conscience during the Recess. I hope that the House will, by giving me leave to introduce the Bill, signify its very urgent desire that he should now succeed in evolving an amending Bill himself.
I am only too well aware of the very great practical difficulties and the very sincere objections in principle to legislation of this kind. Over six centuries of its life this House of Commons has been moved by panic and anger to put on the Statute Book many ill-conceived Measures. We should not be moved today by the disreputable tactics of young Trotskyist ruffians into censoring political views of which they disapprove, even if we disapprove of them ourselves, simply because those views can be equated speciously with intolerable incitement to racial hatred. I am aware of that danger. But I consider a greater danger to be that we should appear to give tacit acceptance to that incitement when incitement genuinely exists. All
642
political decisions are to some extent a choice of evils, and I suggest that in this case the lesser evil is for this House to make at least an honest attempt to legislate.
Most hon. Members believed that the Nazi policy in Germany towards the Jews was so hateful that they were prepared, rather than allow it to prevail, to be killed themselves; and, far more painfully and significantly for most Englishmen, they were themselves prepared to kill, or be accessories in killing, other human beings whom, in normal circumstances, they would not have wanted to harm at all. I think that hon. Members who have had in their lifetime to make that decision should surely not be too squeamish just now in bringing their minds to bear on the issues raised in the Bill. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I rise only to say that we ought not to make this amendment of the law, not in the least on the ground of liberal free speech but because it is fundamentally misconceived.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said that we should remember history. Of course we remember history. When Oswald Mosley appears, that is of itself a racial insult. It does not matter now in the least whether at that meeting he insulted the Jews or the Jamaicans. His presence there was the insult. It is his presence that is resented. Before anybody hears which he has to say, it is inevitable that there will be a riot. Equally, if somebody appears under the slogan of the National Socialists, that of itself is a racial insult in the context of history as we know it.
Simply to say that these people may not say particular things, when one knows that the whole things they stand for are these very things, will not solve anything. There is one quite simple and permanent solution to the Mosley trouble —do not give him police protection next time. I do not know of any other solution.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Skeet, Wing Commander Bullus, Lady Gammans, Mrs. Hill, Sir B. Janner, Mr. E. Johnson, Sir D. Kaberry Mr. Percival, Mr. Russell, Sir W. Wakefield, and Mr. Weitzman.
PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to amend the Public Order Act, 1936, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
6.13 p.m.
The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is almost a year since the House approved the Government's decision
"to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association."
It is, therefore, an appropriate occasion to review events since then and to see where our negotiations now stand.
The House will be aware that this debate takes place just when our delegation in Brussels is closely engaged in the most important and crucial negotiations and in the final stage to determine the general outline of the terms on which we should accede to the European Economic Community. The time, therefore, is not yet ripe to consider whether or not the outcome of these negotiations will be such as will constitute "the satisfactory arrangements" to which we referred a year ago. Moreover, it would be embarrasing to our delegation to debate in detail the substance of the problems still to be solved. Nevertheless, I will try to serve the House, as the Opposition have asked for this debate, by explaining in broad and general terms how far we have got, what matters remain to be settled, and how the Government, so far as we can see
644
at this stage, intend to handle future developments.
Historically and geographically we have always been part of Europe. Indeed, many of the greatest struggles in our history have been undergone to take part in or encourage the concert of Europe or the union of peoples. I learned myself, when I was British chairman of the O.E.E.C. for four years from 1951 onwards, that it was regarded as natural and a natural rôle for Britain to play a full part in Europe not only economically, but politically. Now we have the great opportunity of taking a further step forward, provided that we can, at the same time, protect the vital interests of our Commonwealth since we have no intention of deserting them.
I will thus turn, first, to the main issues so far covered by our negotiations which are those concerned with Commonwealth trade. There are, first, our dependent territories and the newly independent Commonwealth countries in Africa. For most of these, the important question is: what arrangements can be made for their trade in tropical products? I am glad to say that the Six have agreed in principle that association with the Common Market would be an appropriate solution to the problems of the independent and near-independent Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean. They have also agreed that the great majority of our dependent territories should also be regarded as eligible for association.
It is common ground that these Commonwealth associates should not be, as latecomers, less favourably treated than the existing associated States as regards trade with the Community. The Commonwealth associates will enjoy access not only into the United Kingdom, but into the whole of the enlarged Community on the same terms as the existing associates. Further consideration will have to be given to the arrangements to meet the interests of Cyprus and our European dependencies, Gibraltar and Malta. The arrangements for Malaya, Singapore and our Borneo dependencies have hitherto been awaiting the proposals for creating greater Malaysia to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations referred this afternoon. Hong Kong's rapidly developing trade in

645
cotton textiles and other industrial products would require special consideration, as will also the problems raised with respect to the High Commission Territories, by their incorporation in the Customs union with South Africa.
The question of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, in which I am naturally interested, is still under consideration. From an early stage we have been considering the trade problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, on the basis that they would not become associated with the Common Market, in the same way as our dependencies and African and Caribbean Commonwealth countries. But the Six have shown recognition of the key importance of these countries and of the pressing need to make arrangements which will enable them to expand their exports, reduce their adverse balance of payments and earn the foreign exchange necessary to finance their development programmes. The Six have proposed that to achieve these aims the enlarged Community should negotiate comprehensive agreements with each of the three territories by 1966.
There are also transitional arrangements which deal with cotton textiles, and in the field of tropical products the Six have already agreed to the suspension of the common tariff on a number of items of importance to these countries. The abolition of the common external tariff on tea is, in our view, of crucial importance to these countries. In all this we are in the closest consultation with the Governments of the three countries and are taking full account of their views and anxieties.
So much for the various dependencies and parts of the Commonwealth that I have mentioned. More difficult issues are raised by the trading problems of the three old members of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is some doubt about this from Press reports. Also the right hon. Gentleman's own phrase was capable of two interpretations. He said that the abolition of the external tariff on tea is of vital importance to those countries. Does that mean, as has sometimes been
646
reported, that the Six have now agreed to have a nil tariff for tea?
Mr. Butler: I understood, before I rose to speak, that a final decision had not been taken about that, and that is why I phrased it in that way.
As I say, more difficult issues are raised by the trade problems of the three old members of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The major items are raw materials, semi-manufactures, manufactured goods, temperate foodstuffs and certain processed foodstuffs. Many raw materials already enter the Common Market duty-free and trade in them would be unaffected by our accession. We have secured the agreement of the Six to the elimination or reduction of the common external tariff on a number of minor raw materials and an assurance that we shall be able to import duty free sufficient quantities of wood pulp to meet our requirements.
There remains yet unsettled the question of arrangements to be made about aluminium, newsprint, lead and zinc, together with a number of materials of lesser importance. On manufactured goods, exports of which are mainly of importance to Canada, I have nothing to add this afternoon to the provisional solution which has been negotiated and publicly announced.
As the House knows, Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs provide the most difficult and crucial problem of all. Negotiations on this subject are going on in Brussels today and I cannot, therefore, add very much to what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal told the House on Monday. This matter is being considered in Brussels under two heads: first, the long-term engagements; and, secondly, the transitional arrangements which will be necessary on our accession and until the long-term arrangements come into effect.
The Six have proposed, in the context of the enlarged Community, to take an early initiative, if possible in 1963, to secure long-term arrangements on a broad international basis for the principal agricultural products. At the same time, the Six have accepted the importance of reaching an understanding on the purposes of such agreements and on

647
the points to be covered in them. Consideration has been given to the position which would arise if international agreements did not prove practicable, and the six Governments have declared their readiness to conclude agreements for the same purposes with those countries which might wish to do so, in particular, of course, the Commonwealth countries.
Also, we have discussed the question of price and production policy for these commodities in an enlarged Community, which would be of major importance in determining how self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs the Community became and how far there would be room for traditional imports from third countries, in particular from the Commonwealth.
Consideration of the transitional period is being resumed today, and there is nothing further I can say about that.
All these problems, which are, as I have said, the most difficult in the negotiations, are complicated by the fact that the Community's price policies are still in course of development. We have to strike a balance between the interests of farmers, including British farmers, in an enlarged Community and the interests of traditional exporters, in particular Commonwealth exporters; and in so doing we must recognise that we should not attempt to freeze the patterns of trade.
Closely allied to this question of the major Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs is the question of trade in processed agricultural commodities, for instance, canned and dried fruits from Australia and canned salmon from Canada, the most important examples. Although, individually, trade in these commodities is not as large as that in the major temperate foodstuffs such as wheat, mutton and lamb, there are individual items which are of particular importance especially to special communities, notably in Australia. In total, Australia's exports of these commodities are of very great importance. However, in many cases the United Kingdom is the sole export market. We are, therefore, endeavouring to ensure that by reductions in the Community's tariff or by tariff quotas, as may be appropriate, the interests of Commonwealth producers in this field are suitably protected.
648
The second of the main issues to which the resolution of last August referred related to the United Kingdom itself. The first and foremost of these is the question of United Kingdom agriculture. As an agricultural Member, I am glad that we have reached agreement with the Six on the question of annual reviews of agriculture analogous to those which we hold in this country and on the question of a general assurance for farmers in the Community.
First, it is agreed that the Community itself should hold an annual review and that each member country should, in addition, if it so desires, have its own annual review. These reviews will be based on such facts as trends of profitability in the agriculture industry, the trends of prices and costs within the Community, and an assessment of their implications for production, consumption, imports and exports.
The result of any national reviews, together with any observation which the Government concerned may wish to put forward about them, will be forwarded to the European Commission and taken into account by it in preparing the Community's annual review. The Commission will also carry out consultations with representatives of interested organisations, particularly of farmers. In carrying out its own annual review, the Community will, therefore, be able to have before it not only the facts but the views of the agricultural community and of the Governments concerned.
When the Community annual review is itself completed, the Commission must report to the Council of Ministers the results and make appropriate proposals to the Council in the light of these results. Moreover, the Community has also accepted that there should be a general assurance with regard to farming incomes and has agreed upon the procedure of implementing this assurance.
Thus, if the annual review shows that remuneration in the agricultural industry does not ensure for the farmers of the Community or of particular areas of it —that is the wording—a fair standard of living in conformity with the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty, the Commission will take up the question either on its own initiative or at the request of a member Government. The Commission will submit to the Council

649
of Ministers proposals to remedy this situation and the necessary decisions will be taken by the Ministers themselves.
In short, we have secured that the procedure of annual reviews to which we are accustomed should be adopted by the Community and that, in particular, it should be used to secure the objective of a fair standard of living for the farming community which is laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty. We ourselves will be able to continue our own annual review. The Government will be able to form their own opinion on the state of the farming industry, and we shall be full participants in the decisions reached by the Community with regard to its annual review.
Mr. R. H. Turton: After our annual review, will we be able to take any steps towards bringing the level of prosperity of our agriculture up to the right level?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. That is a matter which has not yet been decided. I cannot make any further statement on that today. The fact that we shall be full participants in the decisions reached by the Community will enable us to exercise our full influence in this direction.
Mr. Paul Williams: If there were to be a discrepancy of view between the United Kingdom Government and the Commission on what was a fair price and how it should be implemented, what would then be the result of the discussion?
Mr. Butler: That depends upon the voting procedures which are finally agreed in the Community itself. One of the troubles about this debate is that we are not in a final situation on these matters.
While this agreement will give the agricultural community a general assurance of great value, the particular problems of individual commodities such as eggs, pig meat and horticulture still remain to be settled. Other subjects such as milk and milk products, mutton and lamb, beef, veal and sugar, on which the Six have not yet decided on a common policy, are under consideration.
In this field, we and the Six are faced with the dilemma that, where the Six have approved regulations in hard-fought compromises at the beginning of
650
this year, they will need to take account of changes in supply and demand which would arise from our accession and that of other members of E.F.T.A. Where the Six have not yet agreed on a policy for a particular commodity they have to consider the problem not only on the basis of the Community as it now exists but having regard also to the possibility of its enlargement. Therefore, it is impossible to reach final conclusions on the commodities or to take any final decision as to whether we can honestly say that we are safeguarding the interests of agriculture until we have gone further.
Dealing further with the matters affecting the United Kingdom, I remind the House of the Economic Union Articles of the Treaty. These are the general provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to economic and social policy. Before our negotiations opened these provisions had been studied in detail, and, in his opening statement of 10th October, the Lord Privy Seal was able to confirm that the whole range of provisions of the Treaty dealing with the free movement of persons, services and capital, and collaboration in economic and social policy, was acceptable to us in principle.
We have since informed the Six that, subject to certain details of timing and administrative application, we are able to accept the arrangement which the Six have come to between themselves since the Treaty entered into force. There is one matter, however, which I would like to mention, and that is that the Treaty of Rome contains provisions that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. We shall need to consider further with the Six the period within which we could arrange for any necessary adjustments to be made here. The same is being done within the countries of the Six, and we shall be consulting both sides of industry about this in due course.
The resolution of last August referred to the undertaking that we would not accede to the Community until satisfactory arrangements had been made to meet the legitimate interests of the other members of the European Free Trade Association. That undertaking still stands. Norway and Denmark have announced their intention to accede to the Community and have already started their negotiations. The neutral

651
members have announced their intention to seek association with the enlarged Community, and two of them—Sweden and Austria—have already made their opening statements. Portugual has also applied to open discussions with the Community. As regards the two other European communities, our negotiations to accede to the European Atomic Community were opened on 3rd July and those with the Coal and Steel Community on 17th July.
I should like to take this opportunity to say something about political union, which is of interest to the House. We welcome the efforts which the Six are making now to achieve closer political union in Europe, and we shall join them wholeheartedly in this task if we become members of the Community. As the Lord Privy Seal has explained to the House, the discussions on political union have been continued by the Six Governments quite separately from our negotiations with them. We have not taken an active part in these political discussions, but we have been kept fully informed of developments. We should, naturally, expect to have the opportunity of expressing our views and to be properly consulted on any draft political treaty at the appropriate time.
As regards the substance of such a union, we are not being asked to join a federal union and thus to surrender sovereignty. As was explained to the House on 18th July, the six countries are considering texts in which any decision taken must be by unanimous vote. There is no ground to fear that the position of the Sovereign would be threatened by a political union, or that the powers of Parliament would be circumvented.
The same can, of course, be said about our religious liberties. Protestant fears have been aroused by the theory that this is a treaty with Rome, but this is not so. The Treaty of the six nations happened to be signed at Rome, but, as a churchman, I can say, in response to a considerable amount of correspondence which I and other Members have received, that there is no question that the freedom of worship which we enjoy will be in any way endangered.
Perhaps the word "union" leads to misunderstanding. We. together with
652
the six member Governments of the Commission, have been members of the Western European Union for more than seven years. The Treaty of Western European Union contains provisions for majority voting, but we have never had any reason to regret having signed it. The Treaty of European Political Union as at present conceived would provide for unanimous voting on all matters of policy, and changes would require our consent.
I have nothing more to add this afternoon on the subject of the legal aspects of the Community and our possible entrance to it, except to state that we are definitely proposing to publish a White Paper on this subject a little later in the year when our examination of these intricate matters has been concluded.
Mr. H. Wilson: Including the Parliamentary aspects?
Mr. Butler: Including the Parliamentary aspects, the effect on the courts and the general effect of Article 189.
This, then, is the stage that we have reached. We cannot say at the moment what the result of the current phase of the negotiations will be, or what the elements or the main outlines of the terms on which we might accede to the E.E.C. may be, but I am sure that in this debate we should all, whatever our views, like to wish well to our negotiators and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who has shown himself so adept at this task.
Commonwealth Governments will, of course, be fully consulted and informed of progress throughout the course of our negotiations. The state of progress reached will be the major topic for consideration at the Prime Ministers' conference in September. I need not add to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said this afternoon about the powers to recall Parliament under the Standing Order. It would be premature to take any decision on this until we have got further in the negotiations and seen what the result is and what the timetable will be. Nevertheless, I suggest that there are some broad considerations which we might all bear in mind during the course of this debate and later while we are considering what our decision should be.

653
First, the existence of the European Economic Community is an important new factor in European history. Those of us both in this country and in the Commonwealth who have had direct experience of two major world wars cannot but regard its creation, leading to a healing of the traditional enmity between France and Germany, as a most important and welcome development.
Secondly, in considering the vital question of Commonwealth trade, it is important to recognise that the present concept of this trade is in a period of evolution. The old countries of the Commonwealth have shown considerable interest in the making of international agreements. Thus, it may well be necessary in our own interests and in the interests of our traditional suppliers to have resort to changes in traditional practices whether we join the Common Market or not.
Lastly, I wish to remind the House of the economic and political future which membership of the Community has to offer. If we were to join the Community, this would strengthen the forces within it in favour of liberal economic policies designed to expand world trade. This would tend to make the policies outward looking. At the same time, the enlargement of the Common Market by the inclusion of new members would create an economic union of over 200 million people and would release forces tending to develop world trade. The existence of such a powerful economic unit would also, especially in view of the bold initiative taken by President Kennedy, lead to negotiations for the lowering of tariffs on a global basis.
Both we and the Commonwealth, as we weigh up the pros and cons, would do well to assess the advantage of such developments as these. We are bound by close and affectionate ties of kinship, history and trade with the Commonwealth. It is worth making a great effort to study and conserve their interests so that firmly based on the confidence of the Commonwealth we can give Europe help and partnership in a period of special importance to prosperity and peace.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: I am sure the outstanding impression which
654
will have been left in the minds of almost all hon. Members who have listened to the First Secretary is just how much still remains to be negotiated before we can get even a glimmer of the terms on which we would be asked to make this decision. Almost everything he discussed was still completely open. Even the broadest principles are still to be settled in many cases, let alone the important details.
The great worry in my mind, as in the minds of many others, is not that we are applying to join the Common Market and trying to work it out, but the tremendous sense of hurry which one seems to feel in the mind of the Government to get it finished in a very short time, although so much is still left to do. In our last debate on this subject, I put a question to the Government which I venture to repeat today. Is there any need to go on giving the impression that we are working against a deadline? The Commonwealth Prime Ministers are coming in September, but there is nothing absolutely sacrosanct about that. There is no reason why that meeting should not be postponed, or that the Prime Ministers should go away and come back again.
If we are to settle the issues which the First Secretary mentioned this afternoon between now and the beginning of September, so much work will be done that very little thought will be given to what is done. One gets the impression that what is likely to happen in order to keep the deadline is that a lot of very woolly, rather vague, ambiguous statements will be written down and able to mean anything or nothing to almost everybody according to how one wants to interpret them. For myself, I would regard that as almost the worst possible outcome of these negotiations.
I am glad that we are discussing this subject today, because I should like that sort of view—if I am right in believing that it is held on both sides of the House —to be very clearly explained and understood outside the House, so that if the Government will not convey it to Brussels, Brussels can hear it direct from the House. We would create a very unhappy situation if the other parties were left to assume that agreements of that kind would automatically carry the

655
support of either the House or the people. Perhaps it is easier for me to say that, because it is fairly well known that I believe that on balance it would be better for us if we could get in on a reasonable basis. There are a number of reasons why I hold that view. I would have set them out at some length if the debate had started earlier. However, I will give them briefly.
If we could get the right terms, the enlarged Community which would emerge would be politically much better and would be much more likely to be outward looking than a tightly organised "Little Six" would be. The alternative if we do not go in involves the very things from which E.F.T.A. shrank— the organisation of competing trading blocs which would have considerable repercussions in Europe. The consequences which would flow would be not only economic but would be bound to affect N.A.T.O. and Western defence as a whole. When I was in America recently I felt very strongly that the United States—certainly the Administration, but also large areas of the country —was now in the mood for a change in traditional American trade policies and attitudes, and the creation of an enlarged Community would help to bring to fruition discussions which are now going on there.
My fear, which I have expressed before, is that the Commonwealth is not a natural trading bloc. I doubt very much whether it wants to develop that way, and many of its members would regret having to tie themselves in that way.
Finally, the economic consequences to Britain of a barrier to our entry to the Continental market being raised by additional tariffs and the need to organise a competitive bloc against it would probably be a great deal greater than many of us allow for in our discussions.
For reasons like that, on balance I should like to get terms on which we could go in. But having said that and feeling as I do, I do not share what, from the way they present themselves, seems to be the Government's attitude of believing that we have no alternative. It is not true that there is no alternative. The alternative might be
656
difficult and it might involve some uncomfortable considerations, but there is an alternative and if it had to be faced, it could be faced. If the price were pitched too high, we should have to face it. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer said this fairly clearly in the House the other night when he said something about the world being our parish and indicated that we could look elsewhere for an alternative.
I would feel much happier about these negotiations between now and the beginning of September if I had the impression that that was how Ministers were speaking in Brussels, but I do not have that impression. Nor do I have the impression that they are appearing to give any thought to what the alternative might be and to what it would involve. They do not appear to be working out any plans in order to proceed to the alternative. I have done a good deal of negotiating myself at a different level, and I would have always thought it rather ridiculous to allow myself to get pushed nearer and nearer to the deadline without those with whom I was negotiating understanding that I was making some plans for the possibility of the negotiations breaking down. Whether they mean it or not, the Government are getting themselves into an almost untenable weakness, even from the point of view of those who would like to go in, for they are allowing those with whom they are negotiating to assume that in the end the Government will have to make concessions because they will have got themselves into an impossible position datewise and in every other way.
The main issue to which we should direct attention today is which are the areas where the price could be pitched too high and what is the present negotiating position which we have reached in those areas, and therefore what room there is and in what direction, and what changes we want made.
Mr. Arthur Holt: Is the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) prepared to spell out, even in brief outline, what his alternative is? If we had that before us we could then weigh up whether, if the negotiations did not go as well as we would like, we could still accept them.
Mr. Brown: There is already a risk that by the time I sit down, my right

657
hon. Friend will be rising to wind up, and if I answer that question it will be a certainty. Indeed, we might find ourselves on our feet together. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), who has clearly not done it, should read the leader today in that distinguished organ, the Guardian, when he will find a clear indication of what the alternative might be. While I am finishing my speech, he might care to go and have a look at it.
What are the main areas where the price could be too high? Some people are still too worried with the degree of political commitment which might be involved in adhering to the Treaty, that is to say, the federal content of the Treaty. That is not my view, as I have explained before, but nobody's fear will have been assuaged by what the First Secretary had to say about that just now. He again used this piece of double talk about our "wholehearted support" of the political aims of the Six. That is a very ambiguous and misleading phrase. It could lead to assumptions that, at the point of going in, we are accepting federal commitments. It could lead to the assumption that we are prepared to accept a surrender of sovereignty which I do not believe the House or the nation is prepared to accept, whatever its merits. It is time that Ministers stopped using terms of that sort and talked much more clearly about limitations.
The real issue on this point is whether if we go in now we will be able to influence any future political development. The First Secretary referred to the unanimity rule. It is clear that this is all bound up with the question of voting rights, as are some of the economic issues still to be settled. One of the areas which the Government have not even begun to discuss with the Six is this very involved question of what the voting rights would be, what the new majorities would be, and how they would be made up. Yet this is one of the absolutely critical areas. Unless we can be clear that the new arrangement for majorities and the new weighting will avoid a situation in which we can be automatically voted down by prearranged majorities elsewhere, certainly it will be pitching the price too high, and I should want to know a good deal
658
more about the arrangements on that before I felt able to give any endorsement to whatever the Government brought out of it.
Some people are worried about the retention of our national ability to plan the economy. We have had assurances from the Lord Privy Seal and others that that ability will remain in our national hands. I hope that these assurances will appear as part of some document. It will be totally unsatisfactory later to have to rely simply on the assurances given in this House, backed by nothing else.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that my right hon. Friend is reading too much into what the Lord Privy Seal said. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman never said that it would not interfere with our power to plan the economy. All that he said was that it would not interfere with our power to nationalise a specific industry, which is a different thing.
Mr. Brown: I know that that is different, but my impression is that the belief is held that it would not do the other either. All I am saying—and this will put me on all fours with my hon. Friends; and whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, my hon. Friends know what I mean—is that we must insist on a clear recognition that we retain that power. But more than that, we must have some clear understanding of the steps that we would be able to take to maintain the £ hereafter in the event of an attack on our currency. It would be very unsatisfactory if all that we had to rely on were the central banks, leaving them free to decide what strings to attach to any assistance which they may give us at that stage.
There are three main areas in which grave doubts remain. First, British agriculture, and what the First Secretary, even as an agricultural Member, said this afternoon was exceedings unsatisfactory. Secondly, our obligations to the Commonwealth. Thirdly, our undertaking to the E.F.T.A. partners, about which the First Secretary had very little to say.
I deal first with our E.F.T.A. partners. Let us recall the commitment. It is that no one member shall leave E.F.T.A. and join the other organisation unless the

659
position of each of the others is satisfactorily arranged. It is essential that we give no impression that we are in any way going back on that commitment to our E.F.T.A. partners, if for no other reason than this. Were the negotiations to break down and we had to face an alternative, we would need the loyalty and support of our E.F.T.A. partners. If we were to lose that, the alternative would become that much more difficult to arrange. It is, therefore, paramount that there should be no suspicion about our position in this, or that we think any of them are expendable.
In the end, this boils down to the neutrals. One impression I gained in the United States recently leads me to believe that the British Government are not putting forward anything like a clearly understandable viewpoint on this. People are saying that Austria can be arranged for, and that undertakings have been given to Dr. Gorbach, and that Switzerland can be arranged for, and that France would like her to be. But there is a good deal less warmth about Sweden, and I want to make this plain to the Government who do not seem to appreciate it.
Sweden's relevance to our ability to enter is very powerful indeed. The First Secretary said that Denmark and Norway had decided to accede. They have no more decided to accede than we have, and Norway much less so because she must first have a referendum of her people. If the proposal involved the creating of a tariff barrier against Sweden, with whom at the moment Norway has special free relations both of trade and movement of labour, it is unlikely that the referendum would get through, or even that the Government would be able to put it to the people. Therefore, in that sense Sweden is critical, because Norway in turn is critical to us. Let us not assume that we can go in and get voting rights that would help to protect our position unless Norway and Denmark enter at the same time. The position of the neutrals is therefore tremendously important, and I think that we ought to lay more emphasis on this than we are doing at the moment.
I turn now to home agriculture. There has been an impression abroad, and it
660
seemed to be reproduced in The Times this morning, that the only problem left in this area is that relating to temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, the implication being that British agriculture has somehow had its problem settled. This in my submission is undiluted nonsense. We have done nothing of the sort. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he wound up or intervened in the last debate, set out a whole list, almost as long as my arm, of the things that he would require before he regarded British agriculture as having been satisfactorily taken care of. I will not quote them, but no doubt hon. Members will refresh their minds if they wish to do so.
All that we have had since then is the Lord Privy Seal telling us this vague story, which the First Secretary repeated, about the Community having accepted the provisions of an annual review of agricultural conditions—not an annual price review, but an annual review of agricultural conditions. There is no mystique about the annual review in itself. The consequence of it is what it leads to in terms of changes in agricultural production policy, in an examination of the income of the industry, and in the steps then taken to restore it if it is shown to have fallen below what is established as the appropriate level for this section of our economy.
When the First Secretary was asked about productivity, he said that this was one of the areas still to be settled, but until that area is settled there will be no provision for British agriculture. We could have the most nonsensical situation. We could have academic examinations of agriculture in the Six countries. It would take much longer each year to carry it out, and end in nothing by way of replacing the present price review which our farmers and the industry generally would lose under the proposed arrangements. Here again, I am not saying that arrangements cannot be made. I certainly do not say that agriculture cannot make changes; I think that it can. I do not say that the present pattern of our agricultural production should be frozen. I take the view that, in many ways, it cannot remain as it is. Since the Government changed the 1947 Act it has been getting more and more costly to operate, with the money finding its way into quite

661
different channels from what was intended, and without producing cheaper food, or more food, or, necessarily, the kind of food that we want.
But to say that agriculture can make changes is one thing; the point is that it must not be left to have to make those changes in an unregulated and ill-thought-out way. The small dairy man, who makes up such a large part of our agriculture, and the specialist producer—the egg man and the pig man—together with the horticulturist, cannot be left to take the calamitous rap by themselves, or be expected to try to adjust themselves to it.
Again, much of what will happen here will depend on our voting rights. We have twice asked the Ministers what the voting arrangements will be in respect of agricultural policies. The other night, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Agriculture told us that he would require notice of that question. This is like the answer of the right hon. Gentleman about profitability. It is an answer that we have to know. We must know which agricultural questions are subjected to the unanimity rule and which are decided by majority vote— and, in each case, what sort of voting we shall be able to command or bring to our aid in those circumstances.
If the Government are not going to do something far different from this between now and the beginning of next month, or whenever the critical date is, they should tell the farming industry now that they are not proposing to make this a sticking point but are proposing to go in first and see how it all works out afterwards. Frankly, that is my interpretation of what the Minister of Agriculture said the other night. My interpretation is that he had made up his mind that we should go in, and then see what we could do afterwards. If that is so, the Government should tell the industry what their proposals are, so as to enable it to adjust itself to the possibilities.
This would mean several things. It would mean encouraging considerable changes in the marketing and grading of our products in a short time, to enable us to deal with the competitive situation which will arise. It would mean that something would have to be done to enable considerable switches to be made in husbandry. If there is a high price
662
grain policy in Europe, whatever it does to anybody else it will hit very hard the agricultural livestock producers in this country, who are relying on imported feed of this type. There will have to be some considerable switches in husbandry, and the Government should be thinking about this. They should be warning the industry, and discussing the matter with it. In the end it will probably have to face a considerable contraction in some areas, and it ought to be ready to do this now.
In relation to all these agricultural questions there is nothing that could even remotely be considered as satisfactorily negotiated. It is still as much in the ring —as much a matter requiring negotiation —as any of the questions that have not yet been tackled. To ask us to return in a month's time, when the Government have made no more progress in this matter, would be to put us in an impossible position.
There are many other questions to which we ought to have answers. The First Secretary has told us about the annual agricultural review. Has he any idea—has anybody explained to him— how the result of any review will be translated into action in the Community? Who would do it? Would the Ministers? The only reference we have had is to the Commission taking the matter up with the Council and the Council then considering it. We have had no reference to the practical steps that would then have to follow.
This links up closely with the last item that I want to raise—the question of temperate foodstuffs imported from the Commonwealth. To some extent success in settling one of these problems will aggravate others. A high price policy for European produce will help our large arable producers, but it will hurt the small specialists and also the Commonwealth. It will make the Commonwealth problem more difficult to solve. A low price policy could cause difficulties here, but would make it easier for our Commonwealth friends. It may be this complication which is impelling the Government to leave as many questions affecting home agriculture fox future settlement as they can.
But we must realise that there are co-siderable dangers in this. My right hon.

663
Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has a tremendous record in respect of world commodity trade agreements, and he will deal fully with those. I will leave a good deal of that to him. I want to raise only one or two matters. We ought to establish the broad principles that should govern any settlement brought to the House. The first—it remains with us an issue of principle, and we must establish that fact in the House tonight—is that any settlement we make must carry with it the broad general approval of the Prime Ministers' Conference. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not see how that can possibly be evaded. I do not see how the Government can go forward with a settlement that does not do that. I see no way in which we could endorse such a settlement, in the absence of that broad measure of general agreement.
Even under the most favourable settlement that we can arrange there is bound to be a far reaching affect on our relations, trading and otherwise, with the Commonwealth. That cannot be avoided, even if the settlement were sufficiently favourable to got by. There is, therefore, all the more reason why, in this matter, we should be particularly careful to avoid woolly and vague generalities. On the question of agriculture we cannot possibly take refuge in an agreement to agree. We must have spelled out for us what we are doing. The industry must know the terms of what in any case will be a historic decision—a decision that will change the traditional relationships between us and the Commonwealth. It must know the terms of what is being done.
This is the issue of the transitional period, about which we have had no clear statement. I listened carefully to what the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday both in his statement and in answer to Questions. We must know what is to be the critical date. I gather that 1970 is suggested as the date for temperate foodstuffs, but we must know, in relation to other matters, such as the manufacturers of Asian countries, if there is to be a date when there will be an automatic cutting off of the existing preferential arrangements, and we must know clearly whether there is to be, as it were, an escalation downwards in the meantime.
664
These questions are absolutely critical to an evaluation of any arrangements that we make. Everybody is taking refuge in statements about world commodity agreements taking over, and so providing solutions of these problems in a much wider setting, and no doubt they all sincerely mean what they say. If these negotiations are to start even in 1963, as the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday, and are carried on against a background of declining preferential arrangements, which will have reached zero by 1970 or some other date, all that we shall have done is to put an absolute premium on stalling the negotiations along. One would have to put the absolute premium on the other parties, recognising that by that date it will have all come to an end and any future discussions after that date would be against a background of the Commonwealth countries having less preferential advantage than they had.
It seems to us that this would indeed be negotiating from a position of weakness. It seems to us that this would be to take away from us the cards which we need to play in that period. Therefore, the maintenance of the position and the avoidance of an automatic cut-off must surely be quite critical in evaluating the worth of any agreement we make. I am not at all clear that the Government are seized of this point or are clear about the answer to it. We get the same kind of ambiguous terms over this as I have noted in respect of other arrangements. It seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that the position of the Government is exceedingly unclear and could be very harmful in the relationship at the end.
The same thing in a way applies to the provision of comparable outlets in the wider market for the Commonwealth countries after, assuming that we go into the enlarged Community. I repeat that we must mean something by that. Again, I do not say that it cannot be arranged. The point is that we must mean what we say in order that what we arrange is worth while. After all, these countries, especially the developing countries, can reasonably look forward not only to the maintenance of their present trade, but to an expansion of their trade with an enlarged Community of this kind. So we must see to it that we do not deny

665
at the very least a comparable access into that wider market to the trade that they now have with us.
I have sometimes heard it said—I must finish on this point—that to make these demands is in fact to attach to the members something so high as to be unrealistic. This I do not believe. We should not go into these negotiations as a supplicant. While many of us believe that there would be advantages from association on the right terms for us, let us be clear about the fact that the Community would also gain from having us in it. Indeed, initially the Community may gain more out of it than we would gain.
We ought to make very clear to the member countries in the way we conduct ourselves, and in the way we present our arguments to them and in the demands we make, that we have essential commitments, the fulfilment of which, it is true, would involve some sacrifices to, Jet us say, potential French agricultural ambitions. All right, let us say so. Our coming in involves sacrifices of potential ambitions on the part of the Commonwealth not more so but to some existing positions. Let us make that perfectly plain to the French. We are here going to have to trade real concessions for real concessions. I think that the value of this debate is that we can say so loudly and clearly even though Her Majesty's Ministers appear not to have done so.
I believe—it is quite likely that some of my hon. Friends will dispute this— that it would be possible to get a majority view in this country in favour of entering the Common Market on the sort of terms about which I have been talking. But I am very certain that people will not endorse an agreement which arises from (he kind of muffled and dual voice with which we are speaking at the moment. If as a result of this debate our Continental friends were to understand more clearly the basis on which alone Britain can come in, I think it would probably have a very good effect on the rest of the negotiations. I want to see us go in, but I want to see it done on a basis that we can all stand UP to.
I believe that there are members of the Community as it is at present constituted who very much welcome the thought of us and the Norwegians and the Danes
666
being in. They favour it for a number of reasons, political and economic, about which they are not altogether satisfied in the present Community set-up. We should capitalise their desire. We should capitalise the fact that they have that wish. We should set out to present our application reasonably but firmly. My great worry, I repeat, is that we have not been doing that. There has been all this dual talk. I am afraid that the short amount of time left before the totally unnecessary deadline will be insufficient for Ministers to recover the bad negotiating position which they have adopted throughout this time.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Birch.
Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The best method of debate, I believe, is for those "for" and "against" the proposal to put their points of view. Up to the moment we have had two speeches from hon. Members in favour of going into the Common Market with certain safeguards. I know that it is very difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to choose hon. Members who are definitely for or against. But I think that some method should be adopted whereby some of the hon. Members who are diametrically opposed to going into the Common Market can have the opportunity of expressing that point of view. While I believe it is true that there is a considerable volume of opinion in the country in favour of going into the Common Market, there is also a considerable volume of opinion against going in.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman. I will tell him how I solve mine. I make my own inquiries to try to find out what are the views of hon. Members one way or the other and I shall do my best in the course of the debate—if there ever is any course to it—to make quite sure that both points of views are expressed as fairly as can be.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: I thought that in the earlier part of his speech, at any rate, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) leaned

667
much further over the Common Market side of the fence than he usually does. But no doubt the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will lean further on the other side, and so the balance will be maintained.
As several hon. Members have pointed out there hardly could be a worse day for this debate. Today, in Brussels, there will be discussed the most difficult part, where the crunch comes, the question of getting a balance between agricultural prices within the Community, and also allow reasonable access for third parties within the Commonwealth and elsewhere. If we were to debate this issue it would be rather like the Transport and General Workers' Union, at one of its great conferences, debating how far it would go, to the nearest penny an hour, before having a strike.
Mr. G. Brown: That is what it does do.
Mr. Birch: But not in public. I do not think that Mr. Cousins would at all approve of that. Anyway, I shall not attempt to debate the crunch. I think that it would be unpatriotic. And, besides, I do not think that at this stage of the negotiations anyone not directly engaged in them knows enough to pronounce where the sticking point ought to be.
But as we go on, it seems clear in these long negotiations—they are bound to be long—that the whole question is getting increasingly overlaid by a porridge of opinions, emotions and prejudices. What I want to do, very briefly, this afternoon is to take a mop and pail and try to sweep some of the porridge away.
The first and most nasty lumps in the porridge—no one likes lumpy porridge —are the fellow travellers. I define a fellow traveller as somebody who, wittingly or unwittingly invariably happens to follow the Russian Communist line. The fellow travellers are against the Common Market. They have a right to their opinion, but I wish that they would not say that it is because of their veneration of the Throne and the Empire.
The next thing which is happening is, I think, rather dangerous. These
668
negotiations have led to an extraordinary uprush of xenophobia in this country, a dislike of foreigners. This happens in all parties, but I suppose the high priest of xenophobia at the moment is the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I am very fond of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I have a great respect for him, but he always reminds me of the Guards officer who said, "Abroad is a bloody place and all foreigners are …" I leave the rest to the imagination of the House. I have no doubt that the hon. Member would have made an admirable Guards officer and would have been very popular in the mess. They would have liked his stories.
It seems, however, for a country like ours, which is so dependent on relations with foreign countries, rather unwise to encourage ourselves in this dislike of foreigners. It is not a wise thing to do. It could lead us, in the end, to a great deal of trouble. Mr. Colin Clark, who, I think, was twice a Labour candidate, said that Socialism is tolerable provided that it is international. Socialism in this country is increasingly becoming national. That is why their fellow-Socialists in Brussels were so distressed by what the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said. It was their very narrow nationalism which surprised and shocked these Socialists in Brussels.
The next point I want to deal with is the curious idea, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in the last debate, that the Commonwealth started with the Ottawa Agreements in 1932. The Commonwealth started a very long time before 1932 and will long outlast the withering away of these Agreements. It is rather odd to see the way in which the hand is being played. It is understandable that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends should feel very strongly about the Ottawa Agreements. At the time they were supposed to be, and I think they were, a Tory triumph. They were beneficial at the time and I do not think they have worked altogether badly.
On the other hand, hon. Members opposite were violently opposed and voted against the Ottawa Agreements. I

669
shall quote What Mr. Attlee, as he then was, said about them because this is instructive. He said in this House on 19th October, 1932, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day:
"it is obvious to anyone who went to Ottawa or who studied the proceedings there, that they"—
that is, the Government negotiators—
"were thoroughly well bullied by the Dominion representatives and that they made an extremely bad bargain for this country."
I am sorry, I have misread a word. He said:
"they made an intolerably bad bargain for this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1932; Vol. 269, c. 183.]
Now he is a belted Earl and he is faced about.
It is rather gratifying that hon. Members opposite have reached a conclusion which we reached thirty years ago. Who knows what the next thirty years may bring forth? We have much hope. I would say to hon. Members opposite who now show great enthusiasm for Ottawa that they are doing what many hon. Members opposite so often do, they are gibbering and gesticulating on the deserted battlefields of the 1930s. It is a deserted battlefield. After all, the Ottawa Agreements were based on two ideas: one was that we can have political union in the Commonwealth and the other was a wish and desire to go in for exclusive trade agreements and to develop them to the limit.
I do not want to talk about political unity within the Commonwealth except to say that it is sometimes instructive to look at the voting figures in the United Nations. On the economic question, there is no sign whatever that Commonwealth countries are anxious to go in for exclusive trade arrangements, or to develop them in any way. The withering away of preferences has not been by our will, but by their will all the way through. We get into a terrible muddle when we start talking about the Commonwealth. We should always remember how intensely diverse it is and how false it is to add all these bodies together to produce an enormous total and think that they will all do the same thing.
The results of the latest rescue operation for India were published in The Times on Monday. A credit loan of
670
1,070 million dollars was assembled, of which we put up 84 million dollars. That is less than 10 per cent. In these days, in a country such as India trade follows aid. It does not follow the flag. We ought to do all we can to extend aid to India, but we cannot do that unless we can earn the money, and we shall not earn it from India.
Then there is the question of the protection of industries in developing and developed countries of the Commonwealth. Take Australia as a good example. Australia has quite a lot of coastal shipping. It protects its own shipbuilding industry by subsidies and a refusal to import ships. Our shipbuilders have been tendering in the last few years perfectly genuinely, but I am told that they have got hardly a single order for several years from Australia. That is because Australia wants to build her own ships in her own country, but, of course, we could do with those orders.
Take protection for balance of payments reasons. New Zealand is in a certain amount of balance of payments difficulties and has made arrangements by which 160 items virtually cannot be traded to New Zealand at all. Of course, all these countries have a perfect right to do what they are doing if they believe that it is in their own interests to do so. They are sovereign.
But we must understand the anxieties and difficulties of British industrialists who say that in the modern world they have to have a long run to produce economically. That canont be done unless one has a big market. It cannot be done if one's trade is constantly to be cut off because of some balance of payment difficulties, or whatever the reason may be. That is why they believe it is so vital for their trade and for employment in this country to get access to a large market in which their business cannot be arbitrarily cut off. It therefore seems hopeless to try to go back to the old system of trade in the Commonwealth, to try to live by taking in each other's washing, and to try to devise exclusive trade agreements which no one wants. To do that is to replant a dead tree.
Of course the difficulties are very great. Of course the dangers are great, but in times of danger very often the middle course is the worst. The middle

671
course here is to say, "Well, we would like to get in" and then to set conditions which we know perfectly well cannot possibly be fulfilled.
The Commonwealth, of course, must stand up for itself, and is doing so, just as it did at Ottawa. Hon. Members will have noticed that Mr. Menzies dismissed Mr. Leslie Bury, the Aviation Minister, because Mr. Bury said that it would not make much difference to Australia if we went into the Common Market, and Mr. Menzies said that to say this would spoil his bargaining position. Of course, the Commonwealth will fight, and quite right, too. We must help the Commonwealth all we can, but I would say that it has no right to veto our policy. We, too, are sovereign. The right hon. Member for Belper seemed to suggest that we should give the Commonwealth Prime Ministers an absolute veto upon our policy. That, I believe, is wrong.
There are many difficulties and dangers. One of the minor ones—one of the lumps in the porridge—are Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers. Lord Beaverbrook's papers, in any matter dealing with the Common Market, show suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, xenophobia, Chauvinism and plain damn nonsense. Any report on a Common Market matter in the Beaverbrook papers is truly unrecognisable when compared with reports in any other paper, on the radio, or either television service. I do not believe that a single soul in this House of Commons will deny that what I say is true.
I think that Lord Beaverbrook has done a good deal of harm abroad, but I do not think he has done so much harm here. We know him pretty well. He has seldom espoused any cause which he has not damaged. I do not know whether there is any aspiring biographer of Lord Beaverbrook here, but if there is I suggest a title for his book—"The Unsuccessful Propagandist". It must be some consolation to him to know that he does not get away with it.
Meditating the other day on this matter, I thought of a line from Goethe's "Faust", which I want to quote, and I apologise for quoting it in German, though I will give a translation of it
672
afterwards. In this quotation Mephistopheles describes himself as
"Ein Teil von jener Kraft,
Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft."
which—if I can find the translation—means:
"Part of the power that still
Produces Good, while still devising ill."
I think that his Lordship does produce good, while still devising ill. This may be some consolation to him.
However, he is not really the enemy. The enemy of all this is the enemy of prejudice, of fear of change, old loyalties and fear of 'the unknown, and it will require all the energy and courage of the Government to win through. I believe that we are immensely fortunate in having as our leading negotiator my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He has the most luminous mind I have known in any Minister of any party or of any civil servant. He has a perfectly staggering power of work. Let us determine to back him up with all our heart, with all our mind and with all our strength.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. John Hynd: I should like to approach this matter from the point of view of the interests and the principles of the party—
Mr. William Warbey: On a point of order. In view of what you had to say recently, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend, I wonder whether you have, in fact, been able to inquire as to the views of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate, since we are now to have the fourth speech in favour of the Common Market.
Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to this process. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, and if he does not say anything else, it was my intention to call him next from that side of the House. I am quite sure that he knows the very difficult circumstances. In a debate like this, no hon. Member would wish to share with the Chair the responsibility of having to select the speakers. Even if he wanted to, he cannot.
Mr. Hynd: I wish to deal with this question from the point of view of the principles and the policy of the party

673
which I have the honour to represent. It is true that there are divided views on this general subject on both sides of the House. It is not for me to deal with the views represented by the ultra-right wing of the Tory Party; that is, their arguments based on old-fashioned Imperialism. That is a matter for hon. Members on the Government side to deal with themselves.
What I cannot ever understand is why there should be opposition to the extent that there is from this side of the House. I am one of those who believe—I am convinced—that the purpose of the Labour Party and of the Socialist movement anywhere in the world is a twofold purpose, and that it always has been. First, it is to achieve a society in our own territory in which there shall be a fair distribution of the common product and common effort, and, beyond this, the elimination of national barriers wherever they exist to bring about the construction of wider and wider communities in which these principles can be established.
One of the tragedies of the modern world is that every time any advance is proposed in this direction, in spite of the lessons of history, which show that wars between Lancashire and Yorkshire, and between Scotland and England, were only eliminated when these territories came under one single sovereignty, every attempt is frustrated by the resurgence of xenophobic nationalism, such as we have heard in all the debates on this issue. Having heard all the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) about the British farming subsidies, about this or that aspect of Commonwealth trading and so on, I think we are losing sight of the facts about what is happening in Europe today and what we are trying to do, which goes far and away beyond the 'balance of advantages for France, Germany or ourselves in any particular economic activity.
What is happening on the Continent, at least, is that these countries, which suffered from the war to an extent to which we never did, have learned the awful lessons of two world wars—that the only way to avoid a repetition of this suicidal nonsense is to tear down the barriers which have divided them and which have always dragged Britain
674
into their fratricidal strife. Something which a few years ago would have been regarded as impossible is now taking place, because those countries have learned that lesson. Our response in too many quarters is to revive once again the old nationalist arguments, with references to British farm subsidies, the Commonwealth, the bogies of Adenauer and de Gaulle, Catholic plots and all the rest of this kind of nonsense.
This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to break down national barriers and to bring people together. After the First World War we tried the League of Nations to bring an end to European strife. A world authority was created but not an inch of national sovereignty was handed over to that international authority. Thus, its failure was inevitable.
May I remind the House of what the Labour Party said about it in their publication of the time, The Old World and the New Society. This was in 1941. They said,
"The first experiment in international Government … failed because selfish national interest deprived it of the conditions precedent to success…. The hoped-for world order became a chaos once more. Each nation state went its own sovereign way. Each sought to stand alone."
The result was another world war.
Out of this world war came the resurgence of the determination to bring an end to war. We had the Atlantic Charter as the beginning of the new world. This was in 1941. The intention of the Atlantic Charter was
"to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
That was surely an object worthy of the support of Socialists everywhere, and it was given that support, even if it stipulated "between all nations" and not just between such nations as might seek to elect Socialist governments. We unanimously applauded it and we have never ceased to invoke its terms in our Socialist arguments for human rights and justice. But it failed, because there was no one to ensure its authority and it had no sovereignty of its own. None of the member countries which signed the Charter was prepared to establish any authority which would ensure that its policies were carried out.

675
Now let us look at the Treaty of Rome. In Article 2 we see the following words:
"It shall be the task of the Community, by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living, and closer relations between its Member States."
Those are very similar words to the words of the Atlantic Charter, and, like the Atlantic Charter, it does not state that nothing must be done towards the realisation or these objectives until Socialist Governments have been elected in each member State, any more than did the Charter of the United Nations or the League of Nations or I.L.O. or W.H.O. or any of the international organisations to which we belong but all of which, nonetheless, as Socialists we must surely support.
It is surely a very curious argument for Socialists to say that while applauding such objectives we should firmly refuse to participate in any step towards their realisation until we have arrived at universal and permanent Socialism which, of course, assumes that there will be no further democracy, because people will no longer have the right to vote any other way. It is a most curious argument for hon. Members on this side of the House to use; nevertheless it is used. We might as well argue that the Labour Party should take no part in Parliament until we have been assured of a permanent Labour majority. But this is the attitude towards our membership of the European Community by certain of my hon. Friends.
The words of the Atlantic Charter and of the Rome Treaty express sentiments and objectives which we all wish to see realised. The significant difference is that in the Rome Treaty, unlike the Atlantic Charter, the instruments and the institutions were established alongside the solemn commitments which ensured that these objectives would be put into operation and progressively implemented by the Community.
The result is that already in its short life, beginning with the Coal and Steel Community, within a few months all
676
restrictions, tariffs, customs, transport discriminations, quotas and the rest were abolished over about 2,000 miles of frontier which hitherto had been hostile frontiers in Europe, and other tariffs and internal hindrances to trade have already been reduced drastically and are in process of abolition. For the first time in history laws have been established against cartels and monopoly practices in the Continent of Europe. The 40-hour week, paid holidays and equal pay are established principles which are now being implemented in Europe. Free movement of workers, with protection and guarantees as to their conditions of employment, common policies for coal and steel and for atomic energy and agriculture are being worked out between all these countries. These are tremendous achievements, and they are clearly along the lines which have always been preached by the Socialist movement and by the Labour Party. They are happening in Europe today.
Why, therefore this strange opposition by some who claim to represent progressive Socialism and international ideals? I have here a publication which puts the case very well. It is called Keep Left, and it was produced in 1947. It has an interesting chapter, "We are Europeans now".
Miss Jennie Lee: But not half-Europeans.
Mr. Hynd: No, Europeans. This is what this publication said:
"A Socialist Britain cannot prosper so long as Europe is divided. The goal we should work for is federation which binds together the nations now under Eastern domination with the peoples of Western Europe."
But it goes on—referring to the half European—with the following words:
"But this goal is a long way off. For the present it would be wise to concentrate on less spectacular forms of European collaboration designed gradually to remove the Iron Curtain."
It asks for an economic union of European States which would enable us once again to stand up to an American slump. I recommend this publication to all who are interested in the various opinions on this question.
Perhaps I may be permitted another quotation from this publication on "Britain and the Empire". It is:
"It may be objected that by accepting our destiny as part of Europe we shall betray the

677
Empire. But the Commonwealth is not an exclusive association, and in the last war it ceased to be a strategic unity. The true defence of the Commonwealth, as an association of free peoples, depends on the unification of Europe, which cannot be achieved if Britain stands aside."
This publication was prepared and issued under a list of interesting names, including those of the hon. Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who was at the time a member of the Keep Left Group.
In 1956 I was responsible for placing a Motion on the Order Paper, which was signed by 82 hon. Members on this side of the House, which recognised the advantages and disadvantages of this country joining the Common Market and nonetheless
"urged Her Majesty's Government Co accept She invitation to participate in the negotiations among the other six member countries of Western European Union and endeavour to negotiate arrangements which would make it possible for the United Kingdom to participate in the advance towards a Common Market."
Among the signatories to the Motion was the hon. Member for Coventry, East, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), the hon. Member for Leek—

ROYAL ASSENT
7.48 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1962.

2. Appropriation Act, 1962.

3. Transport Act, 1962.

4. Education (Scotland) Act, 1962.

5. Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act, 1962.

6. Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act, 1962.

7. Landlord and Tenant Act, 1962.

8. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962.

9. Penalties for Drunkenness Act, 1962.

10. House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1962.

678

11. Trinidad and Tobago Independence Act, 1962.

12. Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1962.

13. Local Government (Records) Act, 1962.

14. Uganda Independence Act, 1962.

15. Pipe-lines Act, 1962.

16. Road Traffic Act, 1962.

17. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

18. Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

19. Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

20. Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

21. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier) Confirmation Act, 1962.

22. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth Port and Haven) Confirmation Act, 1962.

23. Pier and Harbour Order (Langstone Harbour) Confirmation Act, 1962.

24. Letchworth Garden City Corporation Act, 1962.

25. Dartford Tunnel Act, 1962.

26. Orpington Urban District Council Act, 1962.

27. British Transport Commission Act, 1962.

28. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1962.

29. Regent Refining Company Act, 1962.

30. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1962.

31. River Dart Navigation Act, 1962.

32. South Staffordshire Water Act, 1962.

33. Scotswood Bridge Act, 1962.

34. London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1962.

35. London Bridge Improvements Act, 1962.

36. Port of London Act, 1962.

37. Northampton Corporation Act, 1962.

38. Manchester Ship Canal Act,. 1962.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Hynd: Before the interruption, Mr. Speaker, I was recalling the Motion placed upon the Order Paper in 1956, signed by 82 Labour Members, calling on this Government to enter into negotiations with the Six for the purpose of ensuring British entry into the European Economic Community. I had almost completed the list of those whom I particularly wanted to mention as being responsible for it, but, in addition, I should like to mention the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who, only a few hours ago today, was arguing that there was not much point in resuming early after the Summer Recess because we had no impact on the Government. I would congratulate him and my hon. Friends on having forced the Government, even after this long time, to take the stop they then advised.
We have had even more interesting metamorphoses of opinion in this matter because last year, on the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the foundation of Federal Union, a brochure was published with a full page containing a message from Lord Attlee, welcoming
"… the opportunity to congratulate Federal Union on its 21st Anniversary.
Internal divisions during the past decades have brought Europe from a position of world leadership almost to the verge of self-destruction.
The real challenge for the future is how far we are prepared to surrender the old concepts of absolute national sovereignty. Some people have compared Britain to a semi-detached house—attached to Europe on one side only. But if this is Britain's position I am convinced she of all countries must be concerned with her neighbours.
The days of seeming European domination have gone. Europe now has to serve the world. And the people of Europe must get together to put their long traditions to the service of humanity as a whole.
The ideal, and a realisable one, is a World Federation. A World Federation has to be built up. The progress made on the economic level in Europe is of great assistance. Now, what matters is the political aspect and in this field I believe that Federal Union will continue to make an important contribution."
I was, therefore, very much surprised when in my post only last week I
680
received another message from Lord Attlee saying that we
"… should not be justified in hastily handing over substantial power now held by the British Parliament and electorate to untried institutions mainly dependent on European countries with unstable political records."
It is all very puzzling, and makes one wonder why these changes in thinking have taken place. It is not because of the Commonwealth Preference problem, because that problem existed when the Motion was on the Order Paper, when Keep Left was published, and when Lord Attlee issued his first declaration of loyalty to Federal Union principles. It is not because of new objections from the Commonwealth, because these are becoming more and more moderate as time goes on. The resignation of the Australian Minister, and the panic of Mr. Menzies himself when he thought that the whole thing would fall down, the protestations by Mr. Fleming who said that our Press was misrepresenting Canada as being opposed to our application—all that has changed for the better. In any case the final outlines of the Commonwealth position are under negotiation, so that until information of the conditions is available one cannot say that there is a new problem.
The same applies to the British agricultural problem. That, too, was there before. There are changing views in the agricultural community. Many of our farmers are very much in favour of joining, and we have the new evidence that the European Economic Community is now, in fact, hammering out a common agricultural policy based on the terms of the Treaty of Rome and on exactly the same principles as expressed in our Acts of Parliament dealing with farming subsidy policy. And the final result will be decided with us, if and when we join.
But even if—and this is the interesting point—these were the main problems facing some of my colleagues recently converted against the Common Market, even if both problems were overcome and we got all that we asked for in regard to the Commonwealth and our farm prices system, there would still be Adenauer and de Gaulle, who were there before, when those of whom I speak were in favour of our joining. There would still be the problem of the pooling of our sovereignty, which my

681
hon. Friends were apparently prepared to accept a few months ago are not prepared to accept now—and the pooling of sovereignty, in the words of Lord Attlee, with
"… untried institutions mainly dependent on European countries with unstable political records."
as contrasted, no doubt with such countries as Ghana, Pakistan and India, within the Commonwealth. We have to face the phenomenon that a change of opinion has taken place, and we have not been told why. The conditions of our joining are certainly no less favourable now than they were before. I prefer the trade union arguments which I consider to be positive and constructive.
I have seen references in some Opposition circulars to the attitude of the Trades Union Congress but I can hardly reconcile the two attitudes, because in all the publications it has issued the Trades Union Congress's position seems to be a reasonably favourable one. In its first publication, issued a few years ago, the T.U.C. pointed out very clearly the dangers of our not joining in a European Community, and said that it considered
"… that closer European co-operation has much to contribute in terms of higher and more equal living standards, increased social stability, and the dissolution of national antagonisms…"
and emphasised
"the desira to end Franco-German antagonism, to give Germany more outlet for her industrial energies and at the same time to exercise some control over the economic and political forces in Germany which instigated the Second World War."
In their latest publication the T.U.C. urges the Government to enter these negotiations and, up to date, the Congress has supported the negotiations, while laying down certain conditions. One such condition, contained in the latest document published by the T.U.C, states:
"… the real test of European Economic Unity is whether it will promote full employment…."
It will be noted that they do not demand a guarantee because no treaty can guarantee full employment. Only a Government and a Parliament with a policy which will lead to full employment can achieve that. And that, of course, depends on the political complexion of the Government, whether in this country or in the event, that of the European Community.
682
It is clear that when we talk about the possible difficulties of Socialist planning or full employment within the European Community we are seeming to overlook the fact that our own country does not at present have a Socialist Government. In fact, the problem is not whether, if we join the Common Market, it will be more difficult for the present Prime Minister and his Tory Government to go ahead with their Socialist planning, nationalisation and improving the social standards and so on. That is not the position at all. If we have to win the battle for these things in our own little island we are surely entitled to try to win that battle in the wider sphere of Europe—and I would prefer to have the wider sphere in which to do it.
The Socialist parties of the Six, at their recent Congress in Luxembourg, passed resolutions supporting the Economic Community, urging all Socialist parties to support the implementation of the treaties, to undertake joint Socialist action after entry has come into force and to draw up economic programmes which would enable all these aims to be realised by means of constructive common policies which would lead to the stability of the world.
Despite what might be said about the Treaty of Rome as it stands, how will we be able to improve our standards, or the standards and conditions throughout the Community and, at the same time, achieve a policy of full employment and rising social standards, unless, first of all, we are in a position to influence that policy? The only way we can influence it is by being there, on the spot—in their Parliament with our Ministers present at the Council of Ministers—helping to frame that kind of policy. We cannot do it unless we are present at those discussions and here is where the political argument comes in, and I am sometimes astonished when people say that they would accept our membership of the Community provided our entry can be made on certain conditions, but "For heavens sake," they say, "Do not let us have anything to do with Parliamentary control."
This, to me, is a completely impossible attitude to understand. How British politicians, particularly Labour hon. Members with the experience and the

683
tradition of our own country and holding such principles as they do, can say that they might be prepared to join this great economic Community with all the power it can have over our lives and the way it can affect our standards and influence our international affairs—because trade follows flag and flag follows trade—only on certain conditions sometimes baffles me.
What these critics are suggesting is that we should hand over all these powers to a commission of civil servants in Brussels or, alternatively, to a Council of Ministers, each haggling over their individual national interests, a Council of Ministers, which at one time could be made up of Conservative Ministers— whereby millions of Socialists and Liberals would not be represented at all —or on another occasion might be a Council of Socialist Ministers—with the views of millions of Conservatives, Liberals and others not represented. I would have thought that we, of all people, should have insisted on whatever organisation it is having a proper democratic Parliamentary control so that we would be able to control the executive, just as we do in Britain, and to ensure that the vast minorities would have a proper say in protecting their conditions, just as the majorities would have.
This is the only way it can be done. We cannot avoid the conclusion that the only way to make it an effective reality is to have an effective European Parliament, democratically representing the people. The Six are beginning to develop their political institutions, institutions which will control the Executive —I hope more and more on the lines we adopt in this country.
I remind hon. Members that if we had in 1956 been the members of the European Community, with an effective political authority and common Parliament, there would have been no Suez, because every one except Britain and France would have been against it. I urge my hon. Friends to think back to 1939. Would the war have been possible if Britain, Germany, France and the other countries had been members of a common community and common Parliament? The same might be said of the 1914-18 war. These are important matters—the kind of things I have in
684
mind when discussing the European Community. These important subjects must be fully considered; not just the problems affecting hosiery manufacturers or the question of whether or not one likes the flavour of Italian tomatoes.
I support the Treaty of Rome, and I do not necessarily mean all of it in detail. The Europeans are getting on with the job. They are doing something we have been praying for for generations. They are doing it while Britain stands at the crossroads. Either we join in this great and inspiring adventure in uniting peoples and demonstrating that such unity—which alone can be the basis of ultimate world government—is possible and fruitful. Either we join hands now, with Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and, glory be, of Southern Ireland, strengthening, as only the great British Labour Movement can strengthen, the Socialist and trade union forces now ranged in unity within this common front—or we can seek to contract out of yet another great objective which the Labour Party was created to achieve.
8.18 p.m.
Sir Anthony Hurd: Like many of my hon. Friends, I have tried to keep a reasonably open mind, giving due weight to the ardent belief of the Prime Minister and other Ministers that we should join the Common Market. We have, rightly, I think, set about that with all the will and skill we have to negotiate terms on which we could enter with safeguards for the Commonwealth, for our own agriculture and horticulture.
I take the Commonwealth first, and I must be brief on what is the immediate political issue. I am sure that our people wall want to know that our entry will not weaken the Commonwealth and. indeed, that the terms are endorsed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers as being helpful to their countries and economies as well as to Britain. That is a fairly tall order, but that is what the British public will want to hear.
We must rely on the Lord Privy Seal to argue in Brussels vigorously for a trade policy which will allow the Dominions to retain a full share of their markets here and in Europe. If the Commonwealth means anything to us, we must hold ourselves responsible for

685
keeping open markets for their wheat, meat and dairy produce. I am talking particularly about the temperate foodstuffs, because they present an acute issue.
A clear understanding must be reached. It will be an essential consideration when we come to decide whether we shall or shall not enter. Naturally, I welcome the signs in Europe that the Six are thinking about international agreements, maybe on a limited scale at the start, to look after the interests of the Commonwealth countries and then spreading out into wider agreements. That is what President Kennedy is aiming at; he is making moves across the board to get tariff reductions on American goods in Europe for concessions on his side.
I think that we may very well in five years' time, if we work on this, get international agreements to stabilise the markets of the primary products. I am sure that that would be greatly welcomed by Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as by America, and, indeed, I believe by an outward-looking European Community. It would be an outward-looking European community if we could get the right terms to join.
I hope that the Government will show its interest in this kind of international effort to stabilise world markets and shift surpluses to where they are needed, and that we shall make a contribution in knowledge and in funds to the pilot scheme which the United Nations is launching next month. It is most important that we should show willing and show our interest. Whether we like it or not, we and the world will be faced with ever-increasing food surpluses, and the sooner wet get down to the job of tackling this problem in a good spirit internationally the sooner we shall find a solution.
Coming back to the Brussels negotiations, some of our farmers, notably the younger men, confidently and rightly think that they can match any competition from the Continent. Our farms are bigger and better equipped, and the skill of our men is at least as good as that of any on the Continent.
We have developed a policy to suit ourselves in this country. It has given us a thriving and highly productive agri-
686
culture, contributing much to the strength of the nation's economy, while, at the same time, our people get their food considerably cheaper than most others abroad. I am not one of those who say that we shall have to scrap the basis of a secure policy for agriculture which is enshrined in the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts.
I believe that we can modify policy and reduce the cost to the Exchequer? But we should not abandon the principle which we have made work satisfactorily for Britain unless we are quite sure that we shall be getting something in a wider community which will serve our farmers and our land equally well.
The trouble about joining the Common Market is that the Six in Europe have not yet begun to evolve a common agricultural policy. Their commodity by commodity approach lacks the safeguards that we apply year by year through the annual review and assess what is happening in agriculture, what we want to happen in agriculture, and we also put into the scales a great many other considerations such as cost, our trading connections, the effect on the Dominions, and so on. I am, therefore, glad that it now seems to be accepted in Europe that they will have an annual farm review and I should like to give full credit not only to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but also to the Minister of Agriculture for having educated Europeans to recognise the value of this exercise.
It will be a great task, of course, to marshall all the information about costs and prices, trends of production, and farm incomes from all over Europe. It has not always been an easy task to work out our own farm policy and prices. I find that farmers are asking, "What hope is there really that we shall through the farm review in Europe get an agricultural policy which will suit everyone in Europe as well as ourselves?" There could be grave distortions in the pattern of British agriculture if many farmers were tempted by a high wheat price to go wheat mining and by low prices and big supplies to go out of production in milk, pigs and eggs. We could get our agriculture into a sorry mess.
This uncertainty underlines the importance of another concession which

687
my right hon. Friends have secured in negotiations in Europe. There is the prospect of a system of residual assurances to look after those sections of agriculture where the annual review shows that remedial action is needed to maintain and, indeed, to raise farm incomes in terms of the Treaty of Rome. Some farmers in some countries are accustomed to considerably higher incomes than others. This provision for residual assurances must now be set out clearly for all to understand.
Among my farming friends there is great anxiety about this. They say,"We have heard what the Minister of Agriculture said in a recent speech in the country. Does it mean that we shall put up our case in Brussels to show that a certain section of our farming community is being hard hit and the level of income is dropping", and then the Commission will say, "It is just too bad; you must just wear it"? Or shall we have some reserve right to look after that section of the farming interests which we consider essential to a proper balance and right pattern in our agriculture? Shall we have the right to do that on our own account with, of course, the approval and understanding of the Community?
We need a clear understanding of what these arrangements may be. I feel that our farmers cannot be expected to agree to jettison the system of guarantees on which home production has expanded so successfully in recent years for the chance of higher prices, in some cases considerably higher prices, for a time, in Europe and then a deluge of surpluses. If prices are kept high in Europe, production will soar, and then what will happen? We must bear in mind the need to keep a pattern and a balance in our agriculture as in the agriculture of Europe as a whole. If that comes out of the annual review, well and good. If it does not, I do not think that we should find much joy in the Common Market, or that our partners in Europe would do so either.
On the present showing we are expected to take a good deal on trust both for Commonwealth trade and for British agriculture. I would echo the words of the First Secretary of State this afternoon, that we cannot yet honestly
688
say that we have succeeded in safeguarding the interests of British agriculture and horticulture. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will have a successful run in Brussels this week, and that the farming community and our Commonwealth partners will feel happier at the end of this week than they did at its beginning.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. William Warbey: This debate takes place in very strange circumstances, not only because while it is going on the crux of negotiations is being reached in Brussels, but also because a similar debate is taking place in another place, in which there has been a very important statement of Government policy from the Foreign Secretary, a statement very different in character from the one which we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State in this House earlier this afternoon.
Once again, we have had an illustration of just how much we have lost the sovereignty of the House of Commons through permitting the Foreign Secretary to be in another place. It is one of the many examples of how the sovereignty of the House of Commons is being gradually reduced by the actions of the present Government.
In another place the Foreign Secretary has said quite frankly and openly why the Government are in favour of going into the Common Market and why they are determined that negotiations shall succeed, and, by implication, what they are prepared to sacrifice so that they shall succeed. He has said—and I paraphrase his words—that Europe is moving towards an economic and political union. He has said that Europe is the new centre of power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that the Liberals agree with this sentiment that Europe is the new centre of power.
The noble Lord has also said that we cannot stand aside from economic and political associations with that centre of power. He has said that the Commonwealth countries must understand that and must make the necessary adjustments. Well, that is frank.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Very good stuff.
Mr. Warbey: I am very interested to hear that the Liberal Party approves of

689
this, because it shows that the Liberal Party in this country, like the Liberal Party in most countries, in moments of crisis always turn automatically to what they regard as the centre of power. They never have the courage to stand alone and take an independent line. When we come to the next election we shall find the same result, that the Liberal Party will then gravitate to what they regard as the new centre of power in this House, though if the Government have their way this House will not by then have much power left.
What is at stake in this question of entry into the Common Market is precisely the sacrifice of the independence of this country and also of such strength as the Commonwealth really has towards what is described as a new centre of power in Europe. It is perfectly true that the Western European countries— not Europe as a whole—and especially France and Germany have moved together into an economic and political association which is designed primarily for the defence of capitalist society against Communism. By so doing they have undoubtedly strengthened such power as they might have possessed individually.
We are invited—not by them very strongly, but by the British Government —to gravitate towards this new centre of power because it is thought that if we stood aside from it we would be too weak to stand up against it. In other words, the appeal that is made to us is one of sheer economic and political defeatism. The economic defeatism I can understand, because we have had eleven years of government which have pretty well ruined the economy of this country, and by its inspiration towards a bingo society has completely undermined both the initiative and the spirit of adventure of the British people.
Politically, I find it much more difficult to understand that this Government, a Conservative Government, should be prepared, in effect, to surrender the political sovereignty of Britain to a West European combination and, in so doing, to sacrifice the economic and political strength which has come to us in the past and which can come increasingly in the future from our Commonwealth association. That is the choice which we are invited to face.
690
Those among my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are now saying that there is a danger of the Government sacrificing the Commonwealth for the sake of joining the Common Market are waking up a little late. The decision was taken a year ago, when the Lord Privy Seal went to Brussels and, at the very opening of the negotiations, said that we were prepared to join the European Economic Community on the basis of the Treaty of Rome and without any amendment to that Treaty apart from consequential amendments in the voting provisions.
In so doing, the Lord Privy Seal then and there sold the pass. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome are such as to involve, first, the sacrifice of Commonwealth economic interests for the sake of those of Europe, secondly, the sacrifice of the possibility of socialist economic planning for the sake of so-called capitalist planning, and, thirdly, the sacrifice of democratic popular control of planning and of government to a bureaucratic, autocratic hierarchy. That is what the Treaty of Rome involves.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) is not here now. When he, as an enthusiast for federation and world government, talks as though the Common Market, based on the Treaty of Rome, were anything like the conception of a Socialist European and Commonwealth union which some of us had in the early days after the war, he really cannot have looked at one Article of the Treaty of Rome or have bothered about them.
Mr. Arthur Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman read Article 104?
Mr. Warbey: Article 104, I suppose, is the Article about harmonising would trade or something or other—is it not? —one of the pious Articles in the Treaty which has no binding force, an Article about pursuing a
"policy to ensure the equilibrium in its overall balance of payments…"
Mr. Holt: Carry on.
Mr. Thorpe rose—
Mr. Warbey: I do not propose to make the speeches which hon. Members are, apparently, unable to make. I am saury, but I prefer to make my own.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Warbey: What we are asked to do in entering the European Economic Community is not to undertake the ordinary sacrifice of a portion of our sovereignty as a nation which is made when we enter into any other treaty or which was made when we subscribed to the United Nations Charter. This is totally different, because the Treaty of Rome is not just a treaty. It is a code of law drawn up by the Governments of other countries—
Mr. John Diamond: To increase Socialism.
Mr. Warbey: —including Governments which have some Social Democratic representatives in them—
Mr. Thorpe: And some which have nationalised industries.
Mr. Warbey: It is a Treaty which lays down in precise and legal terms not only the constitution of the organisation itself, but also the basic law of its economic policy.
We have not taken any part in shaping that Treaty. We are not in a position to amend it because the Government have given away that possibility. If we go in, we accept every Article of that Treaty, which means that we surrender not only a portion of our sovereignty as a nation but a part of the law-making activities of this House to another body which is not elected by the people of this country and in part to a body not elected by anyone at all.
Under this Treaty, which is binding not merely on every member Government but will be binding on every British citizen if we enter the Common Market, it will be possible for the Commission to issue decisions, to draw up regulations, to make prohibitions and to give binding instructions to British citizens. Those orders and decisions will have legislative and judicial force. If the prohibitions or the decisions are not complied with, British citizens can be fined and can appeal only to the Court of Justice, which merely has to take its decisions within the terms of the Statute itself.
If we enter the European Economic Community on the basis of the Treaty as it stands, this Parliament gives up its
692
legislative powers and British citizens will be placed at the mercy of another legislative body over which we have no control whatsoever. That is the abrogation of sovereignty which we are asked to undertake.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe will say, "But we can alter that. There is provision for an elected assembly and we will ensure that this elected assembly acquires democratic legislative powers and control over the executive". But there is none of that in the Articles of the Treaty of Rome, which provide for these subsidiary law-making and regulation-making powers and penalties to be in the hands of a non-elected Commission. It is not possible to alter a single article of the Treaty except by the unanimous consent of every member State.
That is the position in which it is proposed to place the people of this country. In other words, it is proposed completely to alter not merely the British Constitution but the way in which we in this country conduct our Parliamentary democracy. It is a proposal to substitute for our form of Parliamentary democracy a form of legislation, of law-making, of the imposition of penalties on citizens for disobeying the laws which is totally alien to the whole of our tradition.
The Treaty of Rome is closely modelled on the pre-1914 constitution of the German Reichstag. It is certainly pre-Magna Carta in its conception, because it means that under it British citizens will be placed in jeopardy for disregarding or disobeying laws which they have had no part in making. This is a principle which we fought 300 years in this country to sustain, and for 400 years we fought for the principle that the country should turn outwards towards the rest of the world. We are now proposing to abandon both those principles at one and the same time.
We are proposing to turn inwards towards Europe instead of outwards towards the rest of the Commonwealth, and to abandon our democratic system of legislation and control of the Executive and to substitute for it an autocratic system which will not even be in the hands of persons appointed by representatives of this country.
Mr. Holt: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will

693
agree that on the Continent at least the Socialists are democratic. I have not heard that they have been complaining about this hell on earth created by the Common Market.
Hon. Members: They are in favour of it.
Mr. Warbey: Hon Members say that Socialists are in favour of it, but they are not. A number are opposed to it, a number of Socialists in the countries which have not yet gone into the Common Market, like Norway and Demark, where the Socialists are very worried about the implications of joining the Treaty of Rome and where they have approved an application for entry to join the Community only because they have been forced to do so by the application made by this country. In fact, Denmark, has made it a condition of entry that this country joins. Let us have no more talk about the attitude of the Socialists in Europe. One does not rescue those already in the Community from the mess which they are in. The more those outside learn about it, the less they like it.
We have to decide whether we are prepared to surrender sovereignty to a hierarchy, an autocratic body, over which we have no effective control, in the interests of the British people and the British Commonwealth. If this would lead to genuine Socialist economic planning, which is the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe as well as myself, then there would be a good deal to be said for it, but here, again, we are barred by the terms of the Treaty itself. The Treaty of Rome is a written constitution to preserve a capitalist order of society. The rules of competition are so devised as to ensure that capitalist free enterprise has full play and is able to engage in all those activities which are capable of being run at a profit while leaving public enterprise to provide a social service.
That is the basis of the Treaty of Rome and it cannot be changed merely by going in. It can be changed only by altering the Statute, and one single country which represents a capitalist Government will be able to prevent any change whatsoever in the Treaty, and therefore any change in the essential character of the society which it is designed to preserve and protect.
694
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) talked about the possibilities for economic planning being preserved within the scope of the Treaty of Rome. What utter nonsense. In Signposts for the Sixties we have talked about the necessity for a Socialist Government to control investment. How can we control investment if we have to ensure free movement of private capital, not only across frontiers, but within the country? How can we do it if we are tied down by laws which forbid any discrimination in favour of public enterprise as against private enterprise?
How can we adjust our balance of payments if we have to follow a common economic policy and are not allowed any control over imports independently of what the other countries agree to? How can we have any effective control of economic policy if we have to give perfect freedom to the big businessmen of other countries to come here and establish their businesses if they want to and move their capital in and out as they please?
This will make complete nonsense of any attempt at Socialist planning, yet in the negotiations the Lord Privy Seal has already agreed that we accept these principles enshrined in the Treaty, and I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper suggest that it is even possible to undertake democratic Socialist economic planning so long as we have to allow the free movement of capital, freedom of establishment, and the control of external economic policy by some group in Brussels.
That is the kind of abrogation of sovereignty that we are being asked to undertake. If my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, or anybody else, can show me that there is an association which is democratically controlled and which is fully open to the possibility of the establishment of a Socialist society on an international basis I shall be the first to say that we should go in, but under the present circumstances everything in this constitution is biased against such a concept, and for that reason I should have thought that not only would no Socialist agree to enter, but that no Conservative who had any respect for the democratic institutions of this country, for our legal system based

695
on common law, and for the sovereign will of the people expressed through Parliament could accept it either.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Marlowe: It is well known that I am fiercely opposed to our entry into the Common Market, but if anything could ever shake my conviction on this matter it would be a speech such as that to which we have just listened. I have no objection whatever to people waving the Union Jack and giving praise to our British traditions and institutions, but I find it nauseating When they do it in the interests of Communism.
Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) suggesting that my speech was made in the interests of Communism. I think that this is to be deplored.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Robert Grimston): I find no point of order in that.
Mr. Warbey rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has spoken for a considerable time, and there is little time left. He should let the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) continue. There is no point of order in what he has raised.
Mr. Marlowe: I have only five minutes in which to say what I have to say. In this country there is an appalling lack of knowledge of the issues involved. I can illustrate this in a number of ways. I have addressed various meetings on this matter. There was one not long ago at which I judge that the audience was divided about fifty-fifty on the issue, and those who opposed the view that I was expressing asked a lot of questions. At the end I said, "Hands up anybody in the room who has read the Treaty of Rome", and not a hand went up.
Mr. Thorpe: Did you put your hand up?
Mr. Marlowe: The oase for our entry into the Common Market has been deployed by the Government with a certain amount of enthusiasm, and a zeal to
696
conceal from the public exactly what is involved. I am glad to see some Members of Che Liberal Party here. Perhaps at some other time, without interrupting me, they will be able to help me to answer a letter that I received this morning, in which the writer said,
"I am disgusted with the Conservative Party going into the Common Market. Next time I shall vote Liberal."
This explains, in one sentence, the obscurities that exist in the public mind about Liberal Party policy.
Who is responsible for this concealment of the facts? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government."] I agree. It is the Government, especially those Ministers who have been most active in propagating our entry. On the last occasion when we debated the matter the Lord Privy Seal made a very able speech on the economic aspects. He was very clear about them. But when he turned to the political involvement all became vague and obscure. I am sure that this was an attempt to conceal from the people exactly what was involved. I have no doubt that once we step upon this slippery slope of economic unity with Europe we shall have started on Che road to political federation. That is what I object to. I will confine myself entirely to the question of sovereignty, which I think we are on the way to losing if we pursue this policy.
It is quite clear that the inevitable consequence will be a United States of Europe, and I do not want this country to become a province in a United States of Europe. If the people had been told this from the start, and this false name of "Common Market" had not been used, they would have understood the real issues that are involved. But the great majority of people have been led to believe that this is just a commercial tie-up, by which we shall be able to do more trade in Europe. They naturally think that that is a good thing. If at the outset people had been told that this was really the road to a United States of Europe they would have been almost 100 per cent. opposed to our entry. It is for that reason—because the Government are well aware of the emotional content of this matter, that they have been careful never to use any such indication of the road along which we are going.

697
The First Secretary dealt rather shortly this afternoon with the question of political union with Europe. He said—and these were astounding words to hear from the First Secretary—that when political unity had reached a further stage we should have an opportunity to express our view. Good heavens; I should think we should! But what use will it be at that stage fox us to express our views, when we have already entered into an economic stranglehold which will make it impossible for us to retreat?
The road is undoubtedly towards political unity. It is towards the abandonment of our national sovereignty, and these are matters to which I believe that the Conservative Party should never adhere. Hon. Gentlemen opposite— those in favour of unity—have founded their arguments in the Socialist faith in which they believe and I accept that they do so with sincerity. I hope that they will believe that I equally found my position on what I hold to be the true fundamental belief of Conservatism, which is to maintain the proper independence of this country and to promote the welfare of the Commonwealth. Every step which we take in this direction is derogating from these things.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said today words which imply that those who are opposed to this are insular. That word "insular" has become a dirty word. Why, I do not know. After all, we axe an island people and we cannot help being insular. We were born an island people and nothing can take that away from us.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will forgive me for going on for a minute over my time. But I will conclude by saying that I believe I speak for the great majority of the people in this country when I say that I do not want to become a European. To be British is good enough for me.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There was some discussion earlier about whether it would be in order for a manuscript Amendment to be moved, on the interruption of business, to continue the debate beyond 10 o'clock. Would you be willing to
698
accept such an Amendment if it were moved?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, it would not be in order.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) for being so courteous. I think it a matter of regret to us all that this debate has been so truncated. Not only was the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman curtailed—and whatever their point of view hon. Members must have felt that it was one really worth making and listening to—but also many hon. Members have not been able to express a view on this important occasion.
The first thing I want to say is that it was right that we should have this debate. It was the duty of the House to have it, and I do not agree at all with the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) who seemed to think that we should have left the whole thing to the Government negotiators in Brussels. Of course, all hon. Members who have spoken recognise that vital negotiations are going on. But that is no reason why this House should remain silent. I do not believe that this debate has in any sense weakened the hands of the negotiators in Brussels. If there was one speech which will weaken their hands, it was the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West, because that happens every time right hon. or hon. Gentlemen say, "We must get in, we must get in—we have no alternative— Commonwealth trade is dying"—and all the rest of it. If reports of what has been said in another place—where the Government spokesmen have been more explicit than the ones we have had here —are true, the same weakness has been shown there—this pathetic anxiety to conclude negotiations almost at any cost. Those of us experienced in negotiating—and some of us have had long experience of negotiations carried out under much more difficult circumstances —know that had we begun these negotiations and carried on with them on the basis that at all costs we have got to get into the Common Market we should have had to pay an intolerable price. We are frightened that that is what is happening in Brussels today.

699
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) rightly reminded the House, we were right to press for this debate, because this is probably the last opportunity which hon. Members will have to express their views and to express the warning, which any one of us may want to give, before—what I think is coming very quickly now, and wrongly so—the Government take a decision which will be a fateful decision one way or the other for this country, for Europe and for the world. I want to lend my support to what the right hon. Gentleman said when he pleaded with the Government not to rush into this thing, but to make sure that the negotiations make crystal clear what we are being asked to assent to, and that full consideration is given before any decision is taken. As the signs multiply that some of the most vital issues are being postponed and deferred for settlement after Britain has got into the Common Market, or are being wrapped in a cocoon of verbiage, for that obviously is what is happening, it is more important that we in this House should spell out these issues clearly now. I regret that the Government have not treated this debate more fairly. Apart from the First Secretary, I believe it falls far short of the importance we should attach to this debate that we are not to have a member of the Cabinet to reply.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom we all wish well on his new appointment and the important job he has to do, will recognise that we are not getting at him in any personal sense, but on an issue of this importance on the eve of this vital decision we should have had a senior Cabinet Minister to reply on behalf of all his colleagues. There are present on the Government Front Bench the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the President of the Board of Trade. It is utterly wrong that we have not had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor present in this debate. To get the Foreign Secretary as well would be too much to expect, but he is elsewhere.
We have had the speech of the First Secretary. He was courteous, he was urbane, he was ponderous and never has
700
even he managed to get through twenty-five minutes and to say so little. That is strong language, because his span at the Box goes back for a long time and there have been some classic pieces of stonewalling. He told us nothing at all in the whole of his speech except to trumpet forth one triumph—that our negotiators had ensured that we shall retain our freedom of worship. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which says we cannot retain that.
He must have been reading the newspapers, even if he has not been reading Cabinet papers, but he never for one moment showed his hand, or the pair of hands he has dealt himself for dealing with this occasion. As he failed to do it, it is incumbent on the rest of us to get down to cases. In the time available one can pick up only one or two of the salient points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper referred to the problem of planning, whether Socialist planning, Tory planning or planning of any other kind. I am not going to repeat all the arguments used in past debates. Of course we recognise that there is a strong desire in Europe for a form of planning, European planning as opposed to national planning, but let us be clear about this. The aim and objective of that planning is not the same as, for example, the T.U.C. has rightly demanded, planning for full employment. It is planning aimed at holding the ring with conditions for full, free capitalistic competition. That is not what we understand by planning.
I wish there could be a sort of"Hansard"of all the pronouncements of what some of these very skilled, talented but in our view irresponsible public servants have been saying. The Director-General for Competition—what a title! —said that all that happens in the economic field in the E.E.C. is to be the result of free competition and not of dirigisme measures. He went on to say that there would be controls over prices, wages and capital investment, but why should this country not be free to have price control if it is considered desirable? It may well be that that will be an essential concomitant of the National Incomes Council, yet under the Common Market if these gentlemen do not think it right we cannot have it. That is one of our worries.

701
We have learned by bitter experience in two Governments that planning for full employment and steady industrial expansion in this country is dependent on the avoidance of short-term financial crises. This country, for many reasons, and not least its position in the sterling area, is far more vulnerable to financial crises than most. That is why we must have sufficient planning powers to deal with this problem. It is an elementary national precaution, not a party point.
It may be said that the European Powers will combine to resist an attack on the currency reserves of members. In this respect, it is said that unity is strength, but on what terms will they combine? I do not think I was very fanciful a year ago when I referred to the possibility of a "central bankers' ramp", for these men are narrow-minded on social, and political matters, and it may be that if we had a Government which was, say, nationalising the steel industry, on a mandate from the people, they might find that that policy had to be put into reverse as a condition of the loan which these gentlemen were to give. There might be pronouncements on incomes policy, rents policy or social welfare, and, therefore, this is one of the very serious questions which we should like to see spelled out.
On another aspect, the position of Parliament, I will not go into this in detail, as I did so in the June debate. In the debate in June, I set out, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the very serious implications for Parliament in Article 189, and in the regulations being binding in every respect and directly applicable to each member State. Now, if this is the situation— and I will not repeat all the arguments —what would be the position in regard to Prayers and Statutory Instruments? What would be the position of enabling legisilation? Would Parliament be free to amend that legislation? Would the Sovereign be free to accept a Prayer carded by Parliament? Indeed, would we be free to pray at all? These are very important questions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Freedom of worship."]
The First Secretary said that this was being studied by the Government. He went so far as to promise us a White
702
Paper in the autumn. This really is fantastic, meaning, first of all, that this House will be asked to take a decision about entering the Common Market, and, after that decision, we are to be given a White Paper to tell us what happens to us. We have our responsibilities and trusteeship not only to those who sat in this House for centuries before us but for those who will sit in centuries to come. We shall be given a White Paper when the decision has been taken. This is one of the things of which we are afraid.
I am sure that I shall unite the whole House when I confess my manifest inability to speak with any authority about agriculture, but I wish to say three things. First, we have always been told that, while deficiency payments are ruled out, as they are, production grants in some form or another, will be or may be tolerated, though when I asked the Minister of Agriculture in the last debate, he had not got a clue about it. I mentioned two items costing £40 million. What is more, he still does not know. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to give me an answer now, I shall be delighted. But, of course, he cannot know the answer because the Europeans do not know the answer.
One point is very clear. We cannot even maintain production grants on a national basis in any shape or form. We shall not be able to apply the hill farming subsidies to Wales, Scotland and the Pennines. All we can do is to try to persuade our European partners —one hopes that we shall be successful —to adopt hill farming grants covering the whole area of the Common Market, so that whatever was granted for Wales and Scotland would apply to the Appenines and the Alps, and to Norway. They may not share our keenness for these production grants, and this would be a very serious blow to agriculture.
There is a second point which I want to make about agriculture. I think that it is clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that the statement about the annual agricultural reviews is meaningless. Our own national price reviews are a guide to action, though, to use the unfortunate phrase of the Lord Privy Seal, there is no automaticity about it; we do not proceed automatically from the publication of the price review to some

703
decision about incomes and prices. He is right in that respect, but for all that the purpose of the price review each year is to get a picture of the farming profit and earning situation as a guide to production, income and price policy for the year or years ahead.
The annual reviews promised in Europe are no more than statistical exercises. They do not, and probably could not, lead to any action of themselves. We shall have our price reviews in this country but they will be quite academic.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The right hon. Gentleman said that from these annual price reviews nothing will flow. There is no substance in this assertion at all. It is laid down in the provisional agreement which was reached in Brussels about a week ago that it is following on this review, and as a direct result of it, that all decisions affecting the common agricultural policy, which of course also means pricing policy, will flow. They will follow as a direct result of these reviews, and decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to have got a Cabinet Minister on his feet. But all he has told is just words, words, words. It is obvious that action can flow from it, but there is no provision that action must flow.
May I put a point to the right hon. Gentleman? Let us suppose that agricultural incomes were falling throughout the Community. Of course, it would have to happen on a Community-wide basis; it would be no good going with a hard luck story that they were falling only in Britain. It may be that action would be taken under the clause which, in very vague terms, refers to agricultural incomes. But, of course, action cannot be taken without raising the question of imports policy and therefore of Commonwealth imports. Let us suppose that costs were rising in the Community, perhaps not because of increasing costs here but because of increasing costs in France and Italy, and that margins and producers' incomes were
704
falling. Have we any guarantee, or even any informal understanding, that action would then be taken? The only instrument which we have is price, and once price is used then everything else is involved, such as the import levy and the tariff, which immediately hits Commonwealth imports.
This brings me to my third point on agriculture. Within the agricultural policy which has been laid down after the 40 days and 40 nights of argument, agricultural security and security for the Commonwealth producers are inevitably, and in my view inescapably, in conflict. I want to ask the House to think about this. On the face of it, the authors of the 1947 Act—principally Tom Williams, Lord Williams as he is now—seemed to have an insoluble problem when they set out to reconcile the problems of the British farmers with those of the suppliers of imported food, especially the Commonwealth producers. I think that my noble Friend achieved a miracle when he provided a reconcila-tion of the problems of imported food and of security for our farmers. But he did it on the basis of guaranteed markets. Even the diluted version of that Act under which we now live, this ramshackle and undependable and costly system of deficiency payments which the right hon. Gentleman defends, provides some reconciliation of the problems of British agriculture and the Commonwealth.
But the task of the Brussels negotiators is to reconcile not two independent variables but three—British agriculture, the Commonwealth and European agriculture; and to begin this superhuman task of trying to solve the whole problem in a few weeks by scrapping the very basis of the 1947 Act, which was guaranteed markets, and which in our case now is deficiency payments. The European system is based on market prices alone— admittedly rigged, manufactured and administered prices at that—but there is no evidence yet of any agreement which can provide security at the same time for the British fanners and for the Commonwealth producers such as we achieved under the 1947 Act.
I turn to the problem of E.F.T.A., which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. There ought to be no

705
difficulty here. There is a clear commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We regard this as unequivocally binding. We are not free morally or in any other way to pursue our own selfish interests, however we may conceive them, through the negotiations, unless at the same time we secure for our E.F.T.A. partners full safeguards for their economic interests. This is a clear binding Treaty commitment. On this the honour of the Government, and particularly the honour of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the pledge, is fully involved. Not only that, but I believe that the honour of the House is involved.
But the argument is not based purely or even mainly on this commitment to our E.F.T.A. partners, this binding Treaty obligation. After all, the object of the whole exercise, so we are told— we are repeatedly told this whenever we visit Europe—is to promote the unity of Europe. Are we to achieve the unity of Europe by excluding from economic association on the quite specious ground of their neutrality three countries which are so intrinsically European, three countries so bound up in all of Europe's history as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland? Because they are neutrals, all the signs are that they will be told that all they can have is some bilateral trade agreement, thrown to them as a sort of sop, on the same terms as could be granted to Argentina or the Dominican Republic. Is this promoting the unity of Europe?
Our view is that it is totally wrong to base one's attitude in this on the fact of neutrality, because this means applying a military test. Our view is that the right organisation, the right forum, for pursuing the ideas which inspired the Western Alliance is N.A.T.O. and that membership of N.A.T.O. is not and should not be a test of European status for the purposes of association with the Economic Community.
This naturally leads to the problem of the political future, on which the First Secretary touched this afternoon. He did not tell us very much. I will not repeat all the arguments that we and others have used on this point. I must say, not so much because of the First Secretary's speech, but more because of
706
what the Lord Privy Seal has said, that the Government's attitude on this is shrouded in ambivalence. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome requiring a federal or a supranational political organisation in Europe. Equally, all hon. Members who have met Europe's political leaders know that some at any rate of them, and some of the most influential, entirely reject our conception of an inter-governmental Europe and look forward to an integrated foreign office and an integrated defence community. We know that this is not the position of President de Gaulle. As one of my hon. Friends said, his position is that of Europe à I'Anglaise sans les Anglais. The rest of them, particularly M. Spaak, are determined sooner or later to get this federal solution.
I do not believe—this has been made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that public opinion in this country in present and foreseeable circumstances would for one moment agree that we could transfer responsibility for foreign policy, at present under the control of the Government and responsible to Parliament, to a centralised European agency answerable to a European Parliament. This may come, but it is not a political possibility now. I think that the Lord Privy Seal would remove a lot of misunderstanding and avoid many future headaches and heartaches and charges of bad faith if he would state that in Europe as frankly as I have stated it tonight, because I am certain the whole House agrees with What I have said.
I come finally to the Commonwealth. There is time now to deal only with temperate zone foodstuffs. We have heard nothing today from the Government about this. Yet even the Press has been full of detailed reports. Fresh reports were coming in on the ticker-tape from Brussels tonight even before I came into the Chamber.
There are two main issues to be dealt with here. Obviously this is very oversimplified. The first is the ultimate settlement, the position of Commonwealth imports after 1970, what some people have called point X—not how we get to point X, but what point X looks like when we get there. The second issue is the means by which we get there. We have said repeatedly—we must say

707
it again—that no amount of temporary relief will solve the problem. This is not a problem for some kind of European national assistance board. What matters is the position of Commonwealth trade and Commonwealth imports after 1970, and we shall judge the outcome of the negotiations by what those things look like after 1970 and not by the means of temporary relief that might be introduced between now and 1970.
The Government's position on this began in high hopes over a year ago; in the hope that the interests of Europe and of the Commonwealth could be reconciled; that there was no clash between them. The then President of the Board of Trade, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that it was not a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth. We said, "We hope that you are right." But that hope soon died.
The Government then introduced the idea of comparable outlets, which inspired the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in Paris. Can any Minister really say that he feels that we have secured comparable outlets for Commonwealth food in Europe? Of course, the whole agricultural apparatus of the E.E.C. is designed to prevent that sort of thing. Last Friday, we had reports of an agreement said to have been reached but, as far as we can tell from that, all preferences, all guarantees, end by 1970 and, from then on, the negative preference, the reverse preference, begins to operate; that, in fact, from that moment, Commonwealth food will be at a fiscal disadvantage, a levy disadvantage, compared with European food, and that, if any food is to come into the Community area at all, there will be a scramble on equal terms for the British or other European markets between the Commonwealth producers, the Argentine, the United States and all other third countries. That seems to be the position that has been reached.
The Government, of course, are rightly pressing for a form of words—and I hope that we shall get more than words— to ensure that the Market will be out-ward-looking; that it will be low-priced; that it will have substantial imports. Here, of course, words are not enough. We must have something more specific in the form of guarantees. We are told
708
that there will be commodity agreements, and it is true that we on this side in debate after debate have for years pressed for commodity agreements.
Those hon. Members opposite who say that we have only discovered the Commonwealth should look at our record on Commonwealth trade based—and I tell this to the right hon. Member for Flint, West—not so much on preference as on physical long-term contracts for Commonwealth foodstuffs. Let those hon. Members look at the debate we had—and here I charge my memory —on 3rd February, 1953, when we devoted a lot of time to this particular problem. I had a lot of experience in drawing up the first International Wheat Agreement after the war, but that does not solve the problem of Commonwealth imports.
Again, let us look at sugar. The Lord Privy Seal said that there was no answer there yet. There is an international sugar agreement, but when the Labour Government negotiated that agreement with other countries we knew that it was not enough to provide security for the West Indies, and we had to superimpose on it the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Now, that is to go; so if it is believed that such agreements provide the answer will the Minister say why it was that when France, supported by other countries, proposed commodity agreements at the G.A.T.T. Conference in Geneva, the Government opposed them?
As the whole House knows, the Guardian is very strongly in favour of our entry into Europe, but on 27th July it headed its story
"British Surrender to the Six".
That is the Guardian—not that branch of the Press referred to by the right hon. Member for Flint, West. It concluded its leader by saying:
"If the Government have now decided, for the sake of reaching a speedy agreement, to dispense with the guarantees demanded by the Commonwealth, even those who are most in favour of Britain's entry and most anxious to see the negotiations brought to success may feel some qualms."
One has only to look at what was said yesterday by Mr. Menzies. He said that
"The Australian Government's aim throughout was to try to make sure that preferences enjoyed inside the Commonwealth continued. …"

709
And Mr. McEwen said that there must be
"… adequate opportunities for developing countries to sell at economic prices and earn foreign exchange for their development."
We find that Mr. Holyoake, of New Zealand, said that
"… the 'comparable outlets' that New Zealand wanted for her farm produce if Britain joined the E.E.C. must provide for expansion."
and he suggested that we should, perhaps, postpone the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I conclude with the issue facing the House. We are not, as an Opposition, in the position of saying clearly and categorically that we can see our way clear either to supporting or rejecting our entry to the Common Market. We are not saying that, and I hope that the Government are not saying it either, because if they are it would be a complete betrayal of the pledges they gave when the negotiations were opened. We were told that when the terms were known we could then decide our attitude. We have said that all along, and we have had some fairly squalid jibes thrown up at us, not least by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week.
If one is buying a horse one likes to know the terms and also the condition it is in. Here we are faced with an enormously important decision. All I would say, therefore, is that we must have the chance, as a House, of deciding the issue. It may be that although the outlook is not hopeful, satisfactory terms will be obtained. My right hon. Friend has said that the best possible solution would be our being able to get in on good terms. But if the terms are such that we cannot accept them, then in these circumstances it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the issue must be referred to a higher court of appeal.
We reject the idea of a referendum. It is alien to our constitution. But if—and this is, of course, hypothetical—the Government in their rush and hurry to get in declare their willingness to sign on terms which amount to no more than a form of words, and if this means that the Opposition, and I cannot forecast our attitude, as a powerful and, perhaps, preponderant force of public opinion regard the terms as unacceptable, then
710
there would have, I submit, to be an appeal to the country, because it would be utterly repugnant to our constitutional practice and utterly damaging to Britain and Europe alike if a dying Government should seek to lead a divided country into Europe.
9.33 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for his kind tribute to me, although it was wrapped up with one or two other things which I know were not personally meant. I followed his speech with interest and some anxiety, but I was glad to find that at the end of it he was left, quite properly, firmly sitting on the fence until, if I may say so, he knows the price of the horse. That seems to me to be a vary prudent attitude.
The right hon. Member for Huyton began his speech by saying that he did not want the Government to rush into this matter. We are, of course, sometimes accused of the fact that the negotiations have been unduly prolonged, but that is really a matter of common sense. It is, on the one hand, necessary to ascertain with great precision what the problems are and how they are to be dealt with. On the other hand, we must not delay unduly because great interests in this country and elsewhere are awaiting the outcome and I think that we should push on as quickly as the circumstances permit.
The right hon. Member for Huyton said that vital issues were being postponed until after we were in the Common Market. That is not so. There must be many stages before we are finally in the Common Market—if, indeed, we join it—and ratification is among them. Such vital issues could certainly not be postponed. They are, of course, being dealt with from day to day. I was sorry that the right hon. Member took in a rather light vein the references of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to freedom of worship. To some people in this country this is a serious worry and my right hon. Friend was right in saying something to reassure those people.
The purpose of the Common Market, said the right hon. Member for Huyton, is, "Planning for a full and free capitalistic economy". I do not think that he

711
can have studied the Treaty of Rome. At any rate, he has certainly arrived at a very different conclusion from his Socialist colleagues on the Continent of Europe, who seem to have supported it with enthusiasm.
The right hon. Member then mentioned the question of Prayers and Statutory Instruments and the position of this House in constitutional matters. He went on to say that my right hon. Friend had promised a White Paper after we entered the Common Market. My right hon. Friend, of course, promised nothing of the kind. He promised a White Paper. I am sure that it will be available long before we are in the Common Market.
The right hon. Member went on to speak of the neutrals, and he gave a little advice as to what the position of the neutrals should be. I would have thought that the neutrals were well able to make up their own minds on this and that they show every sign of knowing what they want. He went on to say that some politicians in Europe hold views different from ourselves on federation. Of course, they do. I do not think that is a very surprising discovery, nor one that need alarm us very much.
The right hon. Gentleman then sought to bury the sugar agreements. This matter, as he knows, is under negotiation at the present time. He asked why, at the G.A.T.T. Conference in February, 1962, Her Majesty's Government voted against international agreements. We did not vote against them. That seems to be the answer to that one.
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Lord Privy Seal, when I asked him at Question Time last week about this, said something different? Did we vote against them or not? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will sort that out with the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. Smithers: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman the answer as to what we did.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to demand a General Election. I think that he had better wait and see what the position is before he reiterates that demand.
In opening the debate the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said
712
a number of things with which we would very much agree. He also had one or two misconceptions which perhaps I may be able to say something about. He will find that the voting rights concerning agriculture are set out in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty of Rome. There is no mystery about that. He spoke of the deadline against which we are negotiating. We are not negotiating against a deadline. I have explained what the position is.
Mr. G. Brown: How can what is set out in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals only with the Six, apply to an enlarged Community when we, Denmark and Norway and perhaps others join? I was asking what the weight of voting rights will be in the enlarged Community.
Mr. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the enlarged Community the voting rights will be calculated when one knows precisely who is joining it.
Mr. Brown: It is not in Article 43.
Mr. Smithers: It is in Article 43.
Mr. Turton: Will my hon. Friend give the right Article?
Mr. Speaker: If the Joint Undersecretary does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Turton: Article 43 (2), which I have before me, has nothing to do with voting rights. Will my hon. Friend give us the right Article?
Mr. Smithers: The Article which deals with voting rights specifies that there is unanimity to the year 1966 and thereafter a qualified majority vote.
I now turn to another point made by the right hon. Member for Belper. He spoke of the ability, or otherwise, to plan national economies within the Common Market. In that respect, I must refer him, in part, to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who explained that matter. The fact is that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which prevents national planning.
The right hon. Member for Belper also had a number of things to say which, I think, could be included in a category of bogies under the bed. He

713
said that the arrangements were vague and woolly. He knows quite well that these arrangemants are largely under negotiation, and that if he were on this side of the House he would not be able to be precise about matters which are still Jar from settled. The right hon. Member emphasised the need for a great precision and for making sure that everybody understands precisely what the other parties mean by what they say. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is very conscious of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made an impressive speech on the agricultural issues. Her Majesty's Government share his anxieties that the price policies to be settled in the Common Market should be such that there will be a proper balance in production. This will clearly have to be worked out over a long period. I do not think that at the moment I can go beyond the statement of the Lord Privy Seal of 23rd July. I must, however, say to the right hon. Member for Huyton, who referred to the 1947 Agriculture Act, and said that it suited the farmers and the Commonwealth so well, "It did in those days. But we are not now living in 1947, and other and different measures are required".
Her Majesty's Government stand by all the undertakings which have been given to the House, to the Commonwealth and to the European Free Trade Association. These have been affirmed many times by my right hon. Friends. When the present phase of the negotiations has been concluded, and when the outcome has been considered by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the Government will recommend to the House whatever course seems to them to be in the best interests of this country. The House will then form its own conclusions.
I can, however, assure the House that if these negotiations fail to secure terms which, in the Government's view, provide adequate protection for the interests of Britain, the Commonwealth and our partners in the European Free Trade Association, we shall certainly not sacrifice those interests in order to enter the European Community.
I think that it is generally agreed that one cannot draw a hard and fast line
714
between what is political and what is economic. The E.E.C. is seeking to bring about the reality of a common political purpose by constructing a single and powerful economic framework. Their propose is political, and so is ours. They are going about it in the order always advocated by successive British ministerial speakers at the Council of Europe. We are already interdependent with them in many economic and financial matters. For example, all our currencies are dependent upon the cooperation of others, and none more so than sterling. The establishment of the O.E.E.C.—largely a British initiative— and the great success of its work confirmed and developed this interdependence.
The plain truth now is that in many important respects our sovereignty can only be exercised effectively in conjunction with others. The Treaty of Rome is, therefore, the bold and logical extension of a situation which already exists. In such circumstances, what are we to make of the old maxim that Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman? We must not pretend to ourselves that we in Parliament can exercise unrestricted sovereignty simply by passing resolutions. The resolutions may well be legal, but the point is: can we be sure of giving them effect? Sovereignty is surely concerned with the practical exercise of power rather than with the passing of resolutions on paper.
In return for the pooling of a portion of our sovereignty in certain restricted and carefully defined fields, the Treaty of Rome would give us a share in the exercise of a wider and more effective sovereignty over a far larger area in terms of people and resources. This is a feature of other treaties to which we are a party and is coming to be recognised as the most practical method of exercising sovereignty in a world which is increasingly interdependent.
Mr. W. Baxter: Coming from Scotland, I am very interested in national sovereignty. I hope that this will be a lesson to the hon. Gentleman. We who come here from Scotland are dependent upon the generosity of English Members as to when we may speak or what we shall get. The same may apply to England if she goes into the Common Market.
Mr. Smithers: I have not noticed that Scotland has any difficulty in asserting its influence in the House or anywhere else.
The fear is sometimes expressed that, if we enter the Common Market, we shall be ruled by others. Of course, hon. Members are right in pressing us to make sure that the rules of the Community are fair and equitable so far as we are concerned. But, given that they are—and, of course, we should not join unless we were satisfied about that—I am astonished to find that there are people who doubt our ability to hold our own with our neighbours in Europe. Contrary to a widely expressed view, I am sure that British labour is well able to hold its own. There is no reason to doubt that in industry our scientists, our designers and our manufacturers can hold their own. Is it not ludicrous to suggest that our farming industry, which is among the most efficient in the world, cannot meet its European counterpart with credit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested?
Our administrators, who will take part in the Commission, will certainly be inferior to none in Europe. Our lawyers are able to argue with the best of them in the court. I do not doubt that our Ministers, of whatever party, will equit themselves well in the Council. Looking round the House, I do not see any reason whatever why Members of Parliament should not hold their own in the Assembly.
I suggest that we ought to ask ourselves whether our entry into the Community would not in fact, make a substantial difference to it. Would it be more or less acceptable to our friends in the Commonwealth and the world at large if we were in it? Our friends and allies seem to share the confidence of Her Majesty's Government that we can play an important and constructive part within the Community.
It seems a curious misreading of European politics to assume, as some do —my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) pointed this out —that all foreigners are hostile to us, or that they would think it in their interest, or indeed, be able, to unite or gang up against us. The truth is quite the contrary. No country in the world, and certainly none in Europe, has more
716
friends than Britain. Because our policies are moderate and sensible, experience over many years has shown that, so far from our encountering monolithic hostility in Europe, on the great majority of issues most European States tend to agree with the British viewpoint.
We have common interests; they share our outlook in international affairs, and they have worked closely with us in W.E.U., the Council of Europe, the O.E.E.C, N.A.T.O., and the O.E.C.D. To pretend otherwise is to underestimate the strength of our political position in Europe and to do a great injustice to ourselves.
I have already spoken of sovereignty and I want to continue with that theme in connection with political organisation. Here, I shall return to what the right hon. Member for Belper was saying, and I hope that I shall be able to convey to him the meaning of political organisation as we understand it. A new political organisation in Europe is something quite separate, and there could be no question of our accepting any commitment in the field of political union without the authority of Parliament—as there could not in the case of the European Community. In it the problem of sovereignty will not arise to anything like the same extent as under the Treaty of Rome. The plans which the Six have been discussing for European political union do not provide for any sort of majority voting or centralised decisions such as are to be found in the Treaty.
Perhaps the word "union" has misled some people. Policy decisions would all, in fact, be taken unanimously by the member Governments, and there is no question of our being asked to accept any federal system. But if we join the political union we share in directing and exercising the immense influence which a united Europe would have in world affairs. We shall want to play our full part in the creation of a common European point of view on political questions in the widest sense as well as on the economic questions. Therefore, the decision of the Six to try to form a political union is, we think, to be welcomed, not regretted. We share their aims and look forward to being able to join with them in this new task.
It is often said that we have a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth.

717
I thought that this rather hoary old chestnut had long since fallen to the ground. Provided that the outstanding points of controversy can be settled satisfactorily, the Commonwealth has much to gain from a successful outcome of the negotiations. By it Britain can bring Commonwealth countries into a fruitful relationship with the market, the capital resources, the skill and the political strength of Europe. If any hon. Members doubt this, or doubt that membership of the Common Market would strengthen Britain's position in the Commonwealth, I ask them to ponder this single figure. At present, India and Pakistan are receiving for their current development plans from the Common Market about twice as much aid as we are able to give them. Would we prefer to be associated with that effort or to be contrasted with it?
The art, I take it, of foreign policy consists in taking full account of the trend of the times in which we live and in turning it to advantage. The emergence of great centres of power—the United States, the Soviet Union, China and the European Community—is part of a long historical process. The tiny warring kingdoms of England were first united and ruled one thousand years ago from Winchester. Those who ignore this long historical process do so at their peril.
It was to confront this process that the founders of the European movement, among whom my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and Streatham (Mr. Sandys) were prominent, and which included many other hon. Members, set themselves a constructive task of organisation —nothing less than to use the vast resources of Europe in manpower, skill and materials, its cultural and spiritual values, for a co-operative effort for the common good.
I ask the House to consider the significance of the figures involved in this process. The population of the United Kingdom is 53 million; that of other member States of E.F.T.A. and associates is 41 million; that of the European Economic Community and associates is 230 million; and that of the Commonwealth and dependencies 670 million. Those are the populations which it is sought to bring into a har-
718
monious and efficient economic system of interdependence in varying degrees. It is obvious that such a vast enterprise with nearly 1,000 million people within it must, if it succeeds, have profound consequences for the world as a whole.
Mr. Harold Davies Mr. Harold Davies (Leek) rose—
Mr. Smithers: Not at this hour.
It will provide the British people and the E.F.T.A. Powers with sufficient opportunities in manufacturing and trade in a vast market requiring increasing quantities of the goods they can produce. It will provide them with the means of dealing with a whole range of problems on a wider front in co-operation with others. It will enable us to avoid perpetuating in Africa the economic divisions of Europe, and thus greatly help in the development of that Continent.
In the provision of development assistance, it will associate us with vast resources of capital. In the wider field still, it will be the longest step yet taken to that world-wide freeing of trade channels which has been the established policy of all British and American Governments since the end of the war and without which neither we nor our friends can develop our potentialities to the fullest extent.
For some years the preponderance of power moved steadily from Europe to the United States, but that position is now challenged by the increased might of the Communist world. A successful outcome of these negotiations would reverse both processes. In the first place, it would restore a better balanced structure to the free world. President Kennedy has outlined this new structure in his recent imaginative and welcome proposals for an Atlantic partnership, inking the United States and a united Europe, and serving turn as "a nucleus for the union of all free men".
Secondly, the free world itself would be so fortified by such a reorganisation that there would be a decisive shift in the world balance of wealth and power in favour of the forces of freedom. Those are some of the prizes which can be won from a successful conclusion of the negotiations.
I have long believed that the key to a better structure of world politics lies, perhaps surprisingly, in Europe. These

719
negotiations have revealed that this is the case. I have also long believed that the key to the structure of Europe is British participation in its affairs. Her Majesty's Government ask the House to accept that view.
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. Smithers: Though we hardly seem to recognise the fact for what it is, our country is once again offered the key rôle in world politics. So far from the historic destiny of the British people being played out, new and great vistas of opportunity are opening before us. They are of a magnitude sufficient to absorb and expand the creative genius of our people over a century.
This is the challenge before the House and the country in the months immediately ahead of us. The issues transcend party division and I hope that the House will agree that they are of an order of importance rising far above considerations of party advantage. As we approach what may be the most fateful decisions ever to confront our country —and it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who said that in his opinion it was the most important decision since 1066—Her Majesty's Government appeal to the House and the nation to discard present passions and historical prejudices.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the eloquent and moving appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West to that effect. I do not see how it is possible to judge a matter of this—
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. Smithers: I was saying that I do not see how a decision on this vital matter can be arrived at by the people of this country if they are confused by the passions and prejudices which seem to occupy the Press to such a large extent and which seem to be the motives of many people engaging in this controversy. I therefore join in my right
720
hon. Friend's appeal for a calm estimate of what is here involved.
We can then judge not the aspect of this matter which happens to affect us directly, or to engage our emotions, but the broad general consequences for mankind as we in this House and our people face the greatest decision of our times.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rees-Davies
Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move that the Question be put after it has lapsed.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Is it not absolutely unprecedented in the history of the House of Commons that on a major issue of this character—Britain's negotiations with the Common Market—on which some Members wish to divide the House, that the proposition should be fairly put to you that the Question be put, that you should refuse this proposition on two occasions, and then allow the debate to be talked out by Government action? Surely this is an absolutely unprecedented action by a Speaker.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that on a previous occasion I was anxious that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion by collecting the voices and dividing in the Lobbies, and that I was denied that opportunity.
On this occasion I think that one of my hon. Friends drew your attention, or the attention of the occupant of the Chair at the time, to the fact that there were a number of hon. Members who wished at this grave and critical moment to make it quite clear that they were against this whole proposition and wished to divide against it. So that there should be no doubt about our desire on this point, I ventured to claim to move that the Question be put at five minutes to ten, at three minutes to ten, and, in my opinion, just before ten o'clock.

721
On the first two occasions you declined to accept it. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary was clearly moving towards the end of his final peroration and it was perhaps common courtesy to allow him to finish, but courtesy is carried too far if it is carried to the point where the Members of the House of Commons, at a time when the Constitution and sovereignty of this country are about to be betrayed by Her Majesty's Government, without any mandate and without any authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—are denied the opportunity of expressing our opinions in the Lobbies. This is absolutely disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: I take full responsibility—
Mr. Silverman: You have no business to.
Mr. Speaker: —for declining, after due consideration, to accept the Motion for the Closure in the circumstances of the manifestly rather truncated debate that we were able to have today. In refusing to accept the Closure, I am the servant of the House, as in all things, and should the House think it wrong I would desire it to deal with me appropriately, but I cannot permit discussion of the matter now.
Mr. Silverman: I venture, very respectfully, to draw your attention to another fact, Mr. Speaker. I think that I was the first Member of the House to move in the House a ballotted-for Motion about the Common Market. On that occasion we had a very good debate, though I agree that it was limited to three hours. At the end of that three-hour debate, which was a fairly full one, you refused to allow a vote to be taken on the ground that the matter had not been sufficiently discussed.
It has been discussed time and time and time again since then, and on this occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I protest most strongly about this. It is—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is almost always courteous to the Chair. He must be, not only on any personal
722
basis but because it is necessary to do so in the interests of the office of the Chair. I hope that I have made it quite clear beyond any mistake or doubt that I cannot allow discussion on this matter now.
Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order.
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must resume his place. There is an appropriate procedure for dealing with me if I have done wrong. That can be adopted, and the matter can be discussed then, but my authority from the House does not allow me to permit an irregular discussion of the matter now.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I say at once that nothing that I have said was intended to make any personal reflection, or to show any lack of courtesy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I entirely accept that from the hon. Member, but by persisting against my clear indication that I cannot permit a discussion of the matter now, and that I have no authority to do so, the hon. Member may get into a position of committing some disrespect, which I am sure he does not wish to create.
Mr. Silverman: I think that you are aware, Mr. Speaker—as all of us are aware—that the procedure that you are inviting me to adopt cannot easily or conveniently be adopted at this time in the Session. There is no time for it— and you perfectly well know that there is no time for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to take this opportunity of expressing, on the record of the House, my profound dissent from the decision which you have given. It is one that the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a personal dislike of, and a slight boredom about, martyrdom.
Mr. M. Foot: I do not know what business it is of yours, Mr. Speaker, to talk about martyrdom in such circumstances. My hon. Friend was making a protest because he was denied, as others are being denied, the right to vote on a matter which we believe to be of

723
absolutely major importance for the future of this country. We have been denied the right to vote, and you have said that you would not give your reasons, or explain your reasons, why you had reached this decision— although, in another aside, you did so, when you said that the reason why you had refused to accept by hon. Friend's Motion in these circumstances was that the debate had been truncated. I do not believe that that is a ground on which the House of Commons, departing for three months, should be denied the right to give its view whether these negotiations should go ahead. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the reference you made to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: I am getting a little weary of this. The House can deal with me if I am wrong. I desire the House— and I think it is right—to get on.
Mr. Gilbert Longden: On a point of order. Lest any reader of these proceedings should be left under any misapprehension, I would like to place on record the fact that although the Government benches are fairly full, the Opposition benches consist of 30 Members, including seven Members of the Liberal Party.
Mr. L. M. Lever: Is the hon. Member including me?

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES (INQUIRIES AND PROCEDURE)
10.9 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 1424), dated 9th July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be annulled.
One thing is undeniable; from what the hon. Members opposite have been saying it is clear that Members of the House of Commons would indeed provide a forceful debating assembly in the Common Market. If what we have heard just now is anything to go by, there is not the slightest doubt that, whether or not hon. Members opposite may later want to join us in the Common Market, they will certainly have the courage and nerve necessary for the debates which will take place in due course.
The matters that we are discussing now raise the issue of the liberty of the subject. If there is one thing that is clear it is this: that the subjects that we are about to discuss are among those to which we can make the greatest possible contribution if we should enter the Common Market.
I am sure that those who are interested in the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and the procedure relating to the town planning rules and regulations in the event of the acquisition of property, or of applying the rules of procedure that relate thereto, will all agree that in one field at least this country has an over-riding sense of responsibility, and that is to preserve for the people of this country full and fair play in matters which affect their interests and their property. I think that it would have been wholly wrong, therefore, if one had not taken the opportunity tonight to raise this matter by way of a negative Resolution.
I would remind the House that these two matters which Mr. Speaker has given permission to be discussed together and in which in their layout and general format clearly fall to be discussed together, arise originally from the findings of the Franks Committee. Following the findings of that Committee, as the House will remember, the
726
Government passed the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, and set up the Council of Tribunals. That Council has made various recommendations and, through the Lord Chancellor, have now been laid these Rules.
The Rules are laid under Section 7A and they provide for the widest recognition and for rules to be laid governing these procedures. They are of the greatest importance to many citizens in this country. It so happens that under Section 7A the Rules are not laid by the affirmative Resolution of this House and the matter may be discussed only on a negative Resolution. There are some matters of criticism which I wish to raise tonight. It would be idle to say that in the main it will not be a great event when these resolutions come into effect in October. Dealing first with the general position regarding both of them the situation in the country today is anomalous. I ask the Government to take very careful note that under the town planning regulations, for example, we have four main parties, the applicant, the objectors—I will say more as to who really constitutes an objector— the local authorities and Her Majesty's Government.
If the applicant is refused permission, the whole power of the governmental machinery comes into effect under the town planning regulations. But if, perchance, the applicant is given permission by the delegated authority—usually the local authority—that is an end of the matter and there is nothing whatever that the objector can do. Thus the general position which we find tonight is that there is a substantial difference regarding the procedures which these regulations lay down, which are of great benefit to the applicant, but which may, and indeed frequently are at present, of no benefit at all to the objector. It is fundamental, therefore, that this matter should be discussed. I hope that it will be widely publicised to those who have a real concern in these matters because to the estate agents, the surveyors, the municipal associations, the town clerks and all those concerned with town planning it is of very real importance that those who are engaged in minor capacities in the local authorities, in the county councils and the local councils, should

727
read these regulations and seek to carry into effect the purpose of them in their own affairs.
I give an example from my district. Recently in the town of Birchington there was a great outcry because of a large amount of high building in part of that town which hitherto has had very low buildings, a large number of bungalows and one-storey buildings. As a result, the immediate neighbours to the applicants and citizens and burgesses of the town were in many cases deeply aggrieved by the permission granted by the local authority. Yet once it had been granted it would be impossible for the Minister to over-rule the granting of that permission without having to give compensation to the applicant because the permission had already been granted. Then the Minister refused to accede to the suggestion of a public inquiry. So it came about that there was no real opportunity—whether it was right or wrong I do not seek to argue— for the neighbours or citizens to raise their true and proper objections to what affected the planning of their town.
This is true throughout the country. Consequently, local authorities have asked me to make suggestions on how this should be brought about. Imagine my pleasure to find that at this time the Government have come forward with a code of regulations which in very large effect will enable such matters to be remedied in future. One of the matters for which I ask is that the Government and the Minister, be it the Solicitor-General or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, should make clear to local authorities that they shall give just as much regard to the position of the objector who may be a neighbour or the citizens of the town or societies which often represent themselves in those towns on behalf of burgesses as they will give a fair and legitimate hearing to any other objector. That is part of the very important background to the matters before us tonight.
I shall deal with one or two matters on the planning regulations. As I have indicated, they are substantially the same. One of the most important things is this. The trouble about lawyers—and I speak as one—is that we tend in trying to defend, and legitimately and properly to
728
defend, the interests of those who have matters which ought to be considered, to forget also that housing and town planning construction today is a matter Which requires the greatest possible expedition. Therefore we must try to achieve the objectives we seek and at the same time do so expeditiously.
I was frankly rather worried when picking up the Rules to see that in both cases in paragraph 4 (3), the date, time and place for the holding of an inquiry, be it a compulsory purchase inquiry or a town planning inquiry, shall be fixed but may be varied by the Minister who shall give not less than forty-two days' notice unless all the parties agree to a further period. We cannot amend regulations or I would have asked that this be amended to twenty-eight days instead of forty-two and that the other periods should be shortened by seven days.
At the moment it takes a very long time. By the time the application is put in and has been discussed when there is to be an inquiry there are forty-two days and something like three or four months pass before the inquiry is fixed. Unfortunately, because of the considerable quantity of work which the Ministry has there is usually a further three months before the result is known. The effect of this is a delay of anything from seven to nine months. If in the outcome permission is to be granted that may have a very serious effect on the construction and planning of the work to be carried out.
I ask that if the House passes these regulations as they stand the Minister should send out a circular at the same time asking all local authorities, where possible, to limit that amount of time and not to permit the full forty-two days to run if it can possibly be shortened. I hope the objectors will not be encouraged to try to put off the evil hour, if I may put it that way, for some little further time.
That is one matter. Another matter of importance is contained in paragraph 5 (2). I appreciate the difficulties, but there a discretion is given to the appointed person holding the inquiry to allow any other person to appear at that inquiry in his discretion. There has already been laid down reference to the particular objector, the planning authority and certain other parties, and the

729
question has been raised in another place, and also by the council in its consideration, what would be the position and who would be an objector? Who is the aggrieved person?
For example, supposing that in the instance I gave of Birchington, or in Margate or Ramsgate, a perfectly legitimate policy decision is made by the council that in future it would build all its buildings to a height of ten or twelve storeys. We might well find that all the best people able to give an opinion on this matter were in the local chamber of trade. It may be that there is some local preservation society, or that there is a local association of architects. It may be one of a number of different bodies, and the question which therefore arises in a matter of that kind is that the party aggrieved is not necessarily the immediate neighbour. I am not suggesting that the immediate neighbour is not the person most likely to be aggrieved, but it may be wider than that.
It may be that the town as a whole has taken up a matter of this kind and may regard itself as consisting of aggrieved persons. It is, therefore, of considerable importance that we should have some guidance from the Minister tonight as to who are to be considered the persons who may reasonably appear at the inquiry at the discretion of the appointed person, and what sort of guidance will be given to the inspectors. The inspectors are admirable people, and those of us who know them would pay them the highest tribute for their endeavours to carry out their functions satisfactorily, but, in doing so, what Ministerial guidance are they to receive?
Supposing various local bodies turn up at the inquiry, perhaps represented by counsel, as not infrequently they do. What will the inspector say to them? Will he say that this affects merely a small planning matter, to which they will reply that they know perfectly well that there are plans which will cover the whole town in the same way? What will be his reply in those circumstances? I agree that we must draw the line somewhere, and that we cannot have everybody turning up. Recently, I had the opportunity of seeing the circumstances which arose in the case of the closure of a branch railway line, where the whole town wanted to turn up, but by the common consent of the local
730
community, they decided that it could all be done through their various councils and chambers of trade jointly represented. What happens if people insist on turning up? In this case, one parish council insisted on turning up on its own. There is not all that difference between the closing of a branch railway line and some of the large, major redevelopment schemes in our main towns. I think that is of considerable importance.
This regulation carries into effect in many other regards many of the most important measures. It provides that there should be a full hearing. One of the most important provisions is that the Minister, if so desired, shall send a representative from his Department to attend the inquiry and to explain the reasons for it. Furthermore, the procedure whereby other Government Departments made secret representations, about which we knew nothing, is replaced by a provision whereby these representations shall be open and shall take place at the inquiry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who sits lonely on the Opposition benches, and who understands these matters so well, will agree with me and with my right hon. Friend that this is an important advance.
It has already been shown that these inspectors are well able to make a written report to their Minister, whether they obtain assistance subsequently from those who are senior in the Department or not—and I care not. Their reports seem good. I am sure that the Ministry have at last come to appreciate that the existence of a report and the fact that the Minister has to reach a decision and to give reasons for it mean that the procedure carries much greater weight with the public.
The Minister has to do this because he was forced to do so by the terms of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act and by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment, some of whom are former Cabinet Ministers and some of whom are Ministers today. There was a strong feeling in the Government Department that they should not make public what might be a matter of policy.
In paragraph 6 they have had a crack at introducing this provision by saying

731
that at the inquiry the Minister's representative shall elucidate the statement of the reasons given for the Minister's direction, not being questions which in the opinion of the appointed person
"are directed to the merits of Government policy ".
The inspector may well be in some difficulty in deciding whether to rule that it is a question of Government policy.
I am sure that this has led to great debate in the Ministry of Housing where they no doubt thought that there would be difficulties. I do not believe that there are difficulties. The common sense of the inspectors and the tolerance and generally reasonable attitude of those who appear at inquiries means that this will not work satisfactorily. Many people may ask whether we are not throwing a burden on to an administrator which it is not fair for him to have to carry. But I think that the procedure will work satisfactorily. At the conclusion of an inquiry we shall find that the source of friction and irritation and many of the objections have been removed and that the citizen accepts the position. That is the democratic process.
The compulsory purchase rule works in a different way. There the local authority is put into the position of applicant. The burden of proof is thrown on the local authority to establish its case. There may be objectors to the compulsory acquisition of land. A decision has to be taken by the Minister, and this is a referable issue. The position is quite different. If a local authority is minded to acquire certain land it knows that if it applies the compulsory purchase procedure it may be faced with an inquiry. If, on the other hand, it can persuade someone to purchase the land and gives him permission to develop it—from which there is no appeal—it may later acquire it from him by consent. In that way the authority can get round it without any power of objection or difficulty.
One matter which I have been raising with the Ministry about the future is this. In future there will be a very close liaison between local authorities and property companies and builders. The local authority will probably have some land available. There may be another parcel of land which is not available. The local
732
authority wants to enter into a partnership scheme in which the builders or property companies will develop. The authority wants to be able to control the planning of the land. Thus, if the authority can ensure that the land is taken over by the property developer who acquires it first, it gives permission and pays little heed to the objectors' point of view. The whole matter can then go through easily. If an authority applies the procedure in the Rules, it will be faced with a detailed and almost quasi-judicial inquiry.
I therefore ask the Minister—it is his responsibility rather than that of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be dealing with what I may call the Franks side of the matter —to bear this whole question in mind and make it clear to local authorities that, if these Rules do not of themselves suffice to ensure that the proper standards of justice, for both applicant and objector, apply he will not hesitate to take the necessary sanctions to ensure that there is protection for all.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will have appreciated by now that I do not particularly desire to annul the Rules.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Niall MacDermot: The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for having moved to annul these Rules, even if in a somewhat halfhearted manner as to his desire for annulment. This gives us the only opportunity we can have to discuss and analyse these very important new Rules.
We would all begin by welcoming the Rules, which apparently are the first of a series governing different kinds of tribunals and inquiries which all come within the ambit of the Council on Tribunals and Inquiries. Of necessity most of my remarks will appear critical, because they are directed to raising detailed points. I want to make it clear from the outset that I most warmly welcome the appearance of these Rules. Many of them are only putting now into statutory form the very greatly improved practice which has been adopted for some time following the Report of the Franks Committee.
My first point arises under Rule 2 (a) and is as to the scope of these Rules.

733
They are limited at the moment to appeals under Section 16. I ask for an assurance that it is proposed without delay to publish rules concerning applications under Section 15. Section 16 appeals are the ordinary appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act against a refusal of planning permission. It is laid down in that Section that these appeals shall be dealt with by the same procedure as is laid down in Section 15. Section 15 deals with applications for planning permission which are called in by the Minister and which he himself will decide instead of leaving them to the local planning authority to decide. These are for the most part the more important applications, ones which raise important policy issues. That is why, by and large, the Minister calls them in.
It certainly seems anomalous that we should have the Rules laid down for the ordinary planning appeals but have no Rules laid down for the procedure in what may be the much more important cases coming under Section 15. I can appreciate that one cannot have exactly the same Rules covering both sets of inquiries—in particular, the procedure before an inquiry will be different in the Section 15 case as compared with that coming under Section 16—but bearing in mind that they are important, and one can think of the example of the North Oxfordshire Ironstone case, it is obvious that we should soon have Rules to cover that type of case.
My next point relates to Rule 4 (9), and here I simply ask what is meant by the phrase "person interested". The Rule provides that:
"The local planning authority shall afford any other person interested a reasonable opportunity to inspect and, where practicable, to take copies of the authority's statement and the other documents referred to in the last foregoing paragraph."
In other words, that gives a right to "any other person interested"—whatever that may mean—to see the planning authority's own statement and supporting documents in the same way as the appellant himself will be able to.
I am not sure what is meant by a "person interested." It cannot mean a person with a legal interest in the land, because he is already covered; he is one of the persons whose rights are protected as a Section 37 party. If it means a
734
person who may be injuriously affected, as it were—the kind of objector to whom the hon. Member referred, the neighbouring owner—how is he to be distinguished from any other objector? If it merely means a person who is taking an interest in the appeal, in the ordinary colloquial sense, there would not seem to be any need to define him as a person interested; it would be any person.
I should therefore like to be told what is meant by the term. It is not defined in the Rules. And when a person says, "I am a person interested, and I want to take a copy of your statement," how is the local planning authority to decide whether or not he is, in fact, a person interested?
I turn, next, to Rule 5 (4), and ask to what it is directed. It deals with appeals at the inquiry:
"Where there are two or more persons having a similar interest in the matter under inquiry the appointed person may allow one or more persons to appear for the benefit of some or all persons so interested."
It is already provided in the previous paragraph that any person
"… may appear on his own behalf or be represented by counsel, solicitor or any other person."
He does not need the consent of the inspector for that. Any person who is entitled to appear can be represented by any other person.
What is this Rule directed to? What is meant by "persons having a similar interest" in any inquiry? It is a local interest, or not? And what is meant by a person appearing for the benefit of some other person, as contrasted to a person who represents some other person, which is dealt with in the previous paragraph? I merely seek an explanation, because I cannot follow the distinction.
I move on to Rule 7 (3)—a point touched on the hon. Member. It deals with the question of the duty of the inspector, as it is under these Rules, to
"… disallow any questions which in his opinion are directed to the merits of Government policy."
I can see that one does not want a planning inquiry turned into a wrangle about whether or not the Government are adopting the right policy in a particular matter. But clearly, if one is to be

735
able intelligently to cross-examine a representative of a Government Department at an inquiry, one needs to probe the policy statement that has been made to find out what are the underlying reasons for it, its objectives and what it is trying to achieve so that one can then see whether to apply that policy to the case in hand.
It is always a difficult question for a tribunal to decide what is a matter of fact and what is a matter of policy, and if it is made mandatory here, as it is, on the tribunal to disallow any question directed to matters of policy, is this not going unduly to restrict the discretion of the inspector? Would it not be better to have the word "may" instead of "shall"—in other words, for discretion to be left to the inspector to allow questions of policy matters in so far as they really are necessary to assist in determining the subject matter of the inquiry?
The next point I wish to raise comes under Rule 8 (4), in which it is stated that the inspector shall not permit the production of any evidence which would be contrary to the public interest. Can the Solicitor-General, who many of my hon. Friends will be delighted to see occupying his new office, give some indication of how it is envisaged that the inspector will decide whether any evidence is contrary to the public interest?
One knows of the difficulties which have arisen in the High Court in recent years—and there was the statement by the Lord Chancellor—on matters of privilege. How will this be dealt with at an inquiry at which one may be dealing not only with evidence given by or on behalf of Government Departments, but evidence given by, perhaps, individual applicants who are doing, say, contract work—perhaps secret contract work— for a Government Department? How is the inspector to determine this? Will there be any argument allowed? If so, how will it take place, particularly on the question of whether evidence will or will not be permissible?
I now come to Rule 10 (2), which is the major matter I wish to raise. Some reference was made to it in the Press today, namely, the rights of third parties, as they have been called, to be notified in certain cases of this procedure after
736
an inquiry. The point arises in this way. Following the well-known chalkpit case, it is now, happily, provided in these Rules that when the Minister has received the inspectors' report, if the Minister takes a different view on a finding of fact from the inspector or if, after the inquiry, he receives any new evidence—including expert opinion—or takes into consideration any new issue of fact which was not raised at the inquiry, he must not come to a decision without notifying the parties; that is, the appellant, the local planning authority and any Section 37 party—that is, any person who is interested in the land which is the subject matter of the appeal—who can then make representations in writing or, in other cases, can ask for the inquiry to be reopened.
The important question which has already been raised in another place is why, in those circumstances, should not a third person, as he is called, have the same right. A third person may be absolutely vitally interested in the outcome of the appeal. In most cases he will be an adjoining or neighbouring owner. If I have a house on my land and someone comes along next door where there is at the moment a residential user, and wants to put up a factory, clearly this is going to affect me tremendously. It will affect not only the value of the land but the amenities and the enjoyment of my property. Clearly I am likely to object at the hearing of the appeal. I am a person interested, I presume, within the meaning of this earlier Rule to which I referred. I would be entitled to go to the local planning authority and ask for a statement. I assume that I would be regarded as a person having an interest in the inquiry within Rule 5 (4).
It is recognised that I have a number of rights under these Rules. For example, I have the right to be heard subject to the consent of the inspector. That is under Rule 5 (2). I take it that in the case of an adjoining owner, who obviously would be affected, the inspector would never refuse that consent. Again to the extent permitted by the inspector, I have the right to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses. That is provided under Rule 8 (3). I also have the right to appear by counsel or solicitor or by any other person.

737
My standing, as it were, at the inquiry is acknowledged and recognised there. I am not a person who has the same legal right as the planning authority or as the appellant himself referred to in fine main body of the Act. But the practice has, of course, arisen under these planning inquiries always to allow third persons to appear and to be heard and to take an official part in the proceedings, and that is given official recognition in these Rules.
As has been pointed out by the Council on Tribunals in the Report which it published in Cmnd. 1787, it has represented to the Lord Chancellor that it considers that these Rules ought to allow a third person, in effect, to have the same facilities as are given under these rules to the other persons referred to there, to reopen the matter and ask for the inquiry to be re-opened. This is put succinctly in paragraph 3 of the Report:
"It cannot be right for some of those who took part in the inquiry, but not others, to be consulted on these occasions."
Paragraph 4 states:
"It is generally agreed that the present practice of letting in third parties is right, both in justice to themselves and in order to enable the Minister to take the best possible decision with all local opinion before him. But legal difficulties have been raised against the proposal to provide for third parties in the rules of procedure. It is said that this would be to confer legal rights on classes of persons who have no legal rights under the Planning Acts, and perhaps to extend the class of persons 'aggrieved' who can seek remedies in the High Court. It is argued that it would be wrong, under the guise of rules of procedure, to make an important change in the classes of persons who have procedural rights under the Planning Acts."
Paragraph 5 says:
"In view of these legal objections the Council have not felt able to insist on rights in favour of third parties being inserted in the rules."
The Report goes on to say that the Council has nevertheless asked for those rights, as it were, in practice to be granted.
With respect to the Council, I should have thought that it was being a little timid in the way in which it presented its argument here. If the procedural rules provided that these third parties should be notified in the same way as the other parties, and given the opportunity to ask for the inquiry to be reopened, I cannot see that that would be
738
giving them any legal rights at all. All that would happen would be that a proper practice would be laid down in these Rules for seeing that justice was done and was manifestly seen to be done and that persons who were vitally interested in the result of the appeal were given exactly the same facilities for making their view known to the Minister.
The reason why the Minister in the first place allows an objector to come along and object is that it is recognised that the Minister cannot fairly decide the matter until he has heard from the inspector what are the representations which objectors want to make about how they would be affected. These representations are not only a matter merely of presenting evidence but include commenting on the evidence which is given by other parties, by the applicant and by the local authority. If the Minister, after the inquiry is all over and after he has received the report of the inspector, is then to take into account other new matter which was not raised at the inquiry, surely it is just as necessary that he should have the comments of those third parties on that new matter as that he should have the comments of the planning authority, of the applicant or of the Section 37 parties.
I cannot see that it is in any way introducing a new principle to say that the third parties should have the same rights as the other parties at this stage, and it is not conferring any legal rights upon them. Nor could it, as I understand the matter, give them any basis for later making an application to the High Court as persons aggrieved. This was one of the arguments used in another place against the proposition which I am advancing. It was suggested that in some way they would be able later to go to the High Court and say that they were parsons aggrieved, when, as is well known, Mr. Justice Salmon in a recent case decided that they were not and could not claim to be. The mere fact that these Rules give a right to appear at the original inquiry, to be represented and to make objections and to inspect the local authority's documents does not confer any such standing as was suggested. I am sure it will not be argued that any of those things would give them any basis on

739
which to allege later that they are persons aggrieved. Why should it, if these persons merely have the same rights, if "rights" be the correct word to use, under Rule 10 as any of the other persons who are dealt with already under that Rule?
Those are the matters I wished to raise. The Council on Tribunals feels very strongly on this point. It is a subject to which it has given great care, and yesterday, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, it made public the correspondence which it has had with him about it. I ask the Solicitor-General to give some further explanation as to what the real objection is to this provision being made for third parties in the Rules. Even if there is some objection to it in the Rules, cannot the Government reflect again upon the request by the Council on Tribunals that, even if it be thought undesirable to provide for it explicitly in the Rules, these third parties should be able in practice to have the same facilities in the way that hitherto such facilities have always been given in practice to objectors at inquiries?
All the comments I have made have been directed to the Planning Appeals Rules, but they are all equally relevant to the other Rules which, of course, follow them very closely. I shall not go over the same ground.
My final word is to express some surprise that the Council on Tribunals appears only to have taken up this matter in relation to planning appeals. I should have thought that this question of the rights of third parties had just as much relevance in the Compulsory Purchase Rules. It is true that the statutory objectors, as they are called under those Rules, are a somewhat wider class than the more privileged parties under the Planning Appeals Rules, but still one has the position of the neighbouring owner who is not even having any of his own land acquired but who will be vitally affected—perhaps the most forceful objector of all—and who stall will be a third party under those Rules. I should have thought that, under these Rules, he should have had the same advantages of being able to ask for an inquiry to be reopened as third parties under the Planning Appeals Rules.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: I welcome this further recognition of the position of non-statutory objectors, because in the past, although they would be heard if they turned up at an appeal, they had no rights at all. Their position is gradually improving, as I feel it should.
In May last year the Ministry of Housing and Local Government issued a circular, paragraphs 11 to 15 of which dealt with the notification to the public of planning applications. This implies that the public are entitled to know about these applications and are entitled to put forward objections to them. These Rules make it clear that members of the public can attend these inquiries and put forward their objections. If, however, there is no inquiry, potential objectors are in a more difficult position than ever. I hope that those who take the decision whether to grant an application or refuse it and probably invoke a public inquiry will be even more careful in the future than they have been in the past in ensuring that these non-statutory objectors get a fair crack of the whip.
There is the ordinary case where the planning authority, have notified the local residents that a development plan has been submitted, receives objections to it but nevertheless goes ahead and gives approval to the proposed scheme. There is then no chance of an inquiry. In circumstances like this, the planning authority should very carefully consider the position of the non-statutory objectors, and if possible lean over backwards to refuse the application and thus ensure that there is an appeal.
The Minister may come into the picture in two ways. First, a proposal having been rejected, there is an appeal to the Minister. Instead of ordering a statutory inquiry, he may deal with the matter by means of written representation of the parties. In such a case the non-statutory objectors are cut out and the matter is dealt with directly between the planning authority and the applicant. The non-statutory objectors naturally feel aggrieved at the matter having been settled behind their backs, especially as they were all set to go to the inquiry to register their objections.

741
The second way in which the Minister may come into the picture is this. In a recent case an application was made to the Minister himself. The Minister did not abide by his own rules and inform the local inhabitants about the proposal, which was to put up a ten-storey block of flats near some houses in Leverstock Green, Hemel Hempstead. He granted planning approval, and the objectors to the scheme feel that they have a legitimate grouse. They consider that there should have been a planning appeal. I welcome the Rules, but I hope that they will be taken further, to ensure that even greater privileges—but not rights—are granted to these non-statutory objectors in the future.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Antony Buck: I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward these Statutory Instruments to incorporate the recommendations of the Franks Committee Council on Tribunals. I particularly welcome Rule 10, which has already been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) about sub-paragraph (2) of that Rule, whereby not all parties who were concerned at the appeal are provided with notice of the Minister's determination not to agree with the recommendation of his inspector. I hope that this can be extended quite simply to ensure that all those who were at the appeal should be given equal rights.
On the whole, however, I commend Rule 10, which incorporates in a statutory form the recommendations of the Franks Committee. It will clear up much of the difficulty which has arisen in cases where the Minister decides not to accept the recommendation of his Inspector.
In view of the lateness of the hour I will confine my further remarks about the Statutory Instruments to one aspect, namely, the position of parish councils. At the moment their position under planning law generally is somewhat unsatisfactory. It would be out of order to go into the matter in detail, but, as my hon. and learned Friend will know, these councils are not informed about planning applications, and a case could be
742
made on another occasion for their being so informed. I am concerned however that their position should be fully protected when there is an appeal.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider carefully whether they should not be named by the Minister as persons to be served with notice of an inquiry under Rule 4 (4, b). I strongly urge that he should so provide. I need not go into the merits of the question. Parish councils may know what is going on in their areas, but it is quite appropriate that they should be informed of the goings on in the village or the area around, and be given an opportunity to consider their position at an early stage, when an inquiry on appeal arises, and to seek legal advice or send their clerks on the appropriate day, or to be represented. I recommend that course.
If the Minister is not minded to take that course, I submit that he should indicate clearly that parish councils are people to be considered and allowed a hearing under the provisions of Rule 5, sub-paragraph (2), which provides that
"Any other person may appear at the inquiry at the discretion of the appointed person."
If my hon. and learned Friend could say that he is minded that they should be allowed to be heard at these inquiries it would go some way towards fulfilling the entirely legitimate aspirations of the parish councils to be kept in touch with the developments taking place within their parishes.
I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure me on those two paints.
11.5 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the welcome they have given to these Rules, and also for the kind words said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). These are important Rules, and this is an important subject, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). They are important in the context in which we are discussing them this evening.
The general matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, my hon. Friend

743
the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) will be noted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has been sitting beside me.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I spend a little time over the many matters which I have to answer. The purpose of these Rules is that they should govern the procedure to be followed at inquiries into proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities and on appeals to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under Section 16 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, they were laid by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor under Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958. It is hoped, if Parliament approves these Rules that they will serve as a model for other types of statutory inquiries.
In answer to the one point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North with regard to Section 15 cases, there are only about 200 compared with the 5,000 which arise under Section 16. Those Rules are not yet in draft, but it is intended to press ahead with them using these as a model.
These Rules have been approved by the Council of Tribunals and they are based on the recommendations of the Council itself. Hon. Members will recollect that when the House considered what came to be known as the chalkpit case, the Council indicated its intention to make a report on the whole problem of handling new factual evidence after the inquiry, and the application of the principles of the Franks Committee to which I will return later. The Council made its report to my noble Friend on 30th March of this year. These Rules are the outcome of its deliberations.
There is only one respect in which the Government have not felt able to go quite as far as the Council would have wished. That has nothing to do with the Rules and I will return to it later. There were two matters to which the Council gave particular consideration concerning these Rules on which they reported to the Lord Chancellor and both
744
arose, one directly and the other indirectly, from the chalkpit case.
The first, which has been touched on already this evening, concerned the question of the procedure to be followed where the Minister proposed to reject the recommendations made by the inspector holding the inquiry. What the Council concluded was that where the Minister proposed to disagree with the inspector's recommendations because of some factor not considered at the inquiry, or because he differed from the findings of fact made by the inspector holding the inquiry, he should give the parties to the appeal the opportunity of making representations in writing before making his decision.
But where, on the other hand, he proposed to depart from the inspector's recommendations, because of fresh evidence, including expert evidence, or the introduction of a fresh issue, he should reopen the inquiry, if any of the parties asked him to do so. The Government fully accept the justice of these recommendations and effect is given to them by these Rules which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The relevant Rule referring to expert opinion on a matter of fact—this was raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North—echoes paragraph 350 of the Franks Report, which, I Chink, it is unnecessary for me to cite again. The Franks Committee clearly distinguished between factual evidence, which included expert evidence, received by the Minister after the inquiry, whether from the Government officials or other sources, and the ordinary advice which the Minister gets from the officials.
The Committee believed that the first category should be disclosed and that the second should not. This, as hon. Members will know, agrees with the long-standing practice of the courts in this sphere. The Council of Tribunals accepted that distinction and the Government fully accept that any new evidence, including expert opinion on matters of fact must, and shall in future, be disclosed.
Before I turn to the one matter which appears to have raised most misgiving, a matter was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of

745
Thanet in relation to the amount of 42 days' notice which was given and which he thought was too extensive. The Regulations originally provided for 28 days' notice of the inquiry. This was extended to 42 days because the Council on Tribunals thought that 21 days giving notice of the authority's case should be given to the other side. That time was accordingly extended to 28 days and the whole time was extended to 42 days for that reason. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have heard what my toon. Friend said about this. One of the matters one wishes to avoid in all these procedures is, of course, delay.
Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the question of delay, will he deal with the other matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), of delay after the inquiry? One appreciates that there is an accumulation of these things in the Ministry, but is there no way of cutting down the period after the inquiry, which sometimes runs into nine or twelve months?
The Solicitor-General: This matter, which as my hon. Friend pointed out causes concern, is at the moment under very careful consideration at the Ministry, I understand, because it is the intention and hope to cut the period as much as possible.
Misgivings which have been expressed relate particularly to the rights of what are called third parties both at the inquiry and after it and when consideration of the kind to which I have been referring arises, that is to say where under the planning rules new evidence arises. This was the second matter on which the Council submitted the special report to the Lord Chancellor in June this year. After the debate in another place last week there followed correspondence between the Chairman of the Council, Lord Tenby, and the Lord Chancellor.
It often happens that when a person applies to a local planning authority for planning permission, third parties, that is neighbours or local residents, feel concern about the outcome of that development should it be granted. If the application is granted they feel that the value of their property will perhaps fall and naturally they are anxious to have
746
their views taken into account by the inspector holding the inquiry. In most cases any representations they may wish to make will be put by the planning authority which is the other party to the appeal, but this is not always the case because such a third party may have a particular interest he wants to be considered. Conversely, third parties often appear in support of planning permission.
I use the expression "third party", which has been used already by the hon. Member for Derby, North, advisedly because it is most important that it should be made perfectly clear that as a matter of law the neighbouring landowner is not a party to an appeal. This was shown very clearly in the chalkpit case where, as hon. Members will recollect, Major Buxton and other neighbouring landowners thought the land would be damaged if the applicants were allowed to work the chalk pit.
When the Minister allowed the appeal against the refusal, Major Buxton and other landowners applied to the High Court for an order to quash the Minister's decision—the hon. Member referred to that case—but the judge who heard the application, Mr. Justice Salmon, made clear in his judgment what was the position in law under the Act. It was that before the town and country planning legislation any landowner was free to develop his land as he liked within the common law. No adjoining landowner had any enforceable right except under common law against nuisance and trespass.
The town and country planning legislation created a restriction of development for the benefit of the public at large and imposed no new rights on any individual members of the public whether they lived close to or far from the area of the proposed development. The local planning authority was established as a guardian of the public right, and there was a right of appeal only if the local planning authority refused permission to the applicant to develop the land.
In practice, these third parties have an opportunity of putting their views at the inquiry and do put their views to the inspector at the inquiry; they are allowed by the inspector to appear.

747
Their position is fully reserved in Rule 5 (2) of the planning rules. Furthermore, under Rule 4 (9) third parties are entitled to inspect and to take copies of the planning authority's documents and statement. Under Rule 8 they can give evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the inspector's discretion. The provision has been deliberately left wide, with the words "party interested", so that the inspector's discretion is in no way curbed and so that in the exercise of his discretion he can permit these persons to appear and to make their case and to cross-examine. Persons often take these steps to ensure that their views are before the inspector.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is very important at this stage that the widest representation should be made, so that the Minister ultimately receives the most extensive information about the proposed development. But these are not "persons aggrieved" in the words of Mr. Justice Salmon in the chalkpit case. They may play a part in making representations but they are not parties to the appeal. Accordingly, the only major respect in which third parties do not have the benefit of those who are full parties to the proceedings is in the procedure to be followed after the inquiry.
I said earlier that there is one respect in which the Government have not felt able to go as far as the Council on Tribunals suggested. In its Report the Council recognised the legal position of third parties as I have explained it and accepted that it was not right to press for the rights for third parties to be inserted in the Rules, but the Council recommended that an assurance should be given in Parliament that third parties would, in practice, be given the benefit of the rules as if they had, in fact, been given legal rights by the Rules.
It would not be right in the Rules themselves to put third panties in the same position as parties to the appeal, and the Council on Tribunals accepted that this would not be possible. The reason why it cannot be done is founded in the reasons given by Mr. Justice Salmon, in his judgment. He pointed out that the legislation with which we are concerned here, the parent Act, conferred no right on the third parties, and
748
he said that he had to have regard to the general scheme of the legislation. That being so, it is not possible to endeavour to confer rights on third parties, as it were, by the back door, as has been suggested. If the Rules before the House were to confer legal rights on third parties, such as the right to appear before the inquiry and the right to ask for the reopening of the inquiry in certain circumstances, there is no doubt that such Rules would purport to extend the Town and Country Planning Act beyond what the court had held to be its proper scope.
Some hon. Members may think that legislation should be extended so as to confer new rights on individuals. Whether it should or should not, surely it would be wrong to seek to alter the law in this way by new Rules of Procedure, and if such a wide change had to be made, it should be made deliberately by Parliament.
The Council on Tribunals suggested— and this suggestion has been pursued to a certain extent this evening—that third parties should be put in the same position as the parties to the appeal, subject only to the fact that they should not have the legal right in the recourse to the courts. The Council suggested in consequence that the Government should give the assurance of which I have spoken that third parties would be given the same opportunities as the actual parties to an appeal under the planning Rules to make further representations or to ask for the re-opening of the inquiry.
I cannot give any assurance to that effect, because there are serious practical objections. The Government do not consider 'that any great practical advantage would follow from the adoption of such a procedure. It would cause quite unacceptable delays, of which some of my hon Friends have already spoken. It would cause unacceptable delay in the reaching of decisions on appeals. The House has heard how often complaints are made about the time taken to deal with appeals. If everyone heard at an enquiry were to be given the opportunity of asking for the inquiry to be reopened where the Rules provide for the parties to make such a request, the delay would be increased.

749
The Council sought to avoid this difficulty by limiting this recommendation to those
"who … by reason of loss of amenity or depreciation of the value of their property or on other similar grounds may fairly be regarded, in the ordinary use of language, as affected by the proposals in question."
That limitation and that test would impose the invidious and almost impossible task on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of deciding whether a particular objector was covered by these words. It is a duty which he ought not to be asked to undertake.
I suggest that, in practice, the third party who has a real interest—this is the person to whom I think the hon. Member for Derby, North referred—is unlikely to be prejudicially affected. In the nature of things his interest—not always, but usually—must be or usually can be identified with the interest of one or other of the parties to the appeal. If his interest is substantial, presumably that party would welcome his assistance and he is likely to receive, albeit indirectly, the same information from the Minister as the parties themselves. However, I accept that his interest would not always be completely identified with those of one of the parties to the appeal.
There is also this to be considered. If the inquiry is reopened, if the Minister has come to certain conclusions which require him to reopen it, the third party may be heard at the discretion of the person holding the inquiry.
Mr. MacDermot: Do I understand from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that, if one of the parties specified in Rule 10—that is, the appellant, the planning authority or a Section 37 party—asks within 21 days for the reopening of the inquiry, it follows automatically that the inquiry will be reopened? Has the Minister any discretion to refuse the request, or must he reopen the inquiry? I can see that, if he must reopen the inquiry, the Solicitor-General's argument is stronger.
The Solicitor-General: If because of what happens after the inquiry the Minister has to ask the parties if they wish the inquiry to be reopened and one of them wants it reopened, the inquiry must be reopened. That would mean that the third party could be heard again
750
at the reopened inquiry. If, on the other hand, the parties are content that the Minister should act as he proposes, it cannot be right that any other person should have the opportunity of intervening, since this would mean that a person with no legal right would be put in a position of trying to induce the Minister either to grant planning permission to a developer who was content by that time with his application having been refused or to refuse planning permission to a developer whose application was in the event not opposed by the planning authority.
The position of third parties as such is clearly covered by the Rules and the powers of the person holding the inquiry are such that third parties can give their evidence and make their representations but, not being parties aggrieved, they are not in the same position as parties who are aggrieved. It is for those practical reasons that it would not be right to give the suggested assurance.
These Rules—which, I repeat, will serve as a model, if they are accepted by the House—have been entirely accepted on the recommendation of the Council on Tribunals which, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said, had its birth, or conception, from that important body, the Franks Committee. They were debated in another place on 23rd July. I hope that I have covered the main points that appeared to need answer and explanation. This is, as hon. Members have recognised, an important matter and one that needs ever-close study and scrutiny, and I have thought it right to deal with the questions at, I hope, not too great length.
Mr. Buck: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, can he give me an assurance that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will consider carefully whether these Rules should not prescribe parish councils as parties to be given notice in accordance with Rule 4 (4)? If he will say that he and my hon. Friend will consider that most carefully, I shall be greatly obliged.
The Solicitor-General: I understand that neither district councils nor parish councils are included, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend that the position as put by him will be most carefully studied.
11.27 p.m.
Mr. James MacColl: I hope that the Solicitor-General will allow me to say how much we have appreciated his helping us tonight on what I believe to be the first occasion in his new office, and how much we have benefited from his clear and helpful explanation of this rather difficult subject. It is "kid's stuff" compared with general grant, but still, to the uninitiated, it is fairly complicated. We ourselves had been minded to pray against these Rules but, in charity, decided to wait until the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary had been rather longer in office before we did so. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) decided to put down this Prayer, and it has certainly been very useful and valuable to have this discussion.
My first point is that the proceedings we are discussing are quasi-judicial but not judicial, and it is rather important to distinguish that this is essentially a matter of policy, and not merely a matter of fighting a legal action. It means that having carried out as far as possible the job of giving everybody a chance to say something and ascertaining the facts, it is not only the Minister's right but his duty to carry out the policy of which he thinks Parliament approves, and make his decision as a policy decision.
In that context, I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), although most of us were greatly helped by his very lucid survey of the Rules and I would not attempt to compete with him in his detailed analysis. He raised the question of the inspector's duty to stop examination of Ministry witnesses on matters of policy. He thought that that might lead to restriction. I think that the Rule is fairly clear, that the restriction is on criticising policy, and that elucidation of the policy is not excluded.
That distinction is one of which we know in Select Committees, where we very often have to examine witnesses from Ministries on what is policy while not in any way pillorying or criticising civil servants for policy which is not their responsibility but that of the political head concerned. After all, these inquiries are meant to ascertain the facts
752
and are not designed to be a debating chamber. This House exists to argue about policy—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &c. {Procedure)).
Question negatived.

PROBATION OFFICERS (PAY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]
11.30 p.m.
Sir Barnett Janner: I rise to raise a matter which is of extreme importance to the country and which requires a much longer time to be devoted to it than is possible tonight. The House will recollect that I was here until five o'clock the other morning, endeavouring to do something about this matter, until 8.30 a.m. on another occasion and now, by fortuitous chance and your kind intervention, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I am able to speak on it briefly for a few minutes tonight.
I just cannot for the life of me understand what is happening to us in this country. The whole outlook on the various social services seems to have gone awry. We spend thousands of pounds on assisting people, who call themselves Nazis, to inflict themselves on an unwilling public and to endeavour to upset, in places like Trafalgar Square and elsewhere, the mental balance of children and grown-ups who happen to be there. We spend this money for police officers to go to these places not to protect individuals from the abuse that is being poured out by those who adopt and advocate the fiendish policies of Hitler and his cohorts, but to protect those individuals and to enable them to attempt to debase the mentality and morality of some of those to whom they are talking.
When it comes to a service like the probation service, which for one hundred years has been proved to be of the highest value in counteracting vices, including these, and whom we may need very much more in consequence of the action of the Government in not adopting a policy of preventing Nazis from

753
attacking the minds of their fellow men, the Government have shown themselves to be entirely unaware of the real position and have dealt almost death Mows to the service because of the parsimonious way in which they have dealt with Choir claims.
I can speak only telegraphically, as it were, tonight on a matter of the highest importance and I hope, therefore, that hon. Member will forgive me if I rush through the points I wish to make. I will begin by recapitulating the events which led to the present deadlock over probation officers' salaries. A Departmental Committee was appointed in 1959 after a number of difficult and unsatisfactory negotiations about salaries. The Home Secretary of the day announced his intention to appoint that Committee in February, 1959, and announced its actual appointment in the May of that year.
In 1960, it became obvious that the Committee would be a prolonged affair and negotiations were opened, and speedily completed, by which the probation service was given a 12½ per cent. increase in salaries from August, 1960, without prejudice to any ultimate findings of the Morison Committee. It is, therefore, two years since the last pay increase. The Morison Committee, which was set up by the Government, reported on 15th March, 1962, and recommended increases in the salaries of probation officers ranging from 20 per cent. at the minimum level to about 31 per cent. at the maximum of the basic grade, with still high increases for some of the higher ranks.
Before the probation service had had time to cheer, the Home Secretary referred these recommendations to the Joint Negotiating Committee asking for their recommendations on those made by the Morison Committee which they themselves had set up. The Joint Negotiating Committee in April was informed that the employers were not ready to make an offer, but on 7th May the Committee met again when the representatives of the Home Secretary stated that any salary increases must be Limited to the despicable amount of 2½ per cent. in accordance with the Government's incomes policy, but that consideration of the Morison Committee proposals might be given at the end of the year.
754
Despite this, the employing authorities felt that the sort of exception allowed by the "guiding light" should apply to the probation service where there was an urgent need for recruits and there had been no salary increases since August, 1960. Despite the Government's view, the employers, therefore, recommended a 10 per cent. increase in salaries, without prejudice to full consideration of the Departmental Committee recommendations. But on 17th May the Home Secretary announced his inability to accept this recommendation and his intention to make an award of 2½ per cent. This intention was repeated by the Undersecretary of State in the Adjournment debate on 16th July.
It seems to me most disturbing that no further thought appears to have been given to this by the Home Secretary, despite many statements indicating that the incomes policy was not inflexible and that exceptions must be recognised. On 23rd May this year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking to the Women Conservatives in Central Hall, Westminster, said that the Government fully recognised that there were special cases in which pay of particular services needed reviewing, particularly where a long training is required and a special sense of calling, but that they must reserve special treatment for what were genuinely special cases.
The then Chancellor on 7th July, speaking at Cramer, said:
"A flat rate increase for everybody would certainly not conduce to growth. There are special cases of which you know."
We all remember the speech of the Prime Minister at Luton Hoo, on 23rd June of this year, when, according to The Times, he said:
"Of course, we had to enforce the pause upon Government employees, conscious that it could not be altogether fair in doing so."
He later said that new methods must be found to improve the mechanism of assessing salary claims, and he added:
"Any incomes policy must allow for special cases where what is demanded is not a normal increase but rather a reassessment or that the value of the services of a particular class may be better recognised."
This is specially importance for those cases where the value of an occupation cannot be measured by productivity. This is true of many, if not most, of the professions where what is rendered is

755
a service to the community without a direct product of manufacture.
Many Members, I am sure, must have hoped that in the Prime Minister's statement in reply to the Motion of censure on 26th June, he would have enlarged on this point. Instead, he offered us a proposal—the National Incomes Commission. But we should hope that in the light of the statements already made, no further assessment of the probation service salary needs to be made. This service has already had its inquiry lasting three years, which made its very firm recommendations, and we hope now that the Government in view of their admission that special cases need assessment, will be prepared to act on the assessment which has been completed with regard to the probation service.
It may be that full consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report is not possible, but the Home Secretary said in the House on 7th May, and Lord Dundee repeated in another place on 4th June, that it was agreed that substantial increases in the salaries of the probation service should be given at the appropriate time. Cannot the Home Secretary now promise that an immediate increase will be awarded? Cannot he tell us what will be considered the appropriate time for dealing with the urgent claim of the probation service, in view of the fact that probation officers have waited three years for the inquiry to be completed and two years since they received their last increase in pay? The 2½ per cent. now proposed does not show any deviation from the strictest interpretation of the incomes policy, very bad as it is, nor can it be considered to be substantial.
Officers of the Leicester probation service, a service which is very highly to be commended, as I know, having watched its work for years, write to me as follows:
"When we entered probation work, we had good grounds for believing that the worth-whileness of the service to the community was likely to be better recognised. In the event, many officers find themselves, despite university training undergone at considerable personal sacrifice, earning less than unskilled labourers under their supervision. Many officers' wives go out to work to supplement the family income. This raises various personal problems, of which we have evidence, and which are not easily overcome."
756
An adequately staffed probation service would be a sound investment in every respect, providing a saving in money and manpower in other forms of treatment. Many offenders would never need institutional treatment if the probation service was well staffed so that each officer could give proper time and attention to his cases; but, as the Report amply reveals, officers in many areas are carrying case loads so heavy as to render supervision, let alone case work, quite out of the question. In some places, probation has become little more than a token gesture on the part of the courts making probation orders.
Fewer cases would allow the probation officer to spend time with individuals. If only two additional persons per year were prevented from relapse into crime and requiring institutional treatment, an officer would have covered his salary for the year in terms of the cost of institutional treatment. The real significance of this can be recognised by comparing the following figures. On 1st January, 1961, the probation service was responsible for the supervision of 83,600 people. On the same date, there were approximately 34,700 people in prisons, borstals, approved schools and detention centres, many of whom will ultimately come under the after-care supervision of probation officers.
Apart from the question of staff, there are other problems to which one could refer, but, unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into them. I do not want to draw invidious distinctions. I think that the professions, the police, the nurses, and so on, are greatly underpaid and we are losing considerably on that account. Moreover, as I have said, we are spending considerable sums in directions where we could easily save by preventing attacks by Nazis on our own people.
A police constable earns £910 per annum at 28 years of age. A probation officer earns £805. A police constable has a rent allowance of 42s. 6d., free uniform, 3s. boot allowance, and he is eligible for overtime payments which the probation officer is not allowed. The pay of the police constable is based on a 44-hour week. Most probation officers work flexible hours which are in excess of the average hours of a police constable.

757
The cost of keeping a person in bostal is about £13 a week, in a detention centre about £13 a week, in an approved school £9 14s. a week, in prison £8 10s. a week. It is estimated by the probation officers that the cost of a probationer is on average 10s. a week, which includes all administrative overheads and salaries. An adult offender on probation and in employment, unlike his counterpart in a penal institution, is not only able to make a contribution to the economy of the community but is able to maintain his dependants and himself by his own efforts.
On 1st January, 1961, the probation service had under its supervision more than double the number of prisoners in institutions. The total prison, borstal, approved school and detention centre population was 34,700. The total number under the supervision of probation officers was 83,600, which included 63,624 on probation, 10,890 under aftercare supervision, and 9,086 subject to supervision orders and money payment orders.
The Streatfeild Report recommends a substantial increase in the number of social inquiry reports in higher courts. It establishes the probation service as an important link in the sentending procedures of a court, and places a very high responsibility on the skill, judgment, and integrity of probation officers. The Criminal Justice Act, 1961, makes provision for an extension of compulsory after-care to different categories of discharged prisoners. A considerable demand is made on the skill and time of probation officers by the present categories of discharged prisoners under their compulsory supervision, and the new Act will lead to a considerable increase in the pressures under which they work.
It is ludicrous to have to point out that a television actor portraying a probation officer was at one time getting £450 per appearance. In two appearances he could earn more than the average probation officer earns in a year. The basic wage of the probation officer is £3 a week less than that of a teacher at has maximum. The teacher is also extremely unpaid, but the disparity must be clear to the Minister.
Is it sound economic policy to train probation officers at the country's ex-
758
pense and then fail to pay them a salary which is sufficiently high to get them to remain in the service? It costs more than £1,000 to produce a fully trained probation officer.
There are many other points that I should like to make, but if I made them there would be no time for the Minister to reply. I want the Minister to say tonight that he will not wait any longer, but will see to it now that this very important service for which he set up a special commission—and this is the tragedy of the situation and the ridiculous part of it—for the purpose of going into these matters will be paid in accordance with the recommendation of that commission. This would be in the interests not only of the probation officers, but also of the nation as a whole. The rates of pay are in a very unsatisfactory position, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will deal with the problem very speedily.
11.48 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Everyone knows the sincerity of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). I am surprised that he is not being supported by other Members of his party, who made such a fuss over this subject. Some of their fuss must have been synthetic. Nor do I see any hon. Members of the Liberal Party.
I have had rather close contact with the probation service in my county, and I am sure that nobody was more disappointed than my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of State that the Committee's Report came at a time when there was an overriding Government policy for wages and salaries.
Has my hon. and learned Friend really considered the point that this service was under-recruited whilst this inquiry was on? According to my information, many who are now in it may leave before plans for higher wages and salaries are announced. If this comes about, what will happen in those cases where the magistrates are rather reluctant to commit the delinquents to prison and normally place them on probation? If probation officers are overworked, they will have to be committed to prison.
In addition, there are some rather weak-willed people whom probation

759
officers look after and keep out of crime. Are there the facilities in prisons to take over these extra cases? I stress what the hon. Gentleman said. It is considerably more expensive to keep a person in prison than to place him on probation. It may be that for a short time the Government have to adopt a policy of penny wise, pound foolish. I only hope that this will not go on for too long.
I end with those few comments, hoping that my hon. and learned Friend will reply to the points raised in connection with this very difficult problem, which is a family and personal problem to those engaged in this important service.
11.50 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir Barnett Janner) and I have at last got to grips on this matter, after some vicissitudes which, I think are not the fault of either of us.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) raised this subect in an Adjournment debate on 16th July, and in the few minutes left to me I do not want to weary the House by repeating what I then said. Of course, the Government accept the immense importance of this service. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), I can say that although we are fearful that there may be a diminution in the number of officers at our disposal, at present there is no serious evidence of that taking place, although we are watching the position very carefully.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has pressed us to give quicker consideration to this matter. Of course, the position is unfair; both the Home Secretaries that I have served under have said that it is. Everbody recognises that it is unfair. But the Morison Report came at a time when it was vital for the country's economy to have a wage pause—and in the event it was successful for our economy. It has paid off.
It has certainly meant that devoted public servants, such as probation officers, have paid a heavy price. That is recognised. But it was essential that
760
this should be done, and although it may sound like sermonising to them to tell them so—no doubt unwillingly— they have played a very important part in the salvation of our economy by the fact that they were in the front line of this battle for the preservation of our currency and our economy.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West asked whether quicker progress could be made, and that I promised on 16th July. He will recollect that I then said that we could not open formal negotiations until the New Year, but that the preliminary negotiations between the employing side—which is not, technically speaking, the Government—and the probation officers would, we hoped, be joined in the autumn. We stick to that. The Government's position has not changed since I made my statement two weeks ago. We must limit the immediate increase to 2½ per cent., but we have repeatedly acknowledged that the case for a substantial increase has been made out, and we will be ready to examine this formally early next year.
As for what the increase is likely to be, I can only say that my right hon. Friend will consider any recommendation the Joint Negotiating Committee may make to him about the formal implementation of the Morison figures which were very substantial. But he cannot, at this stage, go beyond the undertaking he has given. There is a great deal of procedure to be gone through for the benefit of the probation officers themselves, because until it is gone through they cannot, if they are so minded, go to arbitration. As the hon. Member knows, the Government have pledged themselves in these matters to accept the awards of the arbitration tribunals, in so far as they date back no earlier than 1st April of this year.
The hon. Member asked whether a decision was liable to be deferred by reference to the new National Incomes Commission. This is a very important point, and it is the only new point which I can give to the hon. Gentleman. He will remember that I said some time ago that I hoped that he would defer raising this subject, in his own interests as well as the interests of the probation officers, until the Prime Minister had made the speech which be made last Thursday.

761
That was the cause of all the friction which we have had. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter now, and I am able to tell him a little more than I should have been able to tell him had he raised it before the speech of the Prime Minister.
The ordinary major revaluation such as is being considered for the probation officers is exactly the sort of matter which is envisaged for the National Incomes Commission. But—and this is the important thing—since the Commission is not yet in being, and in view of the fact that the current revaluation of the probation service has, in a sense, been performed by the Morison Committee, and because of the stage which the matter has now reached, the Government would not regard this as a matter which must necessarily be brought before the new Commission. Unless the probation officers want it, they are not obliged to go through this additional hoop, which is something that many other people in the Government service will have to do.
In other words, the Morison Report stands as an authoritative survey of the need to revalue this vitally important service, which we all recognise plays such an important part not only in the saving of crime by the prevention of recidivism and in the salvation particularly of young people, but also in saving the Exchequer a lot of money in the manner mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, by keeping people out of custodial treatment. That is important, merely from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, apart from the human problem which is involved.
I can tell the hon. Member, it is the only new thing that I can tell him, and the only advance that I can make on what I said to the hon. Member for Pontypool on 16tlh July, that the Government does not regard it as essential that the probation officers should go through the machinery of the National Incomes
762
Commission in order to get the revaluation which it is recognised that they must have.
Of course, there is a lot of negotiating machinery which they must go through. It is not enough to say that they should have a 10 per cent., a 20 per cent. or a 30 per cent. rise or whatever it may be. Within the probation service there are "many mansions". There are many grades, and, as in all these things, there are quite a lot of disputes as to what the differentials between the grades should be, and what increases or decreases there should be in the various differentials. They must go through the machinery for that purpose and also because, unless this happens the probation service as a whole is not enabled to go to arbitration.
This is a very important right. It is particularly important since the Government have accepted the view that in this phase of the pay pause they will honour any arbitration awards in so far as they do not date back earlier than 1st April of this year. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for us not to go through the normal negotiating machinery, because that would deprive the probation service of a very valuable right.
I am glad that the hon. Member has managed to get this topic again on its feet, because it is one which I was anxious should be ventilated so that I could tell the probation service, through the hon. Member and through the House, that its members will not have to go through the machinery of the new National Incomes Commission. I think that after last Thursday they feared that there would be this additional hoop placed in their path. That is not the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Cameronians, Germany (Summary Sentences)
  Cameronians, Germany (Summary Sentences)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
SCOTLAND
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  Livestock and Crop Acreages
  Livestock and Crop Acreages
  Scottish Office (Economists)
  Scottish Office (Economists)
  Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow
  Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow
  Technical Education (Building Programme)
  Technical Education (Building Programme)
  Loch Awe—Windyhill (Transmission Line)
  Loch Awe—Windyhill (Transmission Line)
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Remand Homes (Report)
  Remand Homes (Report)
  Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride
  Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Service Flats, Aden (Lifts)
  Service Flats, Aden (Lifts)
ROADS
  Motorways
  Motorways
  A.30 and A.303
  A.30 and A.303
  Junction, Slough (Traffic Signals)
  Junction, Slough (Traffic Signals)
  A.449
  A.449
  M/
  M/
  Stauford-le-Hope Bypass
  Stauford-le-Hope Bypass
  Yaxham Road, East Dereham
  Yaxham Road, East Dereham
  Colthrop Lane, Thatcham
  Colthrop Lane, Thatcham
  M.5 and M.6 Link Motorway
  M.5 and M.6 Link Motorway
  Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  A.1 (Ferryhill and Chilton)
  A.1 (Ferryhill and Chilton)
  Runnymede Road-Egham Bypass (Accidents)
  Runnymede Road-Egham Bypass (Accidents)
  Pedestrian Underpass, Gerrards Cross
  Pedestrian Underpass, Gerrards Cross
  Marlow Bridge
  Marlow Bridge
  Basingstoke Bypass (Dual Carriageways)
  Basingstoke Bypass (Dual Carriageways)
  Car Licences, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Car Licences, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Conway Bypass
  Conway Bypass
  M/
  M/
  A.6 (Shap)
  A.6 (Shap)
  Highgate Hill Lorry Route
  Highgate Hill Lorry Route
TRANSPORT
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Manchester (Transport Survey)
  Manchester (Transport Survey)
  Rural Transport (Report) Scotland
  Rural Transport (Report) Scotland
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  Mid-Wales Police Authority (Land)
  Mid-Wales Police Authority (Land)
  Edinburgh Circle Line
  Edinburgh Circle Line
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Diesel-engined Vehicles
  Diesel-engined Vehicles
RAILWAYS
  Darlington—King's Cross Train (First-aid Equipment)
  Darlington—King's Cross Train (First-aid Equipment)
  Coal Traffic
  Coal Traffic
  Railway Lines (Closure)
  Railway Lines (Closure)
  Tyneside Electric Railway
  Tyneside Electric Railway
  Great Central Line (Aylesbury-Sheffield Central)
  Great Central Line (Aylesbury-Sheffield Central)
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Ports (Report)
  Ports (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Draughtsmen, Southampton
  Draughtsmen, Southampton
  Unemployed
  Unemployed
  Disabled Workers (Llanwrtyd)
  Disabled Workers (Llanwrtyd)
  Bridgend
  Bridgend
  Ogmore
  Ogmore
  School-Leavers
  School-Leavers
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (COMPENSATION)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (COMPENSATION)
  BERLIN
  BERLIN
  CONGO
  CONGO
  TUNISIA (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
  TUNISIA (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Short Bros. & Harland, Belfast
  Short Bros. & Harland, Belfast
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Bo'ness, West Lothian
  Bo'ness, West Lothian
SCIENCE
  Imperial College (Merlin Reactor)
  Imperial College (Merlin Reactor)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Irradiation Plants)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Irradiation Plants)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Scientists and Engineers)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Scientists and Engineers)
ROYAL NAVY
  Admiralty Orders (Durham)
  Admiralty Orders (Durham)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural College, Aberystwyth
  Agricultural College, Aberystwyth
  Forestry
  Forestry
EDUCATION
  School, Horden (Science Teaching)
  School, Horden (Science Teaching)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  W.H.O. (Cancer Research)
  W.H.O. (Cancer Research)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance, West Ham
  National Assistance, West Ham
  Earnings Rule (Widows)
  Earnings Rule (Widows)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St.Albans

THE LORD ECCLES
The Right Honourable Sir David McAdam Eccles, K.C.V.O., having been created Baron Eccles, of Chute in the County of Wilts—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

STANDARDISATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNS
2.46 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, seeing the great increase in travel now actively taking place both in Great Britain and on the Continent, they will consider calling a conference of the Six Common Market countries and Great Britain to see whether they cannot evolve a system to standardise and unify road signs and directives when the existing ones have to be replaced.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, there is already a European Agreement on Traffic Signs to Which most European countries are signatories. The main point for consideration therefore is whether the United Kingdom should adhere to this Agreement. This is one of the questions that is being considered by the Committee on Traffic Signs, which is the answer to the noble Lord's second Question. Her Majesty's Government would naturally wish to await the Committee's recommendation before making a decision on this matter.
2.48 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is at this time any committee or conference giving special consideration to the standardisation of road and traffic signs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that as these are replaced they will become uniform.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the need to standardise and modernise the traffic signs in the United Kingdom to accord with present and future vehicle density and speeds. For this reason my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport jointly appointed at the end of last year an independent Committee whose terms of reference are
"to review traffic signs on all-purpose roads as distinct from motorways, including roads in urban areas, and to recommend what changes should be made ".
This Committee, which is under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Worboys, started work in January and hopes to report early next year. It will certainly include in its considerations the question of obtaining greater uniformity of traffic signs and signals in the United Kingdom.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask if he could state whether the Government are seized of the great urgency for the answer to this very serious problem? As London is approached from any direction within 100 miles, one finds half-a-dozen different signs calling for the same reaction. At the present time this is very unsatisfactory. This Report has been made and published, and I believe my noble friend will agree that the signs are good, but they need to be used. It is no good having them in a book; we want them on the road.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to say that the signs referred to in the book which my noble friend has relate to the motorways, and the signs there are consistent with up-to-date practice including the practice on the Continent. I can certainly say that the Government are seized of the great urgency of this matter, which is the reason I gave for setting up this Committee; but because it is so important we should get the thing right.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment, but is he aware that in the Report itself the Committee say that the signs will serve not only for motorways but for other roads as well? In his comment just now I do mot think my noble friend referred to that.
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I did not refer to that, because the Committee whose Report my noble friend has in his mind had the terms of reference to consider the signs on motorways. It is the other Committee I mentioned that is now sitting which has terms of reference to consider signs generally.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that answer? May I say that I hope there will be a great sense of urgency about getting these vitally needed signs put on the roads?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, since a good many local authorities seem to be very unwilling to bring their signs up to date, may I just ask my noble friend whether there is any hope of fixing a deadline, by which date they will be forced to do so?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that, pending the receipt of the Report of the Committee now sitting, it would not be possible at the present time to talk in terms of a deadline. I have said, and am happy to repeat, that the Government consider this an urgent matter, but one which must nevertheless be tackled in the proper manner.

R.A.F. AND WORLD AEROBATICS CONTEST
2.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: 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 why an R.A.F. team is not being sent to the World Aerobatics Contest at Budapest this year, and whether they will consider sending a team to similar contests in future.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Royal Air Force were not
258
invited to take part in this contest, which was confined to light, pistonengined aircraft of the type normally used by civil flying clubs. These sporting events are not suitable for Royal Air Force participation.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask the First Lord whether the Air Ministry would reconsider this decision for the future? In the past, the Royal Air Force have taken part in such displays, to the great honour of themselves and to the great honour of their country.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the difference is that this is a competition, whereas what the Royal Air Force usually take part in are displays. That is exactly the point.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: May I just add that, while I will not dispute with my noble friend over this, the R.A.F. have, in fact, certainly in pre-war days, taken part in competitions.

THE KUWAIT OPERATION
2.52 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 was the plan for our defence against Iraqi armour in the Kuwait operation in view of our numerical inferiority in armour.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it would not be in the national interest to disclose the details of our military dispositions. I can assure the noble Lord that the defence preparations were fully adequate to meet the known threat.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, and appreciating that one must be careful of the national interest in such cases, may I ask: assuming that there was a superiority of armour on the other side, and assuming that our plan was to hold it up by air-to-ground action, what sort of plan could there have been to deal with the fact that the Iraqi "Migs" have a higher speed than our own aircraft?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that seems to one to contain too many assumptions for me to deal with it on this sort of Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a statement on Malaysia at a suitable moment after 3.30 o'clock.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 25), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
2.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGH rose to call attention to the current negotiations with the European Economic Community; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name upon the Order Paper. There was a suggestion the other day that we might, perhaps, in the existing circumstances of negotiations concerning the Common Market, postpone this debate. I felt at the time, and I feel now, that this would have been very inadvisable. Your Lordships' House has not had the opportunity which has already been taken by the other place of discussing this matter at any substantial length. It is, however, of such importance that I feel in my heart, as I look back over my Parliamentary experience, that in peace time we have had no more critical a decision to take since Munich, in 1938.
We older people are sometimes charged with always looking backwards and not forwards. Sometimes we get our inspiration for stating what we really think from the events of the past. After the Munich decision was over, and we had that two-day debate, in which Mr. Churchill (as he then was) spoke so forthrightly, I had the task of winding
260
up the debate, and I made this forecast: that, as a result of the decision taken, we were being driven into war, and that soon after we were in it we should stand alone. Therefore, when we are to take the kind of decisions that we shall be asked to take when the Government have finished their negotiations, and if it is (as is now being suggested) that the Commonwealth question is the greatest problem of all in the negotiations, I think it is as well to remember that when we did stand alone we had the most remarkable and spontaneous support from the countries of the Commonwealth; and without that support we could not have got through those first eighteen months.
The other thing that I should like to say is this. On such occasions, very often, Party loyalties are strained. They were strained then, in 1938. There were those Who wanted to be completely pacifist; there were those who wanted to negotiate for peace in any way, in any circumstances; there were those who wanted to prepare for what they considered was certain to be an armed conflict. There were great strains on Party loyalties—and there are in this case. I have to speak as the Leader of the Labour Opposition in this House. I have seen many of the strains on Party loyalties in my own Party: but neither are the Government without their strains. Apparently, the only people who ate actually united on the question of the Common Market are the Liberal Party, so far as I can tell.
The fairest thing I can do, therefore, at the opening, is, I think, to say that I heartily approve of the decision of the leaders of the Labour Party not to decide for or against until further information is available. In spite of the leading articles in the Daily Herald this morning, I believe that that decision was right, although it was quite contrary to what the Daily Herald wanted at the time. I think also that the broadcast which was made by Mr. Gaitskell on May 8 set forth quite conclusively what were the essentials that we should have to secure from the negotiations which, of course, were certain to take place as a result of the decision of Parliament in July, 1961. In those circumstances, we laid down, through the Party, the essentials.
On that occasion, Mr. Gaitskell said one or two very important things. He dealt first with the economic possibilities arising out of the negotiations. From the title of the Community, the European Economic Community, you would think at first sight that this was just a political conference set up by agreement, a permanent sort of conference, for economic purposes. You might well be misled if you thought that and that alone, as I shall hope to show later on. But the economic position has been heavily canvassed in both directions by different groups of economists.
I must say that in my pretty long Parliamentary life I have usually had a fair suspicion of economists—not about their cleverness in memorising and applying statistics; but when they come down to political dogmas then I usually distrust them very much. However, what Mr. Gaitskell said in that broadcast was this: that with all the close friends he had among economists (he being an economist himself) of whose views he had taken account, the average of the whole lot was that the economic effects of going into the Common Market might be regarded as fifty-fifty: we might lose some trade with the Commonwealth; we might gain a bit by going into the Economic Community: or vice versa. So that all the drive about the enormous economic gains that might be expected is as yet quite ephemeral. Whichever way our country goes, of course, we shall all hope and wish for the greatest blessing possible in the circumstances, and we hope that it will inure to our advantage. But that is not quite sufficient for me, as I shall show later on.
Then Mr. Gaitskell went on to say that we can lay down what, in the view of Labour, are the essential conditions which we think ought to be met before we go in; and he said, to be fair, that the Government also have laid down certain conditions. There is no doubt that going into the Common Market will mean a lot of changes for agriculture, and we could not see our entering the Economic Community to the ruin of British agriculture. We have not yet very much hope to build upon, so far as we are given information, for the adequate protection of agriculture. Mr. Gaitskell then laid down our commitments to our Scandinavian friends and
262
other countries in E.F.T.A. He said, "We are pledged not to go in unless, in effect, they are satisfied too ". Then he went on to deal, pretty briefly, with foreign policy. So far as the actual terms of the Rome Treaty are concerned, he felt that, whilst that was not likely seriously to affect the independence of this country in dealing with its foreign policy, nevertheless we must be sure about it. We should not go in unless we are free to plan our economy for the benefit, as we see it, of the United Kingdom. You might very well be affected in your overseas lookout by decisions which some people consider could, and can, and already have been, made—decisions of the Commission or the Council or the High Court of the Common Market.
This brought Mr. Gaitskell to the final condition, which in his broadcast he stressed was perhaps the nub of the whole question; that is, the question of the position of the Commonwealth. He said: "We emphasise the Commonwealth." Why do we care about it in the first place? Remember that some of the Commonwealth countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are very British indeed, and they remain British. I had an airmail letter from a cousin of mine in Melbourne, who is deputy headmaster of a very large public school, and in the course of his letter he said:
"We have had many additions to our population in the last fifteen years, but it is astounding how they are assimilated and what good Australians they become. So whilst we have been adding at the same time British settlers and populations, taking the two factors together I do not see any great change."
Canada is actually our active partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It has been ready at all times from the moment I first had discussions with the Canadian Minister of Defence, at the end of 1947 and the beginning of 1948, long before there was any wide extension of the NATO organisation in Europe as a whole, to share with us our liabilities, our growing responsibilities and our increasing dangers. That is one good reason., in any case, Why we are sticking to it. In the words of Mr. Gaitskell,
"There must be a proper satisfaction for the claims of the Commonwealth ".
I come next to the passing of one or two remarks to the effect: Where do we

263
stand to-day in regard to negotiations? Believe me, my Lords, Still only a very small percentage of people in this country know anything real about what is going on; they do not know. The negotiations have now been going on for months. I suppose since last April they have been fairly intensive. We get a statement about the opening of the negotiations foreshadowed on October 10. I am bound to say that I think there was a fundamental error made by the Lord Privy Seal on October 10 last year. If you look at the Treaty of Rome, you will find that although in one or two cases existing members of the Community are safeguarded by name in the Treaty, the Lord Privy Seal said he accepted the Rome Treaty in toto and did not want to move any amendments to the Treaty.
When it comes to dealing with really important questions that we should like to see safeguarded by an international agreement which is the equivalent of a Statute, we could have had an amendment and put it in. So at the very start that was a mistake. Again, of course, we do not know all the facts. We do not know how far the application by the Government for our entry into the Common Market goes. They would not have been able to start conversations unless they had agreed in toto to the Treaty as a whole as it stood. If that is so, we ought to have been told at the time.
If we look at the situation as it is now, I think I have made a fair summary here. First, there was a deadlock on temperate zone grains, wheat and barley, with apparent disagreement on arrangements both for the transitional period and for the period after it, say from 1970 onwards. The Lord Privy Seal is back again to continue discussions on this matter on the basis used when he left off, if I remember rightly, somewhere near midnight last Saturday. I am bound to say that, after re-reading the statement made in both Houses last Monday, I am concerned about how far things have gone as yet, but we must have more information before we can judge.
Then, no serious discussion has yet taken place on meat and dairy produce. No agreement has been reached on overseas association between the Six and the
264
existing A.O.T.s, let alone between the Six and possible Commonwealth association. There is only a vague and, we think, unsatisfactory outline of a comprehensive agreement for the Asian Commonwealth countries. I have seen nothing of this myself, except a short statement that was issued by the Indians, I believe, saying that conversations were going on and seemed to be progressing. Apart from Denmark, negotiations with our E.F.T.A. partners have scarcely begun.
Here we are, on August 1, at this very late date, and it is not surprising if I remind your Lordships that in Paris on June 13 M. de Murville said that perhaps we should know something more by the summer, but more probably by the autumn. To those of us Who are critical of the Government's handling of this matter, it seems that all the time the Government have been in far too great a hurry, to get in at once without further question and without an adequate assessment of what we are committed to. We ought not to be rushed; we ought to have time to re-examine our own problems in the light of the decisions which may be arrived at. It might be said that possibly there Will not be sufficient overall agreement for a statement to be made at the date at present suggested for the Conference of the Commonwealth Premiers, and it might well be that we shall have to postpone that date also. Rather than go like a gambler—and the whole thing is a gamble—to the next throw, we ought to know what our resources are for dealing with the matter. To me that is vastly important.
I should like to say a few words about agriculture. Speaking from this Box, it is necessary for me to say that I am a farmer and have an interest, but that interest is shared by 350,000 farmers and smallholders and 650,000 workers in the industry. It is unfortunate that we received additional aids to our study of the position of agriculture from the National Farmers' Union only this morning. They made a good statement last year, summarising their possible relation to an application to go into the Common Market. I have been able to study only a summary of what they say and I commend its study to all noble Lords who

265
are going to speak before to-morrow evening. It is clear that the rather high praise that was given to an agreement recently is not scorned by the National Farmers' Union, but they are also clearly of the opinion that it does not go far enough and does not bring them the security which they want. As yet the question is largely organisational, and they have not come down to a real discussion of their general policy on the main commodities, their exchange and price.
Here again we were handicapped from the start by the admission of Mr. Heath on October 10 last year that he did not want any amendment to the Treaty of Rome and that the Government were willing to accept the basis of a common agricultural policy for the whole of the Community. So that whatever is finally agreed in the Commission or Council of Ministers, whether by unanimous vote or by qualified majority, the farmers are up against it. So not much progress has yet been made, and we cannot find out what is going on.
On July 25, the Minister of Agriculture was asked a number of Questions, but in reply he referred only to the preliminary statements made when the Government were going into negotiations and said that they had not announced at any time the Government's policy in these matters. Nobody in the industry or in the country at large knows what the position is. Again it is a question of "Wait and see." But many of the people concerned are greatly disturbed. When we study the Treaty of Rome, we can see that we may be brought up against damaging results. For example, if the Milk Marketing Board were treated as a State organisation with a monopoly, under the general legislative powers of the Treaty of Rome, what would happen? It is not to be wondered at that the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has asked exactly where we are going. With the assistance of the Government, and all sections of the milk producing and distributing industry, the Board have brought up the liquid consumption of milk in this country to a higher level than that of almost every other country in Europe. But now it may be faced with the threat of the importation of Liquid milk from Europe, certainly from France, which, so far as
266
I can gather from the statistics, is turning not much more than 20 per cent. of its milk production into the liquid market. The rest is going into manufacture, and part of the surplus could easily be diverted into the liquid market here. This possibility gives cause for considerable doubts in the dairying side of agriculture.
Then during the last ten years we have been struggling to have Reviews of farm prices which would be likely to keep up the level of the standard of living in the industry. I think that the position of the workers is just about being met, but a large proportion of farmers' incomes today are less than they were ten years ago. When it comes, therefore, to dealing with questions of grain and other products these things are vastly important. We do not know what the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal are saying to them. We are not told what are the limits to which they can go. The general talk and conversation among the farmers as you meet them to-day is this: "What we fear is that we are going to be faced with a fait accompli in which the Government have made a provisional agreement and for which their excuse will be, ' We have done our best. It is not as good, perhaps, as it ought to be; but there it is; we go in on that basis '."
We go in on the basis of x industry perhaps being either reduced in prosperity or sent to ruin and another industry becoming perhaps 100 per cent. more efficient, doing better work and getting better profits. All this is a complete gamble in these matters and at this stage of the negotiations, so far as I can see them at the present moment. If I had the time I would say a lot more about it, but I have to be careful not to go on for too long. On the other hand, I have two or three very important things yet to say and the House must forgive me if I am a little longer to-day than usual.
I come next to the question of the Commonwealth. I must say that when I look back over the past and at the evidence of it, I am completely astounded at the volte face of the Conservative Government in relation to the Commonwealth. I do not know whether this particular quotation I am going to make was issued in the time of the Chairmanship of the Tory Party by the noble and

267
learned Viscount the Leader of the House, or whether it was before, but this statement was certainly made since the war. It is from a document under the title Imperial Policy, issued by the headquarters of the Conservative Party. It says:
"The Conservative Party regards the British Empire of Nations as the supreme achievement of the British people. Throughout its vast area reign three of the four Freedoms—freedom from fear, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience. A great and unique brotherhood has been built up which has been tried in the white hot fire of the two great wars, and has stood the test. It is the most successful experiment in international relations which the world has ever known."
That is pretty strong. I wonder what the members of the Government feel in relation to that now? Does that still stand? Is the abolition of the Ottawa Treaty, in effect, by going into the European Community, something which they want? Is the destruction of Imperial Preference—to be replaced by special reverse preferences to those European countries with free entry; that is, to destroy one preference and put on another one in the other direction—likely to uphold what was announced as Imperial policy by the Conservative Party headquarters? I think it is exceedingly doubtful myself.
I have so much material here and I have not been able to cover it all, but if we look at certain other things and take first of all what was said by Mr. Macmillan at the opening assembly of the Western European Union in May of last year, we find this:
"Above all, there is the Commonwealth—not merely a point of honour and tradition and interest to us British people, but an important, indeed vital, element of strength and stability to the whole Free World.
"This association of peoples of many races is buttressed by its trade pattern. Moreover, the Commonwealth includes countries with a strong claim upon our help to enable them to develop—diversify their economics and build a better standard of living for their own people.
"We cannot just create our own prosperity and ignore their interests which over the years have become more interwoven with our own."
That is pretty specific. It is not much wonder that Mr. Menzies felt he had to get rid of the one black sheep in his Cabinet who apparently held a view in favour of what the British Government
268
were doing now and to leave them united upon their ordinary basis of feeling about the Old Country. This is a case that wants a lot of answering. And if we are going to be successful one way or the other—either successful in keeping out because it is going to be better for the Free World, or in going in with the largest amount of success, not only to the economy of our own country but in enlarging the powers and interests of the Commonwealth countries—we had better look at this case pretty carefully all round and insist that we get the conditions which have been demanded, and, therefore, restore that point of honour which the Prime Minister himself referred to in his statement of last year.
The effect upon British industry is difficult to assess, but I think that, because of the cheap food we have been having, for two reasons—first, by our agricultural support system, the burden of which is spread over the whole community by taxation, and, secondly and largely, by the Imperial Preference granted to foodstuffs from the Commonwealth countries—we have had lower costs of living than have many of the other countries which have been in competition with us. This we shall largely lose in one direction, at any rate. It has been suggested from time to time that, of course, we should gain because we should add to our imports a great deal of food from the European Economic Community area and there would be some compensation therefore in that direction. But when you consider the external tariff on food which will be insisted upon by the European Economic Community, and which has been variously assessed as being from 3 per cent. to 10 per cent.—certainly much more than 3 per cent. on overall commodities and 10 per cent. in one or two specific instances only, but varying from 3 to 10 per cent.—you realise it is bound to add to the cost of all our industrial production in this country, as it will, of course, increase the cost of living and the demand for wage increases. And that is not going to help us.
Another factor I am concerned about is the general assumption of some of the people who support the Common Market in these matters that we are

269
going to do much better in trade by joining the European Community than we do by sticking to our basis of world trade, with the heavy buttress to our world trade by our business with the Commonwealth. It is surely common knowledge that, although the figure may have decreased a little this year, we have at least been maintaining an export to the Commonwealth countries of something like £1,400 million—the figure varies between £1,400 million and £1,500 million—compared to the trade that we have been doing this last year with the European Economic Community which, so far as I can gather, has been increasing in our favour while we are still climbing over its tariff barriers. I believe the figure has been increasing in our favour by quite a percentage each year and amounts now to something over £500 million. Nor am I yet persuaded that putting these disabilities upon the maintenance of our trade to the Commonwealth is likely to be beneficial all round. We have heard a great deal about how, as a result of the war, we have lost many of our, what I call, hidden exports—general services, insurance, interest, shipping. And let me say this; from all the information I can get, whereas our overseas Commonwealth trade is carried as to two-thirds of it by British ships, in the case of trade done with the European Economic Community the proportion is two-thirds in exactly the opposite direction; in that case two-thirds of that tonnage is carried in foreign ships. And it is likely that principle will be extended. I feel bound to draw your Lordships' attention to these facts.
Now I come to say this. I still think, in my own mind, that, not only as important but probably much more important in this matter is the political issue. Are we wise, in the light of what has been happening in the last few months, for example, to be ready to rush in on purely economic grounds, without knowing what the political consequences are likely to be? The political position is exceedingly difficult. Take the Articles of the Treaty itself. I am quite sure of this: that the Government may have examined them carefully and think it is all right: they can accept the whole lot. But there is Article after Article in which different rulings can be given. I
270
have set down in the different spheres Article 37, right the way through. I have put down Articles 67 to 73; and I have put down the Articles from 85 to 94 and from 101 to 105. Whilst, of course, they are very cleverly drawn, there are competent lawyers in this country who cannot guarantee to us that if, as is most likely, we have to have regard to every decision of the High Authority—whether it goes first of all as a regulation of the Commission, or a decision of the Council of Ministers or, maybe, a decision by the High Court— it will not become, ipso facto, law in this country. And that may be quite serious.
The other point I should like to draw attention to is: what is the real objective? In order to save time I am going to try to put it from memory, although I have the quotations if anybody wants to look them up. There was the statement about three months ago, in reply to a question put to Professor Hallstein in the Press Club in Washington, in which he said that of course they had talked about the British Commonwealth; they had felt that it was not only a great trading organisation but was also valuable to the Free World. But, on being further pressed, he said that there is a school of thought in Europe which takes the line that if the Commonwealth comes with Britain into the Market, the Market is finished; if England comes into the Market without the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is finished. That is the view, apparently, of the President, or at least of those he was quoting on that matter.
But, my Lords, he went even further than that some months before, when he was lecturing at Harvard University, When he said, in essence: "It is an economic organisation; we are not in this for trade or commerce; we are not in this for that; we are in this for politics." So you see the things that emerge from time to time. I go back again in my mind to the speech of Mr. Couve de Murville, on June 13, in Paris, When he said exactly what General de Gaulle had said as long ago as May 30, 1960. You remember that General de Gaulle said he was for a powerful confederation of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Note "the Urals ", my Lords. If you examine what Mr. Couve de Murville said in Paris, you will find

271
that he agreed with that, in principle, at any rate, although the words were not exactly the same. If you read the bulletins issued to you from the German Embassy, the German bulletins, you will find an article which says, "One Germany—the bridge". To the completion of what? That Community, from the Atlantic to the Urals? The restoration of Europe? At what cost? Who knows? What risks can you conjecture, what likely military expenditure? Nobody can say. The political aspects of this thing are staggering until you really get down to it and sit and think and think about them, as some of us have done.
So we wait for the further report as to the negotiations in Brussels. We are waiting. Nobody knows what they are going to be. But I hope that we shall all pray that whatever is done in this matter we shall not have to put our own country into further depression and danger and we shall not have done as Mr. Macmillan thought we should do in 1957 on this particular matter—damage our Commonwealth permanently if we were to go into this European Economic Community. Let us pray, whatever we do, these things will not occur. I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the House, I am sure, will agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that it is timely that we in this place should debate the issues of the Common Market, because so far we have not been able to do so. Nor (because I know how strongly the noble Viscount feels on this matter of the Common Market) have I any complaint about the tone of his speech and the way in which he put his case to the House. I must just remind him, and the House, of one thing, and that is that on August 3, 1961—that is, a year ago almost to-day—the House approved a Resolution which supported the Government's decision—and I read the words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 234, col. 217]:
"to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of
272
the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association …"
We start from there: that we have the leave of Parliament to go and negotiate. The question, therefore, is not whether we should try to get into the Common Market; Parliament has decided that we should try to enter, if the terms are right. The real question to-day is whether we are likely to get a good or a bad bargain.
The noble Viscount opposite described the decision to try to enter the Common Market as a gamble. I think I should reject that. I would say that it is not a gamble, but it certainly is an adventure. There is a great deal of difference between the two. For better or worse, then, we have applied for membership; and we are at present in negotiation to see whether we can find terms of entry which will be acceptable.
As I listened to the noble Viscount, it seemed to me that he was warning your Lordships that if we went into the Common Market nothing would ever be the same again for this country. But if we do not go in, nothing will ever be the same, either. I think we must recognise that, because the Common Market is here: it exists, and it is already having an increasing influence on the structure of Europe. It is not some theoretical exercise in political and economic relations conjured up by a number of intellectual busybodies; it is not that. The European movement towards economic and political union is on. It is at present taking place and taking very solid shape, too.
It has already altered the facts of life. It is altering the facts of life in such a way that other countries will have to react to the action which the Six have taken and, because of geography and history, the United Kingdom is one of the first which will have to react to the new situation. Nor can others possibly ignore these events on the Continent. As the noble Viscount reminded us, the Commonwealth has been involved in two world wars owing to the divisions of Europe. The United States was sucked into both these wars, and now has a permanent garrison on the Continent. All the other Commonwealth countries are basically projections of Europe overseas. Neither they

273
nor we can be indifferent to events which have had such a continuing impact and influence on our lives. After the Six got together and created the Treaty of Rome, nothing for any of us could be quite the same.
As the noble Viscount has truly said, it is a most complicated matter. It is a matter in Which in many ways it is easier to see the trees than the wood. Therefore, if I may, I am going to follow the noble Viscount in two respects and to divide my speech into two parts. First, I shall attempt to deploy some of the arguments against those which he used in the wider aspect of the question, and then to give an account of the state of play of the negotiations as I know it, and as I should like the House to have it. These are some considerations which I want to put forward, which I think we in this country, the Six in Europe, the Commonwealth and all those Who are responsible for guiding public opinion and making decisions should certainly have in mind.
The British Government must in the first place look at this Common Market situation through British eyes. I make no apology for saying this at all: that the first duty of a British Government in this matter is to see where British interests lie. I want to state that plainly, because although sentiment may play a legitimate part in this matter, the British Government cannot ignore the fact that we are responsible for the lives and well-being of 50 million people packed into an over-crowded island and we have got to look and see what our fortunes are likely to be in the next 50 years. Our people in this country have a very high standard of living which they want to see not only sustained but expanded; and they are people, let us remember, who have exercised power in the world. Although we have not got the power that we had at one time, nevertheless our people want to see our country still exercise its influence.
And the noble Viscount did not deal with this part of the question: what has made Britain great in the past? I am going to reply, despite the danger of over-simplification, in a sentence. It was the decision, through generation after generation of British people and British Governments, that Britain should always be at the centre of markets and
274
at the centre of power. That is what has made the greatness of Britain. If you isolate Britain from the centre of markets or from the centre of power she will become an off-shore island, and her economy will either he static or will weaken. But if you keep her in the mainstream of markets and power, although we have not got the physical or military power that we had, nevertheless we can hope to sustain enough power to carry great influence in the counsels of the world. I said in another context the other day that I thought it essential, wherever great matters of peace or war were discussed, that the British voice should he heard. If that is true, then we have to determine the broad: are we to enter into a market which is rapidly expanding—there is no doubt about that—or are we to remain outside, outside the external tariff of the Six, outside the external tariff of the United States, with the great difficulty, which noble Lords know perfectly well, of being able to trade with the Communist bloc where trading is strictly circumscribed by State trading? Therefore, whether we go into Europe or not, we must take into account, in making our decision, this question of whether or not we are going to place Britain at the centre of markets and the centre of power.
The noble Viscount quite rightly insisted that when we were coldly calculating, as we must do, British interests, we should take into account our obligations to the Commonwealth. That is perfectly right. I was Commonwealth Secretary for five years and I am not likely to neglect that obligation. But I do suggest that the Commonwealth countries themselves have got to do some hard thinking in terms of hard reality, because it seems to me that their own expansion in this time of the 20th century is directly concerned with the expansion of Britain, and if Britain has limited opportunities for expansion, then we are not going to be much good to them, or indeed they to us.
Where, in the next twenty or thirty years, are going to be the centre of markets and the centre of power? The answer is quite clear so far as the Free World is concerned—in the United States and in Europe. The Commonwealth has many good aspects and I am going to speak about them in terms, I hope,

275
no less enthusiastic than those of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. But the Commonwealth is not a centre of power—it cannot be. It has always refused to institutionalise itself It is certainly a wide political influence, but it is not a centre of power; and if as is certain, power is to lie in Europe, then I think it is there that Britain ought to be. We are already deeply committed in the military field, as the noble Viscount reminded us, through the NATO Alliance, of which he was one of the architects, to meet the challenge of Communism. The question that we have to ask ourselves to-day is: can we stand aloof from economic and political associations of a more intimate kind?
Economically, too, I think we have to be clear what we are doing. As I have said, we have to maintain our population at a very high standard of living. If we could not enter the Common Market we should have to do our best. I listened to the noble Viscount and I thought he rather under-estimated the effect on Britain of staying outside the Common Market. Surely there are two things which would happen. First of all our exports would have to climb the tariffs. They might be able to do that. But our expansion would obviously be much slower than if we had not to do so. But, surely, is not the real point that if we were not in the Common Market we should have to compete in other markets, with a trading community which has a much larger industrial base? That seems to me to be one of the arguments which is most telling. Instead, therefore, of our people and industrialists being able to rely on a base of some 240 million people, we should be thrown back upon the 50 million people in our own island. That seems to me one of the most telling economic arguments in favour of our going in.
I do not want to be trapped—I must not be trapped, and I hope none of us will be—into posing alternatives between Europe and the Commonwealth. I believe, with the noble Viscount, that the Commonwealth is a unique contribution to the art of living together, and I endorse, therefore, the statement of the Central Office and the statement of the Prime Minister that that still holds. It is also a real political influence, giving
276
an example of how different races can in fact co-operate constructively. The economic association in the Commonwealth is certainly a great part of its strength, and, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, there is an immense trade between the United Kingdom and the different Commonwealth countries. And, of course, we shall never forget that they stood beside us in two world wars.
My Lords, where I differ, I think, from what I would call the "go-it-alone-in-the-Commonwealth" school is that I do not believe that the Commonwealth is a sufficient answer in itself to Britain's needs in the next 50 years; nor are we a sufficient answer to the Commonwealth's needs in the next 50 years if we stand alone. In this connection there are certain factors which we ought to recognise and which must enter into our calculation. The Commonwealth is no longer held together by authority, and therefore it has developed in a way in which each Commonwealth country now has legitimate interests beyond its borders and beyond the Commonwealth circle. Canada has to take account of its proximity to the United States; that has had very severe repercussions on British trade. Australia must consider selling her goods in Japan and South-East Asia; that has meant an erosion of British preferences. Australia and New Zealand are very dependent on the United States for defence, and the Asian nations are greatly in need of United States capital to finance their development plans. The African countries in the Commonwealth are now looking for indigenous solutions to their own particular needs.
My Lords, the Ottawa arrangements—my noble friend, Lord Swinton, will remember this very well—one must remember, were an answer to the conditions of slump in the 1930s. They were good. But the Commonwealth then got together to stimulate trade among the Commonwealth countries, and it was an exclusive arrangement; the preferences were for Commonwealth countries only. Therefore, I think that it would be a mistake, although Ottawa was immensely valuable, to elevate at this stage the Agreements into, so to speak, the Tablets of the Law, because the organisation and structure of world trade have changed and the modern Commonwealth is essentially an extrovert

277
organisation, and an extrovert organisation it must remain.
The noble Viscount should not forget, I think, that every country in the Commonwealth is an importer of capital, except the United Kingdom, and they must remain so for years ahead. Therefore, each Commonwealth country, including Britain, has its own interests in different parts of the world, for which others must make allowance; and none can be introspective, and none can be exclusive. I was trying to think, while the noble Viscount was speaking, how I would put this rather wider aspect of Commonwealth/British/European relations which I am trying to visualise. I think I should put it something like this. Europe needs the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth needs Europe; Britain needs both, and both need Britain. Now if that is not complicated, I do not know what is; but it is no more complicated than the Common Market!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am enormously interested in the argument and I will read it very carefully, but there is one thing which has not occurred in the remarks of the Foreign Secretary. I know all about the population and industrialisation of Europe, but how far is that going to increase in terms of population, or how far can it increase compared to the increase in population of the Commonwealth which is certainly bound to come, with the primary and industrial products arising therefrom? We could have the leadership of that Commonwealth, if we liked. One other thing, my Lords. The noble Earl has overlooked in his answer so far something which I think he might tell me. How do you propose to assess the value of the changeover when you are going to give free entry to those large industrialists of Europe into your own market, and how far do you think you are going to be recouped?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think I necessarily find myself alt difference with the noble Viscount here, because, of course, I recognise that Britain's trade with the Commonwealth will go on, and "I hope it will expand. But there can be no denying—and I do not think that anybody who looks at the facts can deny—that this European Market has the most enormous potential,
278
and the base of it is something like 240 to 250 million people. But I still have quite a bit of my speech left to make, and I think that some of the questions the noble Viscount asked will be answered as I go along.
Therefore, it was on these broad grounds of policy that the United Kingdom Government decided to try to negotiate entry, knowing that we might fail, but hoping that we may succeed. I should like to turn, if I may, at this point—it will enable me to answer some of the noble Viscount's questions—to the main considerations which are in the minds of the Government's chief negotiator, the Lord Privy Seal, who conducted these negotiations with the greatest skill——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF HOME:—and also to the state of play in the negotiations. I would divide this very short report into sections: the political considerations, on which the noble Viscount touched; the objectives we hope to achieve in respect of British agriculture; and the assurances that we seek for Commonwealth trade.
My Lords, taking account of the political considerations, we must distinguish very clearly indeed between the political implications of joining the Treaty of Rome—that is, the Common Market—and the discussion now taking place among the Six, which is for European Political Union. A distinction must be made there. The Treaty of Rome is an economic instrument with some political overtones. The European Political Union would be a treaty of political co-operation. To-morrow the House will have the great advantage of hearing a speech by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who will deal with many of the questions raised by the noble Viscount in regard to the political implications of the Treaty of Rome, and in particular the impact on the sovereignty of the member countries. I think it will be valuable to the House to have that.
In the meantime, I shall be content with saying this. The obligations we accept in the Treaty of Rome itself are precise and defined, and, once in it, they cannot be altered without consent. But, my Lords, nothing in them that we have seen could affect the position of the

279
Crown—there has been great anxiety in this country about the Monarchy—and nothing that we can see could infringe the sovereignty of Parliament, except in the field laid down in the Articles of the Treaty. The noble Viscount has said, quite truly, that that is quite a wide field, and I remember that the same point was made a year ago by the noble Lord, Lord Strang. That is perfectly true, and I have no doubt myself that Parliament will feel that it is right within that field to make certain surrenders of sovereignty from time to time. But I would judge that each of those surrenders of sovereignty at the time will be judged in the light of whether or not there are compensating gains. The matter will therefore be in Parliament's hands.
The second separate but, nevertheless, important question is that raised by the possibility of a European political union, about which the Six have now been talking for a year. In a sense this is the political counterpart of the economic arrangements in the Treaty of Rome. We have not taken part in these discussions, although we have been informed at all stages of progress. One thing I should like to make clear is that the documents we have seen, which have been given to us by the Six, bear no relation to federalism at all, nor do they seek to introduce any federal institutions. So there is no question that we should be asked to put our signature to a federal structure already agreed between the Six, and we hope to have a hand in shaping the final political solution, whatever it may be. Her Majesty's Government have welcomed the efforts of the Six towards greater political union, and we look forward to joining in the task if and when we are members of the Community.
My Lords, I will now turn, if I may, for a short time to the second section of this review, and that is British agriculture. I may tell the noble Viscount that, although I do not have much time for it, I am a farmer, too, and so these are two farmers putting, perhaps, opposite points of view although engaged in the same activity. I want to put this broad consideration, that the farmers' increasing prosperity in this country, and our ability to maintain a healthy population on the land, depend directly upon
280
the increased purchasing power of the consumers who are earning wages in industry. That must be so. Therefore, if we are to improve the state of British agriculture, and not just allow it to remain static, we must raise the income per head of our population or find new markets, or have a combination of both. Nor do I believe that, provided conditions of production are equal—and this is one of the objectives of the Treaty of Rome—there is any reason at all why our farmers should not produce at competitive prices. In fact, if we were not to go into the Common Market it would be a very poor look-out indeed for the farming community in Britain if they could not make their prices competitive. So I have no reason to think that the broad objectives of the Community, so far as agriculture is concerned, differ from ours.
This, I think, is rather confirmed by the fact that it has been provisionally agreed to proceed by the method which we ourselves have adopted, and that is by the method of an annual review. The object of the review would be the same as the object of our annual agricultural Reviews—namely, that the farmers in all areas of the Community should be guaranteed a fair living from the soil. Our own national Reviews would continue, and they would provide the basic information which would enable us to ensure that the needs of our own agricultural industry were taken fully into account in determining Community policy.
It is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that we are still discussing arrangements for individual commodities, and on a number of those commodities the Six have adopted regulations for themselves, particularly pigs, eggs and horticulture. The beef policy is still to be formulated by the Community. We are anxious that in these matters our voice should be heard. I cannot give further details, and all I can say is that on all these matters, and for all these commodities, the Lord Privy Seal is fully armed with the facts; the Minister of Agriculture is, of course, a party to his negotiations, and any further provisional agreements that are made will be made with the full knowledge of the importance of a flourishing agriculture to this country as part of a flourishing agriculture of the whole.

281
The final section to which I would come, then, is the whole complex of questions which the noble Viscount raised, related to Commonwealth preference and Commonwealth trade. In the context of industrial manufactured goods, it has already been widely recognised that preferences, which already have been much eroded, could not be maintained at their present levels in perpetuity, and therefore, it is envisaged that by degrees—and the House knows this—the common external tariff will apply. Turning from industrial goods, the focus was then turned on two further aspects of the matter, the aspects of the Common Market which affected the Asian and African countries and the dependent territories, with the emphasis on tropical foodstuffs; and, secondly, upon the old Commonwealth countries and their particular problem of the imports of temperate foodstuffs into the United Kingdom and the Common Market.
So far as the African and the West Indian countries are concerned, countries both independent and dependent, we hope that they will be able to join the Community as associate members. They will thus enjoy the benefits on exactly the same terms as the ex-French territories enjoy benefits under the Community now. As one reviews the opportunities in an expanding European market, it would seem to give them opportunities for increasing their trade, provided their prices are competitive. So far as India, Pakistan and Ceylon are concerned, we are seeking several things: adjustments in the application of the common tariff to their exports; in certain cases to reduce to zero the tariff, for instance on tea and spices; special arrangements to cover their export of textiles, and to remedy damage that might be done to them. Detailed arrangements will be subject to trade negotiations between those countries and an enlarged Community. I believe—and I have looked at this fairly carefully—that the opportunities for expansion which this will give them, and the opportunities to earn additional foreign exchange which they so badly need for their development, will be increased as a result of their association with the Common Market.
Now I come, if I may, to the nub of the matter; that is, the prospect for exports of temperate foodstuffs to the
282
Community, both in the transitional stage, between now and 1970, and thereafter. When we are thinking in terms of commodities like wheat, butter and meat—all of which the noble Viscount has mentioned—there are certain factors that I think we must keep in mind. The first of these is the price policy of the Community, which is all-important. If the Community were to fix the price of agricultural produce very high, there would clearly be little room left for the import of comparable goods from outside. So the object of the Community must be to fix prices which are not so low as to deny the farmers of the Community a fair return for their labour, but not so high as to stimulate production to a point where there is no room for outside sellers. This is the centre of the problem, and the attitude of the Commonwealth countries towards the Common Market, and British membership of it, will be very much affected by the language in which the price policy is expressed as forecasting the practice of the Community. This is of really overriding importance.
There is a special and particular vocabulary which is used in G.A.T.T., in connection with trade arrangements of this kind, where the word "reasonable", for instance, has a much more precise meaning than it has in ordinary language—such as when used between me and the Leader of the Opposition, for example. The words, therefore, my Lords, will be very important, and our aim must be to give confidence to the Commonwealth in the intentions of the Community whilst still allowing room for movement to take account of changing circumstances within and without the Community.
The Commonwealth countries have for a very long time been interested (and I know that a number of your Lordships, too, have been interested) in world commodity arrangements, because stable prices for primary producers are very much better than aid. Of course, they are very difficult to contrive—immensely difficult; but, still, the existence of the Common Market is, I think, going to give additional urgency to exploring their possibility. Not only is there great interest now in the Commonwealth about the possibility of these world arrangements, but there is increasing interest, I think, in the United States

283
of America, which is very significant. But, pending such world agreements, I agree with the noble Viscount that what we have to do is to try to ensure access for Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs and to make sure that, if world-wide agreements are impossible, suitable alternative arrangements are made.
My Lords, there has been a great deal of talk in the last few days of a deadlock in the negotiations in Brussels. I hope that your Lordships will not look on it as that, and for this reason: that there is an intellectual and a practical problem here to which the Commonwealth countries, ourselves and the Six must give their attention. It is this: how can words be found to give reasonable assurance to traditional sellers, Commonwealth countries included, without importing an absolute rigidity into world trade? That is the problem, and it is a real problem, about which we must think. It is obviously quite impossible to-day to fix world trade at the levels of to-day for all time. We cannot do that. Nor can we fix compensation for damage so certainly that it can be claimed from the Community, even if the fall-off in exports from a particular country is due, for instance, to inefficiency or other causes. We could not do that. Therefore what we have to do, as I say, is to take account of a problem which is very real, and the Six and the Commonwealth countries must help us in this. The problem is to contrive the maximum assurance and safeguard for Commonwealth producers without putting world trade into a strait jacket. That is what the problem is about in Brussels now, as the Lord Privy Seal negotiates. It is not a deadlock: it is a problem to Which all of us must apply our minds.
My Lords, I do not know that your Lordships will wish me to go into the question of the individual commodities. I probably ought to say something, but I will say it as fast as I can. So far as wool is concerned, which benefits Australia, no import tariff or quantity restriction is envisaged. There is no tariff or preference on wheat in the United Kingdom market, and the problem here, therefore, is one which is related to the fact that Australia, under a gentlemen's agreement, brings 750,000
284
tons of soft wheat into the country every year. That competes with the soft wheat of America and the soft wheat of France; and it is a question of accommodating the Australians on this. So far as wheat is concerned, as the Community external tariff is to be abolished, no problem of Commonwealth tariff preference is involved.
Apart from the wheat, therefore, the commodities most important to the Commonwealth are meat; milk products, particularly butter; and mutton. Those, of course, are the problems which are of particular concern to New Zealand, and, therefore, problems in which both Houses of Parliament, I hope, will be particularly concerned. In the Commonwealth context, too, there are processed foods, tinned fruit and vegetables, fish and raisins, and other products. We want to ensure—and this is the objective of our negotiations—that fair trading facilities will remain open for these.
It is all immensely complicated, my Lords. The noble Viscount says that this has taken some time, and probably it ought to take more. Possibly; but I should just like to illustrate to the House the trouble which we have taken to go into these problems. We have gone into the problems of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are dependent on meat, grain, wool and dairy produce. The African States are dependent on coffee, cocoa, oil seeds and tropical fruits, like bananas. We have gone into the problem of sugar, which affects the West Indies so much; of Hong Kong, which is entirely dependent on the export of manufactures; India, Pakistan and Ceylon, where a substantial proportion of their export is textiles; Malaya, which exports rubber and tin; and Cyprus, which is concerned with fruit and other things. I can promise your Lordships absolutely that the problems presented to each of these countries have been foreseen by us. We have talked to their representatives on every possible occasion about the solutions that might be made. And, although, of course, it is very unlikely that we shall get all that we want, we are going out as hard as we can to get a fair deal for these countries, so that their people will be able to sell their goods in fair competition.

285
What we want from the Community, my Lords, is something which we have been able to give to the Commonwealth countries, and are able to give them now. We have never been able to say to the Commonwealth countries, "We will guarantee markets for a given proportion of your produce in perpetuity ahead." We have never been able to say that ourselves, to our own Commonwealth countries—never. But what we have been able to give them is the reasonable confidence that Commonwealth traders can plan ahead in fair competition, and that their plans would not be interfered with by the British Government by arbitrary action: and that is what we want the Community to do.
So far as EFTA is concerned, we are confident that if we reach success at the conclusion of our own negotiations there will be the will on all sides to bring about successful arrangements for the EFTA countries. The noble Viscount mentioned, I think, one of the EFTA countries. But Norway and Denmark, like ourselves, have applied for full membership; Sweden and Austria are making their opening statements for association now; Switzerland intends to do so after the Summer Recess; and Portugal has asked to establish appropriate relations. My Lords, to complete the picture, we have opened negotiations to accede to the European Atomic Energy Community and to the Coal and Steel Community. So we are now in negotiation over the whole field of the existing European Community.
Then I return to the question that I asked at the beginning: where do the wealth and power of the Free World reside? Because where the power of the Free World resides there the economic development will be; there the political influences will be concentrated; and there Britain must place her weight. Some feel that Britain might fall so much under the influence of Europe that we should lose our special relation with the old Commonwealth countries, and that we might drift apart. My Lords, it would be a terrible thing if that should happen. But I do not believe it to be true, because I do not know what Britain has been doing in the last 300 years unless it is to equip ourselves to lead this wider form of interdependence. Therefore I do not want to talk in terms
286
—and I hope we shall hear nothing of it in this debate—of the Commonwealth versus Europe, because in an interdependent world we are all on the same side, and our objective is to create a design in which Europe and the Commonwealth will come closer together in a Community which is outward-looking towards the world. I look forward to this debate, and to the benefit of the penetrating analyses which the list of eminent speakers promises to bring to bear on this historic occasion; and I am grateful to the noble Viscount opposite for having put the Motion on the Paper, and for having opened the debate himself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just ask a question? If the Lord Chancellor is to speak to-morrow, should he not also perhaps deal widely with such legal questions as to whether the British Parliament is going to be able to move Amendments to measures during our membership of the Community, if we go in? What would be the position of the British Parliament in regard to moving an Amendment?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will have heard the noble Viscount's question. In this House one can communicate with one's colleague on the Woolsack only by means of Telstar. I hope that the "come-back" will be coming in due course.

FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think it may be to the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat a statement which was made some little time ago in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The British and Malayan Governments have received and studied the, Report of the Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold which visited North Borneo and Sarawak

287
earlier this year to ascertain the views of the inhabitants on the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia embracing Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The Report is being published to-day and is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
The two Governments are most grateful to the Commission for their valuable Report and have accepted almost all the recommendations on which the Commission were unanimous. The two Governments have noted in particular that the Commission were unanimously agreed that a Federation of Malaysia is in the best interests of North Borneo and Sarawak and that an early decision in principle should be reached.
In the light of this Report and of the agreement reached between the Government of Malaya and the Government of Singapore, the British and Malayan Governments have now decided in principle that, subject to the necessary legislation, the proposed Federation of Malaysia should be brought into being by August 31, 1963.
To give effect to this decision, the two Governments intend to conclude, within the next six months, a formal agreement which, among other things, will provide for: first of all, the transfer of sovereignty in North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore by August 31, 1963; second, provisions governing the relationship between Singapore and the new Federation, as agreed between the Governments of Malaya and Singapore; third, defence arrangements as set out in the joint statement by the British and Malayan Governments dated November 22, 1961; and fourth, detailed constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interests of North Borneo and Sarawak, to be drawn up after consultation with the Legislatures of the two territories.
These safeguards will cover such matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State constitutions.
In order that the introduction of the new Federal system may be effected as smoothly as possible and with the least disturbance to existing administrative arrangements, there will be, after the
288
transfer of sovereignty, a transition period, during which a number of the Federal constitutional powers will he delegated temporarily to the State Governments.
An Inter-Governmental Committee will be established as soon as possible, on which the British, Malayan, North Borneo and Sarawak Governments will be represented. Its task will be to work out the future constitutional arrangements and the form of the necessary safeguards.
The Minister of State for the Colonies, who will be the Chairman of this Committee, and the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tun Abdul Razak, will proceed shortly to Sarawak and North Borneo to conduct discussions.
In order to maintain the efficiency of the administration, the British and Malayan Governments axe agreed on the importance of retaining the services of as many of the expatriate officials as possible. The Minister of State will discuss with the Governments of the territories and with the Staff Associations how this best can be done.
The British and Malayan Governments have informed the Sultan of Brunei of the agreement they have reached and have made it clear that they would welcome the inclusion of the State of Brunei in the new Federation.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for the statement. May I say to him, on behalf of all my friends on this side of the House, that we give a very warm welcome to this statement—a welcome, I must say, with some relief. There is a lot that could be said, but in view of the debate that is taking place in the House this afternoon I will be brief. We have had some experience of Federations in different parts of the world. We have had considerable disappointment. But it is significant that in this particular case the urge of federation has come from the parties concerned, and is not, shall we say, being imposed by the United Kingdom Government.
Under the section in which there is to be provision for the protection of religious rights and education, I think we can all be satisfied that these will be

289
well safeguarded, because I believe—and I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would agree with me—that Malaya has set an example to the would for a multiracial society. When some of us talk of multiracial societies we think in terms of Europeans living with the natives of the country; but in Malaya there are the Chinese, the Malays, as Moslem and the Hindu Indians, the Singalese and some of the Dyaks from Borneo, apart from a number of European countries, and all live in great happiness and contentment.
I believe that Malaya will set this example, and will set the pattern for the whole of the Federation. I believe that Singapore itself will gain from joining this Federation. But in giving this welcome, I think we must take into account the special burdens Chat the Federation of Malaya will be taking upon their shoulders, because Singapore has very grave economic problems. It has considerable unemployment, and the countries of Brunei and Sarawak are still to be developed. I therefore am glad that the other day the noble Marquess announced that the Colonial Development Corporation is to be changed and that it will be able to continue its work in these new territories. I would beg the Government to recognise that the Federation Government is taking on a very heavy task, and I ask that the Government will see that What aid they can afford is quickly given. I have only one last point. I hope that the Sultan of Brunei, when he has consulted on this Federation, will feel that he can bring his own country in. I believe this new Malaysia will be a great bastion for freedom and tolerance in South East Asia.
4.39 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches, wish to welcome the statement and to confirm what has been said so aptly by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I feel that to-day is an historic occasion in your Lordships' House. We are debating matters here to-day which will affect the future of Europe and of a great part of the world. This statement also will affect a great part of the world. It will affect the stability and the well-being of South East Asia, and I feel certain that if there is no arrangement along
290
the lines proposed for South East Asia then we cannot guarantee in any way either the stability or the welfare of that most important area.
I should like to congratulate the noble Marquess on being appointed Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee and wish him well in that highly important task. In view of the importance of it and the fact that time is short, may I ask him when he proposes that the first meeting of this Committee should be held? May I also ask him to bear in mind, when he is discussing with the various Assemblies concerned the future of the expatriate officers, the point I have often put to him—namely, that the only real solution for this vexed question is that Her Majesty's Government should make them all part of the Home Civil Service, and then they will not have to bother about their future and pensions? Finally, may we have an indication of whether His Highness the Sultan of Brunei has made any reply to the information which has been given to him by both the Malayan Government and Her Majesty's Government?
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not sure that it is very proper for me to comment, but I want to add my congratulations on the statement and the success that it means for the Governments concerned. I want to do this because at the time when this all started I was in the position in which the noble Marquess is now. I want to make two comments: the first is that when one thinks of the Commission who have made this Report, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, the former Governor of Sarawak and Sir David Watherston, who have the interests of these countries so much at heart, it is good to think that their recommendations have been adopted by the two Governments. Secondly I am delighted that the recommendations include a transition period to enable North Borneo and Sarawak to catch up, as it were, with Malaya and the other countries before they go into full Federation.
4.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which this statement has been received and for the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and

291
Lord Ogmore, and by my noble friend Lord Perth. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the example set by the people of the Federation of Malaya of how a multiracial society can live happily. I remember very well my first experience of it alt a multiracial dinner at Kuala Lumpur and how conscious I was of the total absence of any racial feeling whatsoever. Of course the noble Lord is perfectly right when he says that the Federation of Malaya is assuming additional burdens. Her Majesty's Government are aware of it, and in our discussion with the Tunku we have made it clear that we wish to play our part in seeing that the future of this Malayan Federation is as successful as it can be. In this connection the changing of the Colonial Development Corporation into the Commonwealth Development Corporation is of great significance.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to the Sultan of Brunei. I understand that His Highness has already expressed his desire to enter this Federation, and, as noble Lords are aware, we have communicated with him to signify how welcome his country would be. J would thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for his congratulations. As he may perhaps have guessed, all this entails certain alterations in the plans I had made, but, none the less, I go into this job realising how important it is, and satisfied that, working with the Tunku Abdul Rahman, I shall have a most co-operative colleague. It is his aim, as it is ours, that the special interests of the peoples of the territories shall be safeguarded. The noble Lord asked me the approximate date of the first meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee. I cannot give this precisely, but I expect to be leaving the country myself within the next fortnight.
As regards the expatriate officers, of course this is a matter of vital importance and it was referred to in the statement of my right honourable friend. One of the first things which I would attempt to do on arrival in the territory is to speak with the various associations, explain what arrangements we have made and work out further arrangements. We have given an undertaking
292
that there will be compensation and we will work out the details together. We will do everything in our power to see that as many as possible of these vitally important people remain in the country for as long as possible. In conclusion, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Perth. It was a kind and friendly thought of his to speak on this occasion, for I know full well that he had very much at heart the creation of what we all hope will be a happy, a successful, a prosperous and a free federation of peoples.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
4.36 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MCNAIR: My Lords, having regard to the vastness of this subject and the smallness of the time at our disposal, I do not intend to deal with its economic aspects; I propose to confine myself to its political aspects. In other words, I am prepared to make the assumption that the Government will not lead the country into the Common Market unless they can make a good economic bargain, a bargain that will be good for our industries and agriculture and will give due weight to our obligations towards the other members and parts of the British Commonwealth. However, I cannot refrain from saying that it sounded rather quaint to me when I heard the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition accusing noble Lords on the opposite Benches of neglecting the welfare and interests of what we used to call, in the days of the Free Trade debates, our Dominions and Commonwealth.
There is one aspect of the decision which confronts the country to-day and which makes it unusually difficult. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has referred to it, and I venture to stress it. Most political decisions involve a choice between making a change, on the one hand, and remaining as we are, on the other—for instance, the decisions whether or not to nationalise the coalmines or the railways. But the choice in this case is not between making a change and remaining as we were in the status quo. If we do not join the European Economic Community, in my

293
opinion we shall not remain where we are but we shall have to submit to a major change, a change in a different direction and a change for the worse.
It is now obvious to all of us that the European Community is not going to consist only of six States, but that the number of countries inside the Community or closely linked with it by agreements will be very many more than six and will probably comprise nearly the whole of free Europe. It seems to me inevitable that if we stand by and watch our nearest neighbours welding themselves into this truly formidable economic unit, with every prospect and intention of developing it into some kind of political union as well, we are running a very great risk. Even together with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the Commonwealth we should find ourselves, in my judgment, dangerously isolated and in an economic ally weak bargaining position. Not only do we run the risk of a decline in our economic position, but I regard it as more than probable that we should run a similar political risk.
It is being argued in certain quarters that if we enter the Community and make an advance towards the political unity of Europe we shall sacrifice much of our influence. I believe that argument is based on a fallacy; it is based on the assumption that if we remain outside we shall remain as influential as we are to-day. My judgment is that if we turn our backs on this powerful European movement we shall soon find they can get along without us and that our political influence will decline, as well as our economic position; and the best hope of maintaining our influence lies in entering the European Economic Community and exerting it from the inside.
I must give your Lordships an example of what we have already done in that respect. Your Lordships will remember that in the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 the Prime Minister and a number of your Lordships, including the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, my noble friend Lord Layton and others, took part in a movement for the founding of the Council of Europe, and one of the most important achievements of that Council of Europe which was started at that time was the negotiation of the European Convention
294
of Human Rights. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, was rapporteur of the Committee which prepared that Convention; and that Convention contains a remarkable code of human rights which is now in force in fifteen European States and is being administered by a European Commission and a European Court at Strasbourg. If anyone were to examine that code of human rights he would see in nearly every article of it the spirit of the English Common Law.
The expression "human rights" is new to us in this country because our human rights have grown up imperceptibly throughout the centuries as the result of the application of our law; so much so that it has been quite unnecessary for us to legislate in order to give effect to that Convention. But there is no question that on that occasion we were able to exert a very great influence by persuading our Continental colleagues to adopt numerous safeguards for human rights which have been part of our heritage for many centuries. And the influence of this Convention does not stop at Europe. It is arousing (he greatest interest and attention in Africa. A very large part of it has been adopted and incorporated into the Constitution of Nigeria and many other African States are showing the greatest interest.
I regard the present proposal for the expansion of the European Community and for the development within it of some measure of political unity as merely a culmination of many partial steps since the last World War, such as Western European Union, the Council of Europe, O.E.C.D. and, above all, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Each of these steps has reflected the same need for closer co-operation for economic, political or military reasons; and it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between these reasons. Our participation in these activities is due partly to a feeling that we were needed and wanted in this steadily developing European partnership.
A number of noble Lords and Ladies, Members of this House, have participated in the work of the Council of Europe and of the other European organisations. I believe that, avoiding all false modesty, they would agree

295
with me that British participation in these activities is warmly welcomed and that it is recognised that we as a country have a definite contribution to make. Possibly by reason of our Northern blood we can take things more coolly than some of our Continental friends and are able to play down situations Which might otherwise become explosive. Possibly, also, our centuries-old tradition of self-government in the parish, county and Parliament has taught us some of the unwritten practices and restraints which living amicably together implies. My experience of cooperation in Continental activities is that our opposite numbers watch our public affairs much more closely than we do theirs and that they envy us our stability, our toughness and our practical outlook.
To-morrow the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will tell us about the legal obligations that would be involved by entering the Common Market and acceding to the Treaty of Rome, so I shall touch only very lightly upon them. By the Treaty of Rome the parties agreed, I quote:
"to establish among themselves a European Economic Community";
that is to say, they have created a new international organisation limited in its functions to the economic and social purposes specified in the Treaty. Article 240 of the Treaty provides that
"this Treaty shall be concluded for an unlimited period"
I am not prepared to say that there are no circumstances in which a party to the Treaty could resign from the Community except by a general consent, but it is clearly the intention of the Treaty to create a permanent commitment and it would be unrealistic to discuss this matter on any other assumption.
No State would be prepared to make the economic and legal changes that flow from admission to the Community except in the belief that it was entering into a permanent economic partnership. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome do not go beyond the economic and social purposes mentioned in it. But in its Preamble the parties state that they are
"determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples".
That is a recognition by the parties that
296
some measure of political union is desirable, and I think one may add that it is an almost inevitable result of the success of the Economic Community. But nothing is said in the Treaty as to the form or degree of an eventual political union; there is nothing about federalism or confederation, for the parties have wisely decided to be guided by the experience to be gained by their economic co-operation.
There are four reasons why I want to see an advance towards some kind of political unity in Europe. The first is that, either in spite of, or by reason of, the fact that the number of States has doubled in the last ten years, the world is tending to crystallise out into large groups or blocs of neighbouring States. More and more we find groups of States acting in concert, instead of in isolation, for purposes of trade, industry and defence, or for the sake of some other common interests. We have NATO, SEATO, CENTO; we have the Soviet bloc, the United States of America, the West European bloc, probably two African blocs, a bloc calling themselves neutralists and a not very uniform Latin-American bloc. I have grave doubt whether the United Kingdom, even in association with certain members of the Commonwealth, forms a strong enough unit to resist this process. Our ties with our ancient Dominions are, in sentiment and tradition, very close; but can we afford to remain outside the powerful unit represented by the European Economic Community and the other free States in Europe that are likely to be associated with it? My fear is that if we turn our back on this Community of our nearest neighbours we may find ourselves out on a limb and in an isolated position. And, of course, it is only while we are strong and prosperous that we can give service to our fellow members of the Commonwealth.
My second reason is the maintenance of peace in Europe and for Europe. The relations between France and Germany, in face of a common danger, seem recently to have improved. But three times in the past 100 years Europe has been rent by outbreaks of their old quarrel, and until some measure of political unity in Western Europe can be achieved that smouldering fire remains a continual danger, both for Continental

297
Europe and for ourselves. My belief is that we can greatly reduce, and probably banish, this danger if we make a contribution to the unity of Europe. Our closer association with both of them could do much to confirm and make permanent the present happier state of their relations, and perhaps keep Germany with her face towards the West.
My third reason is the strengthening of NATO. Though military in origin, it has encouraged the development of many political, economic and cultural links. It is the nucleus of a true Atlantic Community and it may become the bridge between Europe and the North American Continent. I commend to your Lordships, as strong evidence of the development of such a Community, the Declaration signed in January of this year by the delegates to a meeting called, "The Atlantic Conference of NATO Nations". This so-called Declaration of Paris is not a Governmental announcement. It gives further evidence of this widespread desire for an advance in the unity of the free countries represented in NATO. If we allow ourselves to be squeezed out of the European Economic Community, or fail to secure the terms for entry, I think that we shall have lost an opportunity of a further strengthening of the NATO Alliance. I would also remind your Lordships of the Eisenhower-Macmillan declaration of 1957, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, in our debate on NATO in January of this year—namely:
"The concept of national self-sufficiency is now out of date. The countries of the Free World are interdependent and only in genuine partnership by combining their resources and sharing tasks in many fields can progress and safety be found."
My fourth reason is that when mankind can be persuaded to realise the necessity of creating some kind of international authority for the control of the use of armed force it will be easier to bring that about by negotiation between representatives of four or more large blocs of States than it would be among representatives of more than 100 States. We are already within sight of a situation in which any Government that can scrape together the sum of money required can go into the market and buy nuclear weapons capable, even accidentally, of causing widespread disaster. So the sooner we can place some control
298
on this proliferation of nuclear weapons, the better. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said to your Lordships on our debate on disarmament in June [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 94), col. 998]:
"The logic of modern weapons—-perhaps even the logic of the continued absence of success of our disarmament negotiations—points inevitably towards some form of international police force and to some form of world authority."
I believe that a powerful European Community would make both of those objectives easier to attain.
Lastly, my Lords, I come to the sovereignty bogy. The word "sovereignty" was originally used to describe the unlimited internal power of an absolute French monarch, and was later, unhappily, transferred to external affairs and invoked to bolster up the claim for the unlimited independence of the State. No State can be completely independent because its independence is circumscribed by the correlative independence of other States and by the law. Sovereignty has become a term possessing an emotional content and raises the blood pressure of those who are fond of using it. It means simply independence; and that is a much better word.
It is being urged by some of the opponents of our acceptance of the Treaty of Rome that such a step would impair our sovereignty or fetter our independence. It is in the exercise of its sovereignty or independence that a State concludes treaties. Every time a State makes a treaty agreeing to do this or that, or not to do this or that, it limits to that extent its sovereignty or independence, just as an individual who enters into a contract of service or partnership or sale limits thereby his freedom to do what he likes. No State can live in isolation to-day and it cannot co-operate with other Stales, either in defence or in economic matters, without to that extent limiting its freedom of action.
Let me remind your Lordships of what Sir Winston Churchill has said upon sovereignty in relation to the European movement. There is no man alive who is more jealous of, and more vigilant for, the sovereignty of this country than he, and no man has done more to preserve it. Your Lordships must allow me this quotation. Speaking at the Congress of Europe, held at The Hague in 1948 in

299
the early days of this European movement, he said:
"It is impossible to separate economics and defence from general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of political union. It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty. But it is also possible to regard it as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and traditions, all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, Fascist or Communist, would be blotted out for ever."
Such is the opinion of Sir Winston Churchill.
My Lords. I sincerely hope that the Government will not be deterred by newspaper clamour on this point, and that once they consider that a satisfactory economic bargain has been made they will launch a strong campaign for the purpose of convincing the country that, in the long run, the economic, and eventually political, advantages of joining the European Economic Community are so great that it would be an act of folly to reject them.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just resumed his seat formerly sat upon the Cross Benches, and understandably, in view of the eminent legal and judicial positions he held in various international authorities. He is now free from those responsibilities and has decided to sit on the Liberal Benches. So this may be regarded as his maiden speech in this House from the Liberal Benches. T should like to congratulate him on the confidence, the ability and the relevance of the speech which he has made, with the general run of which I find myself in agreement. I am to be followed by my old friend Lord Mills. I should like to say to him that all of us feel some degree of sorrow that he has departed from Her Majesty's Government, and T should like to express our appreciation for the courtesy with which he always treated us who sit on these Benches, as well as others, and for the great patience and painstaking way in which he replied to arguments on legislation or questions which arose from the House. I trust that he will have a happy and not wholly unoccupied
300
future in life. Anyway, it will be nice to have him following me.
May I say at the beginning that I am afraid I shall, as my noble Leader in this House knows, differ somewhat from the views he has expressed? But he will know that if I differ from him it will be with sincere regret. I have the highest respect and regard for Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He made an able and, I know, conscientious speech from the points of view which he sincerely and deeply holds about this matter, and if I differ from him he will know that it will not be out of any pleasure but because I think it my conscientious duty so to do. In fact we are all, I presume, in both Houses of Parliament, bound to be in somewhat of a mess about this question, for there are on this matter many differences of opinion in the Conservative Party, and perhaps a few more differences of opinion in the Labour Party. That is a pity, because unity in both Parties on big issues is desirable from the point of view of the management of Parliament. But on this question it cannot be helped, perhaps in the nature of the question, because it is a big matter, involving the future of our country, of Europe and of the British Commonwealth of nations, all of which are very important indeed.
At this moment the Lord Privy Seal is negotiating. There was talk the other day about deadlock; that may be partially true. I hope it is not true. I want to see the negotiations succeed. But I must say that, as it has worked out, it is a pity, in a sense, that this debate takes place at this particular time. It is not a good situation that, when the Lord Privy Seal is negotiating, apparently on a sticky wicket, under some difficulty, Parliament should be debating the matter. But if all of us, in both Houses, can exercise a reasonable restraint, perhaps it will not do much harm. Then I think it is a pity that this and the other House of Parliament are debating this issue on the same day, because one or other House is not going to get reported adequately, and I think probably it will be us. That is unfortunate. But these are manifestations of not too successful Parliamentary management.
I do not know how much time the Leader of the other House spends in

301
that capacity, and how much time he spends on our pay roll as Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation. I thought at the begining that he would make a good Leader of another place, but I am beginning to think he is not a successful Leader, and that this is one sign of not very good Parliamentary management. But I think my noble Leader was right yesterday, this matter having got so far, to resist the understandable request or suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that perhaps it was unfortunate that we were having a debate at this time, and could not something be done about it. I do not in any way criticise Lord Swinton for having put the point; but neither do I in any way criticise my noble Leader for having resisted it, because it had got so far and he has been so involved in the discussions leading up to the debate, that I am afraid it was too late to do anything else. Nevertheless, the Government must shoulder responsibility for having got themselves and Parliament into a somewhat difficult situation.
The two Parties are in some difficulty. There are differences of opinion in the Conservative Party—quite a number against "he Common Market so far. I dare say they will see the light "he Government holds out to them before "he decisive Division takes place in Parliament. And there are a lot of my people—I do not know who has the majority at the moment—who are divided about this issue. I think this could have been avoided if the leadership of "he Labour Party had faced the issue on a reasonable basis earlier and had said, "We are for negotiations, but reserve our right to agree or to disagree with the results of the negotiations when completed ". That, I think, would have been wise and I think it would have been carried.
But, when thinking of all the inhibitions with which we have tied ourselves up, in italics, let it be remembered that the Government have done exactly the same; and those, including my noble friend, who criticise the Government on "he ground "hat they may not be living up to the cast-iron promises they made about British agriculture, the Commonwealth and EFTA, may prove to have a genuine grievance against the Government on that point. It just shows that in politics it is desirable to control the
302
end of things. We cannot do so in inter-national negotiations. I wish we could, because it would be better for the world if the British could control the end of international negotiations; but we cannot. That is what makes the Foreign Office different from any other State Department: you are partly at the mercy of the other side and you cannot control events, as you can in domestic State Departments. In those circumstances it is most foolish for a Government to tie itself up in italics so that it has no room for manævre in the international field; or else, when it has bent its "alias back into Romans, it has no room for manœuvre in the Parliamentary field. That is the fault of the Government in this matter. I say these words only in the hope that they may be helpful to Ministers of all Parties in the future—but I doubt it.
My Lords, the negotiations are going on, and I should like to make a very sincere appeal to the Governments, the nationals and the political Parties of the Six European countries to understand the real problems and difficulties with Which the British are faced in these negotiations. Our European friends can approach these negotiations either in the spirit of "The British want special flavours; they are unreasonable; they want it all ways "; or in the spirit of, "Will, we understand British difficulties, real difficulties, real problems, problems of their own agriculture "—the history of which they either know, or can easily find out—"as well as their real problems about the Commonwealth and the EFTA countries."
I want this thing to succeed, so long as the conditions are reasonable. I believe that in principle it is right, but I would urge upon the European countries, upon their Governments and their political Parties to make a real effort Which I am sure they have done, at any rate in part, to understand our particular British problems and to so try to shape "he negotiations that it will be relatively easy for the British to go into the Market—Which I would wish the British to do. I make that appeal very sincerely, and out of a feeling of deep regard and respect for the nationals and the countries of the Six, towards all of whom I feel a friendship, as I am sure

303
we all wish to do. So I hops they will try to help Her Majesty's Government to reach an agreement with them in the common interests of Western Europe, and, in the end, in the interests of the world, and, I should hope, of the Commonwealth as well.
My Lords, I admit that I approach this subject in the spirit of a Socialist, but I am not suggesting to your Lordships opposite that you are bound to do the same—in fact, I do not want to do any harm. I believe in the brotherhood of man, the Parliament of the world, sooner or later, when we can get a decent Parliament of the world, which we cannot yet get. I believe in international co-operation, and I believe in a reasonable limitation of national sovereignty which can be helpful to the common good. Therefore, as a Socialist, it does not seem to me that I can easily be opposed in principle to this idea of the Common Market. But I do not want to prejudice noble Lords opposite, and they must find their own reasons of principle for reaching this same conclusion—which I have no doubt they will, and if they want any help I shall be glad to give it to them. I believe ultimately in World Government, but I do not believe it is practicable at this stage, because there is the difficulty of the Communist and non-Communist world, and we cannot run risks of Communists getting on top: our liberty is too precious. But, in principle, at the end of the day, it is right—though when it will come I do not know.
Being in favour of a World Government, I do not see how I can oppose the Common Market and European cooperation, which is a big step on the way. If I am going to be sticky about national sovereignty to an excessive degree in Europe, however am I going to get on when we come to questions of national sovereignty in the light of possible World Government? Therefore, it seems to me that it would be quite inconsistent if one were to adopt that attitude.
The other point of criticism of the Government which I would make—and I do not want to "lay it on too thick" in this debate—is that the Government seem to have an extraordinary inability to explain themselves. This is
304
not an easy subject to understand. I am an experienced politician and I have had something to do with economic administration in Government, but it took me quite a time to understand the merits of the Common Market controversy. In the end, I came down in principle in favour of it. But if that be the case with me, as it has been with many another experienced politician with whom I have talked, how much more difficult is it for the man and woman in the street to understand the complexities of this problem. If that be so, and I think it is, it is an elementary duty on the part of Ministers, patiently, with courtesy and friendliness, to explain what it is all about and what it all means—and in simple terms, as my noble friend reminds me. But can anybody say that the Government have adequately fulfilled this task? Therefore, if they are in some trouble about it, it is largely their own fault.
Certain newspapers, rightly exercising their freedom, have opposed our entry hot and strong; so have the politicians who have been against it. Is it to be wondered at that the people of our country even now do not follow the matter entirely, although excellent impartial articles on it have appeared, either in the Daily Telegraph, on the one hand, or in our excellent Daily Herald, on the other. One of my noble friends is not so sure about "impartial". I thought they were impartial.
There is one question I should like to ask, and I would particularly direct this to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Sometimes when treaties are agreed to by a country, and possibly signed subject to Parliamentary challenge or ratification, that is the end of it. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to advise us, or the Leader of the House now, if he likes, that this will be the subject of legislation. This is too complex and difficult a matter merely to be dealt with on the basis of a Treaty and the "Yes" or "No" of a Parliamentary institution.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if it would help the noble Lord, he is certainly right about that. It is unthinkable that this thing could be effected without legislation in some form or another.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I thought that that would probably be his answer, and I am glad that that was so, because this is too big, complicated and serious a matter to be dealt with merely by the "Ayes" and the "Noes", or the "Contents" and the "Not-Contents", on the ratification of a treaty.
My Lords, I first came to a conclusion in principle about this before the question was put, on my first visit to the United States of America in 1936. I have been there eight times since, so that makes nine in all, but others have been more frequently. I thought to myself: Here are 49 States, theoretically supreme States, subject to the powers of the Federal Government in Washington. Suppose these were really full-fledged independent States. Suppose they all had protective tariffs against one another. Suppose, still worse, they had armies (they could not very well all have had navies, but they could have had air forces) against each other. Then I said to myself: "Would the United States be as prosperous as it is, if there were tariff barriers between each of those 49 States? "That seems to me to be the most simple illustration that we can have, showing that in principle the Common Market in Europe—if we get over the difficulties, and we must reserve judgment about all the difficulties—is right.
Last night I saw on the B.B.C. a very fine C.B.S. film on Europe called The Barriers Come Down. It was a first-class piece of work, except that when the makers of the film came to find a British politician to express the British point of view, they chose my Right-Wing friend Dick Crossman—'and I say, "right-wing" deliberately. He put his point of view, but they really ought to get somebody else, with a more progressive point of view than Dick Crossman, to put the other point of view. However, they did not mean any harm: this was just a little bit of American misjudgment that does happen. If a British citizen has gone to the fore in attacking the United States (I am not sure that Dick Crossman has, but I suspect he has; it will be a wonder if he has not), then he will get preferential treatment in the United States over any steady friend of the United States.
306
This is one of the charming characteristics of the United States of America, of which country and of whose people I am very fond.
But, subject to that reservation, which does not matter, they took a big commercial lorry, one of the Minister of Transport's too-big commercial lorries. They started it from the city of Manchester with some important goods which were going to Milan, in Italy.
LORD LATHAM: Carborundum.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his help. A journey of the same length would have taken two days in the United States. The lorry starts at Manchester, it gets to the Port of London where our Customs people have to look at the papers and keep a record. It gets through and in due course it gets on to a ship and goes to——
LORD HENDERSON: Milan, Italy.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No. It got to Belgium, where the Customs people set about it, and there were papers and delay. It got through to Luxembourg, because (I think it was said) there is a Customs Union between Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. There was some delay. One stop meant that they had to stay all night, because the Customs "boys" had gone off, after their eight-hour shift, and were not on until the next morning. The lorry crew then went to France, and the French Customs had a good time, as noble Lords will remember they can have from time to time. So they were held up there. They then had to go to Germany and were held up there. There was a reason for its being a roundabout journey: the lorry men were trying to dodge somebody. I think it went to Austria, and then finished up in Italy, with delays all along the route. As a result this journey, which in the United States, without tariffs, would have taken about two days, took somewhere near ten days. My Lords, that means a shocking addition to the cost of transportation of the goods from Manchester, and a shocking addition by all these Customs duties that have been imposed on the way, and so on. Therefore, if we are to be competitors in the European Market it is not in our interest that we should be held up

307
in this way by that method of doing business. I think that television film was very impressive, indeed.
I think, also, that the common Market has something to do with peace. I am sure that the Communist countries think it has something to do with peace. It is interesting how the Communist countries oppose the Common Market, though they have something of the same sort behind the Iron Curtain. What is their motive? They are afraid that Western Europe may become economically stronger. They were taught by Stalin that military strength depends upon economic strength, and that is why the Communist Powers are opposing our entry into the Common Market, though they have something like a Common Market themselves. But I think this Common Market of 200 or 250 million people—bigger than the population of the United States or the Soviet Union—means a greater possibility of economic expansion on the part of those European countries and ourselves, if we can go into it. I think that is to the good—both economically and from the point of view of potential military strength. Indeed, I should like to see it extended to the NATO area, to include North America.
Now we come to the Commonwealth problem, the solution of which is not clear at the moment. I recall that my noble Leader has talked about the value of the Commonwealth in our struggle in 1940 and the succeeding years. He and I were members of the War Government, and we know what it meant. I do not want the Commonwealth to be upset, and I want us to do all we can to enable friendly economic relations with the Commonwealth to continue. But having said that with great sincerity, especially in relation to New Zealand which is in a dangerous position under all this, I would go on to say that we are entitled to our own Dominion status, and that the Commonwealth countries themselves erect tariffs against us. We understand their reasons, and we do not complain about it.
India, a country which I visited last year, and where the people were most kind to my wife and myself, has recently been discussing with the Soviet Union the supply of Mig, military aircraft from the Soviet Union to India, which, from the point of view of international defence
308
and foreign policy, is a little embarrassing, quite apart from British economic interests, But Mr. Nehru said: "This is our business, and do not let anybody else interfere ". I am not complaining that Mr. Nehru should say that. He has a right to say it. Nevertheless, if the British, in going into the Common Market, are in part actuated by the furtherance of British interests and the promotion of British prosperity (which I do not think can be a bad thing for the Commonwealth in itself), then I do not think the Commonwealth countries ought to be rough with us. We shall, of course, do our best to protect Commonwealth interests. We all want to maintain the Commonwealth. We all believe in it, and I hope, at any rate, that it can be done. Nevertheless, the situation of the Commonwealth under an agreement is bound to be a consideration.
In addition to the Russians, there are the Communist Party of Great Britain and some other people fairly near to them in political philosophy—those who have not been notorious for their British patriotism or for their love of the British; who have not frequently said that the British are right and the foreigners are wrong, but usually that the foreigners are right and the British are wrong. Some of these "jokers" have suddenly become extraordinary Commonwealth patriots, and I do not recognise them in their new guise. I do not understand it. Really, there is an element of terrible humbug about this. If there is anybody who does not care tuppence about the British Commonwealth and who hates it, it is any Communist Party throughout the world, or in any part of the Commonwealth. So their sudden Commonwealth patriotism is not impressive. Others, however, including my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, are absolutely genuine about the Commonwealth—as, indeed, is the great bulk of the political Party to which we have the honour to belong. I do not know that entering the Common Market necessarily involves an abandonment of the Commonwealth, and I think we must do all we can to see that it does not. But, if it does, then Parliament must face that issue and come to a decision in the light of it and taking full account of it. We must do our best for all of them, I quite agree.

309
My Lords, naturally, it would be right for the Opposition—and, indeed, for the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party—to reserve their decision until the end. I think that when the negotiations are concluded, or are substantially concluded, the Government would be wise to publish a comprehensive White Paper summarising the discussions, setting out the conclusions and, I would hope, honestly facing the pros and cons of the conclusions which have been reached. That is important. And let them, for goodness sake!, frame it in popular language; or, if they cannot do that (which I am beginning to suspect), then let them hand the White Paper over to the Central Office of Information and tell them to turn it into faithful, popular language, which I am sure that admirable institution could do.
The European Socialists themselves should play a part an all this: indeed, they are in favour of the Common Market. It is the most curious thing: it is the British Labour Party which is divided about it. But it is a bit "sticky". These men and women in Europe, the Socialists, suffered invasion and they suffered under the Gestapo. For all our bombs—which were bad enough—they had a rougher time than we did. Nevertheless, these European Socialists favour, in principle, the Common Market, and they cannot understand the British—but there is nothing new about that. They favoured NATO at first—at any rate, they started by supporting the European Defence Committee, although the French, who were leaders in that, did some backsliding about it before we ultimately got the thing fixed up. But it is not for us, as an enlightened and progressive country, to be more "sticky" about it than the Europeans, who suffered a very great deal.
There are, of course, some inhibitions about it. Some people (I do not know why, though if I were a German Socialist I might feel the same) cannot stand Dr. Adenauer. I do not care for him as a politician: he is a Conservative. He calls himself something else, but that does not prevent him from being a Conservative—and he is. But, on the whole, he has been a good European. He is not a bad friend of our country, and he was not an ally of the Nazi Party. I do not understand this prejudice, some of
310
which I think is rather mean and childish: for instance, to mention the name of Adenauer with a sneer and say that you cannot have anything to do with it. Now de Gaulle, I find it more difficult to be fond of. It is not that I am very fond of Adenauer, but I respect him. But de Gaulle is like a Scots Covenanter. He is not typically French. Indeed, I understand that his great-grandmother or grandmother was a Scots Covenanter herself. He is an able man, but he is awkward with the British, difficult with the British, and I think that is a pity. However, he rescued France from Parliamentary chaos—by dictatorial methods, admittedly, which I do not like; but I must say that the French Parliamentarians had been asking for it for some time. I should hope that de Gaulle, who was here in the war (perhaps that is the trouble; I do not know) would become more friendly to the British point of view m all these matters, and as helpful as he can. But these are not reasons for disagreeing with the Common Market. They are too personal, and go above these matters.
My Lords, I must refer to the political side of the Common Market, and here again I make an appeal to the Europeans to try to understand British hesitancy on the question of a political, Federal Europe on the lines of the United States of America. The trouble between us is that the Continentals, as I found in the Council of Europe, will accept the principle of a big idea and will say, "We accept it ". Then, months or years afterwards, when it comes to the particular application of that idea, they wild say "No" on particular points; and they sincerely do not realise that they are going back on the acceptance of the idea. It is no good being rude to them; they just do not realise it. The British, on the other hand, say, "We do not reject the ultimate big idea, but we prefer to go to it by experiment—this problem, (hat problem, the other problem. It may lead to the big idea, but it may not; we do not know. We think we should be a little dishonest if we swallowed the whole thing before we could see daylight through experiment in these things ".
So on the political side, there is that gulf. From the point of view of the United States of America, it was quite

311
right; but we in Europe are separate nations; we have separate political mentalities; we have different opinions, and in a number of ways we have different political philosophies. The best course, if the Europeans will agree, would be to try it out step by step, through the cooperation of Governments rather than a Federal State with a Federal Parliament. It will be quicker for them, in the long run, and easier for us. I hope very much that it may be possible for our European friends to see that point.
My Lords, our prosperity largely depends upon the right decision in this matter. What is happening now? A number of British manufacturing or productive concerns of one sort or another are setting up factories in the Common Market area of Europe because of the common external tariff designed to be possibly injurious to anybody who either will not or cannot enter the Common Market. That will continue if we are not in the Market. There will be an increasing export of British productive energy, British factories and British economy to the Continent of Europe, in order that they can make money there because they are not making enough here—or, at any rate, because they cannot make it here consistently with exporting into the Common Market area. These are very serious things for our people.
There are, I agree, some disadvantages, or possible disadvantages. This Common Market area, with a population of between 200 and 250 million, will be a big market to go for and to get, so far as possible, even if it is not possible to get the whole of it. But it will be a highly competitive market, my Lords, and there will be some disadvantages to British industry in meeting that Continental competition on completely equal terms. I am sorry about that; but, on the whole, I am inclined to think that a little competition may shake the British capitalists up in directions in which it is desirable they should be shaken up—and all of us, all sections of society, will have to shake ourselves up if we are to survive in that international competition. So, although it will be a nuisance, it is not entirely an unmixed blessing. We must do our best and get the best terms that we can for our agriculture, EFTA
312
and the Commonwealth; and I reserve judgment, as all my noble friends do, till the end of the day, when we know in fair detail what the proposition really is. But that does not prevent my feeling that, if it be practicable, in principle it is right that the British should go into the Common Market.
5.41 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for the graceful and generous way in which he brought myself to the notice of your Lordships, and I should like to add that I have had the privilege of listening to a speech which should help our negotiators in Brussels in the way they would like to be helped. I am not sure that it is entirely wise for one who has just left Her Majesty's Government to speak so soon on matters of high importance, particularly when legitimate and honest opinion is so divided on the question of these negotiations in Brussels. Nevertheless, I decided to say a few words on the subject, because after very careful consideration extending over a long period of time I can do no other than to wish that our negotiators in Brussels will be entirely successful and that in the end the Government will be able to come to Parliament with a plan which provides as well all the safeguards for the Commonwealth, the connection with which we all prize so highly.
I must confess than when I first heard of the Common Market proposals—and that was long before the Treaty of Rome was finalised—I was full of doubts and apprehensions. I myself have traded and manufactured for a great many years on the Continent of Europe. I asked myself, was this not what Napoleon had tried to do? Surely it could not now be achieved without our co-operation, without our participation. Why should we try to take any part in it? We could recover our former position and our strength. But I had forgotten that the state of the world had fundamentally altered since the war. As Winston Churchill once put it,
"We live in a period happily unique in human history when the whole world is divided intellectually and to a great extent geographically between the creeds of Communist discipline and individual freedom."

313
Faced with this situation, the six nations in Europe now comprised in the European Economic Community saw the need for closer political and economic cooperation, and so there came into being the Treaty of Rome. It was this great change which had overtaken the world, this great division in the world Which had appeared, which compelled me to look at what was happening in Europe in quite a different light. Our main preoccupations are now clearly seen. Perhaps I could enumerate them: how to ensure our security; how to increase our prosperity; and how to maintain our influence in world affairs. I suggest that our relationship with Europe must be a great factor in the answer to these questions.
First of all, security. We can no longer defend ourselves alone; nor could any other country. Interdependence is essential to our survival, and I am sure that the Atlantic Alliance must remain the cornerstone of our foreign policy. As the political integration of the European Community develops they will surely develop also their point of view on defence matters. If we join, our influence will be very important on this development. We must ensure that a united Europe strengthens the West as a whole. If we join the European Community we will be much more equal partners with the United States, and I believe the United States would welcome this development. I think it will strengthen the stability of the Free World.
Then there is the question of increasing our prosperity. Our prosperity surely depends on trade, and trade is expanding much more rapidly in the highly industrialised countries of the world. The removal of barriers, which the Common Market is out to secure, should stimulate trade and will have, in my view, an important psychological effect on industry. The availability of a vast home market of some 240 million people is a challenge and an opportunity, and it is a challenge which I feel that our industrialists will gladly accept. But to Britain what is also important is their trading connection with the rest of the world. We must have trading connections with the food-growing countries and with the countries which produce our natural raw materials. The Community with Britain as a partner will
314
be much more dependent on foreign trade than it is to-day, and together we can solve the problem of providing markets for the goods of the developing countries and thus help them too along the road to prosperity. If we can solve the problem of Commonwealth trade and thus make it possible to join the Community, we should have accomplished a major step towards solving the problem of dealing with third parties.
Then I mentioned the question of our influence in international affairs. This depends upon our experience, which is great; upon our democratic institutions, which are sound; and on our close trading relations with other countries, which have been developed for so many years. None of these sources of our strength can be lost or weakened by our joining the Common Market. I believe that we would have a great influence on our Continental partners. The opponents of our entry into the Common Market cannot have it both ways. They say that we would be devoid of influence, that we would be dominated by the Continent. How can they expect us to retain any influence in the world at all, if the Community becomes a major force without us?
I do not underrate the difficulties. Of course, there are difficulties. It is not easy to solve the complicated economic issues raised by our application to join the Community. But at the same time we should not allow ourselves to overestimate them. We have much in common with the Six in our attitude to world affairs and I think that the Commonwealth issue must also be faced in its politic aspect. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary, in his speech to us this afternoon, referred to the fact that the Commonwealth was an outward-looking and not an inward-looking organisation and that they, too, needed to develop their trade with the world and were going about that particular task with efficiency. But Britain's entry into the Common Market cannot loosen the basic ties which bind the Commonwealth, always assuming—and we are pledged to this—that we do not let the Commonwealth down.
Then, there is the question of sovereignty, which worries some people. As my noble friend the Foreign Secretary said, the loss of sovereignty must

315
be judged by whether there is a compensating gain, and I thought that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth dealt with that subject very adequately. Surely the Rome Treaty is an opportunity to combine with other like-minded countries in seeking common solutions to common problems. Interdependence does not apply to defence alone. It also applies to foreign affairs and to economics as well. It is tempting to be obsessed with the technical difficulties. We should keep in mind the picture of a co-operative and harmonious Western Europe, working with the Commonwealth and with the other members of a Free World. And I can do nothing better than to hope that our negotiators will have the success they deserve. Then, when they come to Parliament, we should be well satisfied.
5.54 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, those of us (and I may say that they included quite a number of noble Lords on both sides, or perhaps I might say on all sides, of this House) who proposed in May, 1961, that the Government would be well advised to accept the institutions and the political implications of the Treaty of Rome—in other words, to apply for membership and thereafter to negotiate their way in by obtaining some satisfaction as regards home agriculture, the interests of our EFTA partners and Commonwealth trade—I repeat, those of us who took that initiative never suggested that we should sign the Treaty of Rome unless we secured such satisfaction. Nor do we propose that now. We did not say, either, that the path of negotiations would be at all easy; still less that success would be assured. We do not think so now. But what we did believe was that to make every effort to join the Six on anything like reasonable terms was by far the best way, not only of overcoming our own periodic economic ills and crises, but also of ensuring the maintenance in being of the Commonwealth and, indeed, of ensuring the peace of the world. And this we still firmly believe.
If, for some reason—improbable but still possible—the present negotiations were to break down, then it would shortly be evident to all that our present
316
economic foreign—political and, indeed, defence policies will have to be reviewed in the light of some inescapable, though not entirely palatable, decisions, such as (and I make no bones about this) whether we could continue to meet the cost across the exchanges of the maintenance of our troops in Germany. No doubt we should get along somehow. Certainly there would not be any immediate disaster as some people say. The danger, frankly, would be a slow decline. Only a really galvanic effort, involving the scrapping of a great number of age-old customs and traditions, and no doubt the temporary acceptance of a lower standard of living, could put us firmly on our feet. And it is highly doubtful, I think, whether such an effort, in a democracy like ours, would be practical politics, anyway in time of peace. I need scarcely add that in the regrettable event of a failure of the negotiations very grave dangers would then confront the Six as well.
Speaking in your Lordships' House on February 9, 1961, I said (I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I repeat this) that there were, broadly, speaking, three possible ways in which this nation might develop in freedom. The first was to go on more or less as we were developing our Commonwealth system in accord with EFTA, in special relationship with America, financing by ourselves alone our Commonwealth system, our Welfare State and our independent deterrent, as well as a considerable number of under-developed countries, always trying at the same time, to fix up, if we could, some kind of free-trade area relationship with Europe. In Other words, it was the famous doctrine on the three overlapping circles—the classic doctrine, if you like to put it in that way. Secondly, we could get ever closer to the United States and work in the direction of some form of Atlantic Union, and perhaps end up with some kind of merger of the United Kingdom and the United States. Thirdly, we could join some eventual European or Western European Association on an equal footing with France, Germany and Italy, and with full respect for the interests of the smaller European nations. Short of, fourthly, being taken over by the

317
Soviet Union, I could see no alternative future for these Islands.
That is the gist of what I said then, and I added that, rightly or wrongly, we were in a historic period in which larger industrialised States could pay their way only if they were based on, or associated with, some vast internal market—a point very well emphasised, if I may respectfully say so, by the Foreign Secretary again this afternoon. Later in my speech, I argued, basing myself on arguments which I shall not repeat, that the first solution—that of the three circles—was not possible in present conditions; that the third solution, joining Europe, was the best; and that the second solution, that is to say, Atlantic union, was, unfortunately, the most likely. It may well have been that I was too pessimistic in saying that, but that is what I said.
If we may judge from the apparently growing and ever more vociferous opposition to the present pursuit by Her Majesty's Government of the third policy—that is to say, joining Europe—which has been stirred up by those escapists who live in the past and refuse to face the facts of the modern world, quite a number of the people of this country are now being misled. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, says he does not believe that, but I think it is true. They are being misled into thinking that; the first policy of the three circles is possible, when in fact it is not. It might be possible, of course, if a Commonwealth machine could be created which would transform the Commonwealth from a fraternal association into a World Power; but that is really a grotesque delusion. Nothing can alter the fact that the Commonwealth is a collection of totally independent States who are bound together by a strong sentiment, on the one hand, and, on the other, by a system of exchanges based on preferences, which, as we all know, owing to the increasing industrialisation of the ex-Dominions, are in process of being demobilised, whether we go into European Economic Community or whether we do not. That is, I am afraid, a fact.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. But because this is very important I should like to ask him a
318
question. Surely he does not think that the achievement of a measure of Western European Union rules out the ultimate possibility of a wider measure of Atlantic Union—because that seems to be the impression.
LORD GLADWYN: Of course I was not suggesting anything of the kind. I imagine that, if given the chance, this Western European Union will be much, the best way of laying the foundation of a wider Union which, though it could not exactly embrace America for a very long time, could act in close association with her—in fact, the only foundation for the famous Atlantic Community which we all desire to bring about.
On the question of whether the Commonwealth is a Unity or not, an allusion to which has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the fact is that the Indians, for instance, propose to equip their air force from the Soviet Union; that Canada has absolutely no hesitation in putting restrictions on the import of our motor cars as soon as she thinks things are not going too well for her, and so on. Nobody blames the Commonwealth countries in the least for doing these things. We really must recognise things for what they are and not entertain any illusions on this matter.
The real hope, as I see it, for the future development of the Commonwealth—and, here I agree entirely with What has bean said: that it is essential to preserve it as a buffer against Communism and as an niter-racial body based essentially on freedom—is to associate it in a general way not solely with the United Kingdom, but also with the immense economic and cultural factor of some Western European Association of which our country would be a leading and quite possibly the leading member. And that, of course, is the main object of the critical negotiations which are now going on in Brussels. So far as I can judge, much good progress has already been made in Brussels on home agriculture. As has been said to-day, the Six have already made certain concessions to our point of view, and they may well make more.
On raw material exports to the European Economic Community from Commonwealth countries—and, of course, 90

319
per cent. of these raw materials come into the Community free—some additional zero tariffs have been fixed, and we may hope with some confidence that others will be fixed during the negotiations. On exports from low-wage countries, such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, the Six have, as it seems, been very reasonable; and that is a very good thing. It is an extremely important matter. Nobody thinks that the problem of the association of the Commonwealth countries which produce tropical goods will really result in any very grave difficulty. We have made our own contribution as regards the gradual abolition of preferences on imports of industrial goods from the Commonwealth. The Ceylonese, we are told, have acquired tea and sympathy, which goes for India, too. There is no real reason to suppose that the articles of association for those EFTA countries Who for political reasons cannot join the Community cannot be worked out, though it must be admitted that there is a difficulty which has not yet been faced. But before the main decision of principle can be taken by Her Majesty's Government there is one last outstanding hurdle, which is to secure assurances for the continued importation into this country, and hence into the Community, if we join, of substantial quantities of temperate zone foodstuffs, whether from the Commonwealth, from the United States, or from South America.
We do not know exactly—at least I do not—what the formula is to which the Lord Privy Seal has presumably been trying to get his colleagues of the Six to subscribe, and therefore we are all largely in the dark. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that it would perhaps have been better if we could have had this debate when Mr. Heath was in a position to make a real report. But if the rather full reports in the newspapers are any guide—and quite often they are—it is, after all, possible to take stock of the present position to some extent. One of the first things one notices is that even in the sphere of temperate zones foodstuffs the real difficulties have been narrowed down to very few. Hard Wheat from Canada, for instance, we are
320
told, will probably come in to the enlarged Community, even if there is some small tariff against it, because it represents something which cannot be produced in Europe. Mutton and lamb from New Zealand will equally be largely irreplaceable; and for these products, too, certain alternative markets will exist in ten years' time, notably in Japan.
What is really at risk presumably, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, is New Zealand and Australian dairy products and Australian soft wheat, and I suppose, to some extent, beef as well. And what goes in respect of Australia, obviously goes in practice for the United States and Argentina, too. It is on our opinion whether the policy of the Community will be such as to facilitate the imports of these commodities from those countries in, broadly speaking, similar quantities to those exported now, and on the prospects for world agreements governing the disposal of the surpluses which those commodities represent, that our final judgment must rest. Our doubts, apparently, are chiefly Whether the Six will not insist on the maintenance of a price level for these products in Europe that will result in the Community being largely self-contained and hence, obviously, in grave distress to the outside countries producing these commodities, and notably the ones I have already mentioned.
May I just say, at this point, that I feel sure that there will be no question of actually nailing colours to the mast of one side or the other during the next few days. I was very glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say that such words as "crisis", and even "deadlock", were quite inappropriate at the present moment. A period of reflection would clearly do no harm, and there are, after all, other procedures which have not as yet been tried, such as meetings at an even higher level. All the more so since it is, I think, possible that the negotiators on both sides may have arrived at a temporary impasse through concentrating too much on questions of principle. The last thing that anyone, least of all myself, would wish to do would be to prejudice the position of our splendid team, who are obviously sticking out for something which they believe to be immensely important, as indeed it is. But perhaps in

321
this connection I might make some observations of a more practical nature.
Whatever declaration of intention the Six may be induced to make—and I quite agree that they must make a really valid declaration of intention, notably as regards the level of internal agricultural prices—they cannot absolutely guarantee What is going to happen to temperate zone foodstuffs imparted into Europe eight years from now, after the Community has been finally established at the end of the temporary period. It is just not possible for anybody to give hard and fast guarantees on that subject. Also we have to reflect, surely, that important as this is, it is not only a question of the Six declaring that they will both in principle and practice be liberal, as the saying goes, as regards imports from outside the Community and hence as regards world trade generally; it is the enlarged Community when it is formed, with our participation, and, presumably, that of the Norwegians, the Danes, the Irish and Icelanders, which will have to decide whether the policy is liberal rather than illiberal. Internal agricultural prices, after all, wild be part and parcel of the common agricultural policy to which we are committed in principle if we should ever sign the Treaty of Rome.
But this common agricultural policy, so far as we are concerned, will in practice simply have to take into consideration the major and essential needs of such countries as Australia and New Zealand. We could not, we would not, willingly agree to this common agricultural policy unless it did. And this is the point. It is extremely unlikely that we should actually be forced into agreeing to a common agricultural policy against our will—that is to say, of course, if the revised voting formula in the Community is going to be broadly analogous to the present voting formula, whereby a country such as Germany, for instance, can prevent any policy, other than that actually connected with the establishment of the Common Tariffs, being adopted if it is opposed and has the support of only one other smaller country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has obviously studied this. It is all mixed up together. But let us take British agriculture.
322
If I understood correctly the Answer of Mr. Soames on July 25 in the other House, in reply to a Question by Mr. Turton, it was this: there is to be a review of prices. We shall be allowed to have a review of prices in our country. There is no compulsion on any other constituent country to have a review, but there is to be a review of the community as a whole for certain, and then what? He says, of course, "You will be able to speak through your Government," but when it comes to making a decision of the Commission on the Community review of prices, then the British farmer has to go over and meet this foreign community to decide his fate in this country, how he stands. I think that is an abortion.
LORD GLADWYN: Why should he not? I do not think it is such a terrible thing to go to Brussels and to meet a body of community officials on which no doubt there will be somebody who will be an old friend from the Ministry of Agriculture. He will know him very well and he will discuss these things with him as frankly as in his own country. I cannot see that it is terrible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And then the decision of the Commission counts against the British farmer in this country
LORD BOOTHBY: So it should.
LORD GLADWYN: The point is that the Commission arrive at a decision by majority, but they are supposed to be impartial people, and I think they are, and they regard it from the Community point of view; but when they have made a recommendation it goes to the Ministers and they have to decide by a constitutional majority, and the majority at the moment has to be very large.
I am going to develop this point a little further, if I may, because I think it is important. I said that it is extremely unlikely in practice that we should be actually forced into agreeing to a common agricultural policy against our will. I say it is unlikely in practice if the formula is what it is now. In other words, it seems to me that the voting formula is likely to be just as important as the declaration of intention. As I

323
understand it, the negotiators have not as yet got around to discussing the voting formula at all.
With great respect, therefore, I wonder—I only wonder—whether on both sides we are not perhaps tending to exaggerate the horror of the present situation. If we come into the Community it will, in practice—and I repeat in practice—be found that all the major objectives of the Treaty of Rome (which include, as your Lordships know, not only a common agricultural policy, but also a common transport policy, a common social policy and even, no doubt, eventually will include a common fiscal policy) will no doubt have to be arrived at by agreement between the four major partners in this great enterprise. As the new common tariff, the tariff wall, however, is slowly constructed, and as all impediments to trade within the area are abolished—and this, under the Treaty of Rome, cannot be held up except for a brief period—so, as I say, the common interests of the major participants in the Community will become clearer and clearer, and what are essentially compromises will inevitably be arrived at and achieved.
The truth is, I think, that even the most passionate advocates of Commonwealth unity, who maintain, as I understand it (perhaps I am wrong, but this is as I understand it), that all the interests of every Commonwealth country should always have precedence over any of the interests of the United Kingdom, ought to welcome, not oppose but welcome, our presence in a Community, whose policy can be influenced to a great extent in a manner helpful towards them if we are in, whereas we certainly could not exercise such influence if we stayed out. Nobody can possibly say what the exact position will be in 1970 as regards the whole world production and distribution of temperate zone foodstuffs. But if I had to bet on anything I should bet on our ability to see to it, for instance, that New Zealand and Australian producers of dairy products and soft wheat are not, by one means or another, put out of business. Of course we must get a declaration from the Six which will at least give proof of good intentions in this regard; we must get a firm declaration. But, equally, we should not underestimate
324
our own ability to see to it by our own action within the Community itself that our own blood brothers are not put at any serious disadvantage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord this? I am sure he will be interested. He says we have got to see to it. If a Labour Government come in and we want to make long-term contracts with New Zealand for that purpose, would it be subject to control by the Market?
LORD GLADWYN: I should think that is open to doubt—whether we can make long-term contracts; I would not deny that. But what we can probably do toy our own action in the Community is see that the level of prices is not such that it would exclude dairy products and soft wheat from Australia and New Zealand.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have already lessened our relations in general with the Commonwealth by cancelling the long-term contracts the Labour Government used to have, and we have been drifting ever since. If we go back and we want to be able to go into long-term contracts, is this going to stop it?
LORD GLADWYN: I do not know; I do not see why the Market itself should not conduct long-term contracts. I am not ail that expert, but I do not see why it should not.
Before I sit down, I would make two other points briefly. The first is that if, for any reason, we cannot get agreement with the Six in broad principle during the next few months, we are quite unlikely ever to get it at all. We shall pass next year, as we all know, into a pre-electoral period in which the issue will become completely confused by other considerations, and when and if an Election is held and another Government installed, whatever its political complexion may be, it will find it very difficult, as a result of the pledges it will have given during the electoral campaign, to accept conditions rejected by Her Majesty's present Government.
The second consideration is allied to this one. It is that there is a gentleman

325
in the wings eagerly awaiting the confusion, the recrimination and the inevitable cracks in the whole Atlantic Alliance which will follow a permanent breakdown in the present Brussels talks. Has name is Nikita Sergeyevitch Khrushchev. He is lying very low now and for very good reasons. For the precipitation of an international crisis would be the one thing likely to rally the West and produce almost instant agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community. Once he is persuaded that the negotiations have really broken down, however, it is as certain as anything can be that he will renew really heavy pressure on West Berlin, no doubt with some hope of success, because the whole West will obviously be divided. It may be that he also would favour the unification of Europe "from the Atlantic to the Urals", Which disquieted the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, and rightly so, though I think it all depends on what lines this particular area is unified. But one thing is certain: Mr. Khrushchev will not be able himself to unify Europe from the Urals to County Donegal, which he might otherwise hope to do if, as I say, the West is really divided.
So, as it seems to me—this is my final word—we really must, all Seven of us, in the interests of the entire Western World, think not only in terms of the exact formula governing importations of agricultural goods from the temperate zone eight or nine years from now, when the whole face of the world will be totally different—important though that is—but revert to the first principle, which is that we and the Six, by a process of give and take, have jointly got to agree on the construction of a wider and more coherent Western European Union. And the sooner the better.
6.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, my first thought at this stage of our negotiations with the European Economic Community is of our debt to those who are presenting the British case. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has referred to "our splendid team", and at this moment I would wish, particularly speaking from this Bench, to express the thanks many of us in this country feel to the Lord Privy Seal, and
326
those with him, who are giving such intelligent, dedicated and concentrated service to our country. I have been informed, by one who speaks on these matters with considerable knowledge, that the European Economic Community with respect to its permanent civil service is almost unmatched for sheer idealism rooted in reality. Whatever the immediate outcome of the negotiations may be, I am hopeful that our representatives, together with the representatives of the European Economic civil service, will continue to work together to the advantage of the West.
I would endorse something the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said when he referred to the inability of the Government to explain themselves in simple terms. I suppose this is an inability that most Governments experience. Yesterday in another place reference was made to a White Paper that was shortly to be published on the subject of the European Economic Community: but I would hope for something rather more popular, something comparable to Britain and the European Community, making good the gaps in this particular document and easily available to the many people who want to see the picture set out in relatively simple terms.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord Who sits on the Woolsack is tomorrow to make a statement on certain legal aspects consequent upon our entry into the Common Market, and that he is referring to the issue of sovereignty. I apologise that I shall not be able to be present here to-morrow to listen to his speech, but I shall read carefully what he has said. I believe that many of us would welcome a full Government statement on these points: if we join the Common Market, shall we have a written Constitution for the first time? Is there anything in that question in people's minds? Secondly, as many others have already mentioned, to what extent in the Government's view, will the sovereignty of Parliament be curtailed? Here I appreciate What the noble Earl, Lord Home, the Foreign Secretary, said on this subject, and I would again thank him for a most helpful exposition.
Whatever agreement may be made with respect to the Commonwealth, there must be some loss of trade; and

327
reflecting on this, and keeping in mind the immense debt we owe to the Commonwealth for their support in two world wars, I want to ask critics of the Common Market to look ahead and face the issue that noble Lords have already mentioned, that more sharing of trade between European countries is already making for more unity in Europe, and greater unity increases our hopes of peace. If, by joining the Common Market we appreciably reduce the chance of a third world war, is not this a great contribution that we can make, not only to the Commonwealth but to all mankind? Common Market or no, within the next fifteen or so years we are bound to see a different grouping of countries. In this fluid situation must not the primary question be: where can our influence best be excited to increase the common wealth, the common well-being of mankind?
We have long realised that some surrender of sovereignty is the price of peace. The Treaty of Rome clearly visualises the transfer of certain aspects of national sovereignty to a European structure; but the practice of the Six equally clearly shows that the steps in this direction must be worked out so as to preserve the best in each State and spread it to the others. For example, family allowances are high in France, whereas West Germany has the best provision for old age of any country in the would. Every single institution, including the Churches, must be affected by the Common Market. Relatively few people in the Church of England know much about church life on the Continent. In this respect the insularity of our national Church is going to present an emotional difficulty, and we must do more now to prepare to take our part in the cultural life of Europe.
It has been said that the Channel could be bridged without the British Church noticing it. At one time all Europe was treated by the Archbishops as part of the Diocese of London. Now we find more and more nationals coming into London. The vicar of a Central London parish states that the population of his parish is so transitory that those who compile the register of voters reckon upon a total turnover of people in five years. We are seeing in London increasing
328
immigration from Commonwealth and other countries because of the passion for education among all races and nations. We face here an ever more highly educated multi-racial society. This tree has leaves that we recognise fairly easily—for example, loneliness and detachment and a root that is harder to discern. Is it true to say that dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and with human resources as they have shown themselves, can be related to the poverty of spirit that Our Lord commended? Do more educated men now recognise that man cannot live by bread alone? Whether we join the Common Market or not, we must increasingly reckon with Europe.
In 1940 William Temple often spoke about our hopes of a new world, and I heard him say that we must work to reconstitute Europe as a co-operative Commonwealth, and to do this we must become part of a co-operative Commonwealth. Has not the European Economic Community already shown signs that it has this vision? Consider, for example, its aid to under-developed countries as set out in Part IV of the Treaty of Rome. I understand that the leaders of the Six clearly recognise that the European Economic Community must, for its own economic, social and political health, become known as a power which helps others. The receiving countries are also more ready to accept help from Europe than from the United Kingdom alone, especially help in building up their social and political institutions and developing technologies in industry, commerce and agriculture. The fundamental principle upon which this help is being given is that the areas concerned must be assisted to help themselves. My Lords, dependency upon Europe is for technical, cultural, political and capital aid in such forms that the needy areas become independent of Europe, create their own institutions and deal with the rest of the world as equals.
Not very much has been said so far about the views of young people, but they face a future which many of them believe holds little [promise for them at the present. They want more emphasis upon quality, and they long for encouragement to be outward-looking. The Common Market, one would think, should satisfy some of these outward-looking instincts. I am grateful for the

329
thought in a letter in Tuesday's Times that the twentieth century adventure lies in Europe, in refashioning its vitality. Many industrialists are articulate in their support of the Common Market; young people, inarticulate, may need the stimulus of the Common Market more than we know.
My Lords, may I end on a rather different note? In the nineteenth century our Empire rapidly expanded, Christian churches enlarged their commitments and sent missionaries into many lands. We shall never fully understand Why, in one century, the wind of the Spirit kindles into flame the fire, in some particular words of Scripture, so that men become alive to their responsibilities and go into the world and make disciples among all the nations. In the fallowing century it is other words that possess the hearts of Christians, and there is a simultaneous and spontaneous response to Our Lord's prayer for unity—that His people may be one—and the (Ecumenical Movement wins strong support throughout the world. My Lords, I see our entry to the Common Market as related to men's hunger for unity; I see it as a means of developing a unity of purpose Chat could strengthen and stimulate our country and our Commonwealth.
6.32 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, the Labour movement has long believed in international co-operation and association with other countries. In the trade union movement we have striven for many, many years for what we cal international trade union unity, and I spent a good many years of my life trying to spread that unity over as wide a field as possible. Indeed, I was the President of the first World Federation of Trade Unions, after some eighteen years as Chairman of the International Federation. We believe strongly in the United Nations, and Would seek to endow that Organisation with a good deal more power than up to this stage it has been able to display. Many of us believe in would government, and I think it can be said, with a great measure of truth, that the driving force behind that conception very largely originated in the ranks of Labour.
As with all aspirations of such a broad character, it is not always easy to take the second step and to see just how the
330
ideals that you have in mind will be attained. I do not think anyone would urge, as a practical possibility, that world government, for example, would come suddenly; that the nations of the world, on some given day or month or something of the kind, would become converted and so want to sacrifice their national sovereignty that they would be ready to take that immense stride. It seems to me logical to expect the approach to the ideals that I have mentioned to come about by smaller groupings, always with the proviso that those groupings are not allowed to develop into what I would call militarily aggressive blocs or even economic blocs.
The British Commonwealth itself is, however loosely constituted, broadly an attempt to bring about a closer association of many different nations, as it is now developing, some of which of course have had common origins, but none the less are very widespread. I would be the last to say any word which would impair the strength of development of the British Commonwealth. I think most of us can see that its character is changing; that the acquisition of independence by so many different countries has perhaps brought on problems and considerations which were not present in the earlier Commonwealth. But I think most of us would agree that anything which helps to bring countries into a closer, regular association is more likely to remove misunderstanding between them, and indeed that is one of the strengths which we attach to the United Nations.
We use the phrase so commonly, "The Common Market". I would infinitely prefer to use the official title and think in terms of the European Economic Community, because, to my mind, the word "community" connotes something rather broader than purely market considerations; and I believe it is a portent for what the present Community may eventually become. When the Rome Treaty was first drafted how many people really believed it would work as efficiently as it has done? I think most people—even informed people—would have said that there were so many differences of tradition and habits and one thing and another within the Six countries that the whole thing would be a valuable experiment, but

331
not something one could believe would assume a permanent character. At all events, I myself, not without international experience, was, to say the least, dubious as to the extent to which this miracle has been performed, because so I regard it.
Yet the Labour movement, with its broad outlook, which I earlier spoke of, with this desire to get into close association with the different nations, is now assailed by doubts and hesitations, in regard, of course, to this particular project. I was looking at the agenda of the Labour Party for their forthcoming Conference. There are 58 resolutions down on that agenda. Of those 58, only 3 are in favour of the—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
LORD CITRINE: The noble Viscount may say "Hear, hear!" I would take the other view, and rather deprecate such a decisive view being taken by so many Labour Parties before they have had the full facts of the circumstances in front of them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Who has kept them away?
LORD LAWSON: Who stopped us from getting the facts?
LORD CITRINE: My colleague the noble Lord says, "Who stopped us from getting the facts?". But I think we must all look at this question as realists. I have been engaged in my lifetime with negotiations that it would have been fatal to have reported at each stage. It would have completely frustrated the results that we were all trying to attain. I do not think it should be lightly assumed that there has been no sort of information imparted to bodies, who may have serious decisions to make in this matter. In fact, I know to the contrary.
As I was saying, at the Trades Union Congress out of ten resolutions, only one is for entry to the Common Market. Now why is this? I think, first of all, there is genuine concern on certain aspects of this problem. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, this afternoon has voiced quite a number of them. I wish he had seen just a little more of the merits in the project
332
of our entry than he seemed to observe. But, unquestionably, the thought that is running through the minds of so many people is: "What is going to happen if we go into this Community?" There is fear of the unknown and, I may add, mistrust of our present Government. I am genuinely sorry to add that, because I think in matters of this kind it is a great misfortune, that issues can be prejudiced by actions which may be entirely unrelated to the grave subject under consideration. Why do I talk about hositility to the Government, mistrust of the Government?—because of its recent action in the sphere of labour relations. I have several times in this House tried to warn the Government of where an attempt to compel the trade union movement in any respect would carry them. No notice has been taken. The result is that we have now had two developments, which cannot fail to affect the thinking of trade unionists in this country. We all know their reaction to the wages pause. We have yet to see their reaction as a movement to the Incomes Commission. It is being interpreted as an attempt to castigate the trade union movement in those cases where, after proper negotiation with employers, it has secured advances in wages which seem to the Commission—and no one knows who they will be, how wise they will be, and with what quality they will be endowed, to know what is right and what is wrong in this circumstance!—to be excessive.
I was not present in the House the other day, but I understand that it was suggested that if there were some infringements of that general conception of what was fair and proper in the national interest, the parties concerned would be subjected to the "open air cure". That seemed to me a little bit like Oxford Union debating. That has no reality at all in the present circumstances. Who, with any experience of the trade union movement, believes that it will be intimidated by any suggestion of that character? Instead of approaching on the line of persuasion, and trying to get the good will of the trade unions, something has been imposed upon them; and we all know that when imposition takes place we resist it. I do not know where the advice to the Government came from. I know there are very competent people

333
in the Ministry, of Labour and elsewhere, who could have foreseen the consequences of this. But it may be that the Government have come to the conclusion, that it is better to impose their will upon the (industries of this country in regard to this matter of wages. They may feel that they would progress more rapidly that way, than by the normal means of agreement. I repeat that I deeply regret this development, because I believe it will prejudice the consideration of this vital issue; I sincerely hope that it will not, but that is what I fear. If any words of mine could influence the trade union movement, I would urge them to consider this subject of the European Economic Community as objectively as possible.
The real root fear, of course, is of loss Of control over our own affairs. It seems to me that you cannot have any organisation of any kind that is going to do anything without the members of that organisation sacrificing, to some extent at least, their complete liberty of action. It seems to be so axiomatic that I almost apologise for stating it. It is surely a matter of the degree to which sacrifice is entailed in the way of what might be described as self-government or autonomy.
These very same considerations must be applied to the members of the Six. They, too, may have felt that they were going to be dominated by some of their larger and more powerful members in the Community, and I can imagine that just the same kind of considerations as are uppermost in the minds of our people and our trade unions here would apply to the members of the Six at the time the Treaty was being negotiated. Yet the Governments of those countries, so far as I know with the full support of the trade unions, accepted the Treaty believing it was in the best interests of their people. It is surely a very common experience, when bodies are brought together with some idea of amalgamating or associating them closely and vesting more power in the organisation that results, that there are fears of the same kind. When business mergers take place, does anybody believe that some, at least, of the companies merging, their directorate or their shareholders, have not exactly this same kind of fear of loss of control?
In the sphere of local government, is
334
that not equally true? When ideas of that kind are put forward to amalgamate various bodies—and I am certainly not talking about the L.C.C. scheme now, but in more remote terms from London—one invariably finds one unit or group of people saying, "We do not want to have this. We want to manage our own affairs." I know, from the point of view of amalgamations in the trade union movement, that amalgamations have been held up for years because of that same intangible fear of Joss of power, loss of authority, in the amalgamating organisation. I am glad to say that, while it is still an obstacle, it is gradually giving way to more reasoned understanding of the advantages of combination.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Take-overbids.
LORD CITRINE: I repeat that it is ultimately a matter of degree. What do we lose? What do we gain? Does it enlarge our opportunities—and I think this is important—from the point of view of the Labour movement? Does it enlarge our opportunities for a healthier economic life and a more prosperous community? These are matters of fact which have to be judged on the merits, and we have not yet seen in full what those merits really are. I do not believe for one minute that the political unification of Europe is immediately practicable. I doubt whether that issue will be raised in a generation, much less a decade, because the difficulties are so very considerable. I cannot see any nation completely abandoning its sovereignty within that period.
From the trade union point of view two main issues are raised in this question. The first is the maintenance of full employment, and the second is the improvement of labour conditions. The Trades Union Congress has asked that there should be a declaration in the Rome Treaty which would make it clear that it is the object of the member States in the Community to establish full employment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the Treaty.
LORD CITRINE: It may be, of course, that any attempt to revise the Treaty would be mat with counter-proposals for

335
revision from other people. That has to be remembered. I know that most people, having formed an agreement, are extremely anxious about revising it at the request of any parity. It is a danger, and I freely admit it; but, at the very least, there should be some declaration on full employment, and it should be so specific that there can be no doubt of the intentions of all the parties concerned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In a protocol.
LORD CITRINE: My noble friend suggests a protocol. I do not know what mechanism might be used, but I am sure that the end is desirable.
I ask myself, would the British Government be ready to accept some such proposal? I cannot see that any other objective in the Treaty is more desirable than this one. It may be said by some that this is academic because full employment exists now. They may say that the Six are committed to accelerating and improving the standard of life and that that is the object of the Treaty; but that is no assurance that they will get rid of unemployment in any practical sense. I would call attention to that Mecca of private enterprise, the United States. They have a higher standard of prosperity in the purely material sense than most other countries, yet they have 5 million unemployed as an almost regular occurrence. In the years of the depression from 1929 to 1931 the number rose to 12 million.
So British workers, recalling what happened between 1929 and 1931, when we had 3 million out of employment, recalling that in certain parts of our own country now, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland in particular, and, I believe, on the North-East Coast, there are still serious pockets—as they are described in technical language—of unemployment are not sure that unemployment has been banished for ever. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that this is the sort of fear Which clouds industrial relations. It lies at the heart of restrictive practices and the curse of demarcation. So I say, if it is a desirable object, let us state lit as desirable, quite clearly, either in the Treaty or, if that is not practicable, in a protocol, or by some such device.
336
I do not profess to be an economist and I could be stood on my head by the technical experts in economics, but I happen to understand something about them because of the 22 years I was Secretary to the T.U.C. I cannot see, looking the problem in the face, that any single nation, however well disposed, can guarantee a permanent state of full employment, and I feel convinced that the prospects of ensuring full employment would be much greater if we joined with the members of the European Economic Community than if we remained outside.
Then I come to mobility of labour. This is dealt with in Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty. I have heard it said by responsible people in the trade union movement that they are afraid of a flood of foreign labour coming into this country if we join the Economic Community. Is it a real danger? First of all, there are safeguards in the Treaty itself. It emphasises that the first attempt to fill vacancies must be through indigenous labour. That, to my mind, is a very important consideration. Secondly there is the experience of the working out of the various Articles of the Treaty I have mentioned. I will not go into them, but it seems to me most important to ask ourselves what has happened to the Six. Has there been a flood of labour from one country to another during this period since 1957? They are all equally exposed to it, and yet the latest information shows that there is a shortage of labour in practically every one of those countries. Holland, Germany and France are all seeking workers, although they have tried over the years to induce workers in their hundreds of thousands to go to those countries. They are still asking for more and more.
It may be said that the attraction of British labour conditions would in themselves be a big inducement to foreign workers to come here. Such things as wages, conditions of labour, and social insurance are regarded by most people in this country as being immensely superior to what obtains on the Continent of Europe and in particular in the countries of the Six. I want to say, quite emphatically, that although that was the case some years ago a great levelling up has taken place

337
in the last few years. To-day those who are very well qualified to make an estimate on this matter would say that the conditions of this country and those of the countries in the Common Market are about equal in that respect. So I would say that the fears are exaggerated.
On general principles, British workers should support the Common Market. They have long been linked up with the free trade unions which comprise the labour force of the Six countries. It seems to me that British trade unionists should have more confidence in the integrity and strength of those people, and be ready to combine their own influence to theirs, so that altogether they can be, inside the European Economic Community, a really powerful force for good.
I would also, if I may, presume to make a request, perhaps an appeal, to the trade unionists of France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, with whose predecessors I worked so intimately for so many years, to try to understand the approach of the British people and the British trade unions. On the Continent, it seemed to me, they attached an enormous amount of importance to the logicality of people's actions, almost more than to what came out from the machinery. I have had more time wasted in making sure a formula fitted the ideas of particular people than I have spent on what actually arose from the formula. I have had that kind of experience. I would ask them to remember that the British people are an empirical people, that they judge things on their merits, whenever their real interests are affected, as I believe they are in this particular case. So I would hope that our Continental friends would understand more closely the conditions we have here.
Finally, I would say to my colleagues in Great Britain that I hope they will not do anything in the weeks to come which would impair fair and objective consideration of these vital issues. I hope they will try hard to join their strength with that of their international colleagues in the European Economic Community, and I hope that, in supporting entry into this market, they will, not hesitantly but firmly, take this long step
338
along this road to true international cooperation, without which the peace of the world can never be indestructibly established.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that it has been found necessary to postpone the time of the Royal Commission from 7 o'clock until 7.45.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
Debate resumed.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am for joining the Common Market, and in this I have been very much encouraged by listening to the debate to-day, because of those who have spoken I think the numbers are: eight in favour of it and one, if not against, at any rate very hesitant. I am in favour of it not only because I believe that it will benefit ourselves but because it will benefit, and benefit very greatly, the Commonwealth. It is on this particular side that I want to talk to your Lordships a little this evening. Why do I believe it will benefit the Commonwealth? It is because I believe that a larger European Community will lead to an increased demand for Commonwealth products. Furthermore, it will mean that, if we are prosperous, we shall be able to do more to provide capital for the Commonwealth countries—and that they want from us above all other things. Furthermore, I think there will be a fair chance of the European Community itself also helping in the provision of this capital for the development of the Commonwealth and of the Colonies.
Why do I believe that a larger unit will increase prosperity? Very simply, for this reason: in this day and age, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, has said, we must have larger home markets. In our great industrial nation, agriculture is important, but let us remember that, in spite of all that it does, it is only 4 per cent. of the gross national product. Basically, our agriculture and everything else depends on industry, and industry to-day takes a new form. Vast amounts

339
have to be spent on research and on tuning up for new products, whether a motor car, supersonic aircraft or products for the use of space. For all of these things we have to have larger units.
What have we to-day? The United States of America numbers nearly 200 million; and it is the same for Russia. The European Economic Community as it is to-day has not far short of that number. We, even with EFTA, would have less than a half that number; and if we were alone we should have only a quarter of the number in these other units. I just do not believe that in this day and age we, as an industrial nation, could continue on that basis. On the other hand, if we can join the European Common Market, then, with 250 million of us, indeed the outlook is good. We have, or would have, a greater number of skilled men than any other unit in the world, and that, I believe, would offer great prospects. Of course, all of this would involve change, and in changing some will suffer and others will benefit. But even those who suffer have until 1970, in many cases, to make their adjustment.
The important thing from the point of view of the Commonwealth is that we should protect their vital interests, and again and again we have said that we would do this. If one looks very quickly at what has happened so far, I think we can say that, for the Colonies and for the recently independent Commonwealth countries, there will be the chance of the status of associated overseas territories. Then there are the Asian countries. I know that useful talks have been held already about those countries; and if one wants proof that the European Community already recognises the importance of the Asian countries, it is in the announcement only yesterday of the further help that is coming from Italy, France, and so forth, for Indian finance.
There remain what I would call the old Dominions: Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is on them that at this present time the main problem arises. Negotiations are going on, as we know, about wheat, meat and dairy products. Many people have argued that what we should ensure is that for these products there should be guaranteed comparable
340
outlets. We have already heard several noble Lords say that the idea of a guarantee is just not "on"; it is not something that we ourselves have ever given: so I think that the idea of guarantee is something which should be dropped. Then the question arises about comparable outlets. I am not quite clear what "comparable outlets" would mean, but I suppose it would mean that they should be able to sell the same amount of products to the European Community as they have been doing to ourselves over the last years.
My Lords. I think that if we examine that we realise how tremendously things change. Let us take the example of meat—of great importance to Australia. Two years ago (I think I am right in saying) our imports of Australian meat were some £46 million and those of the United States were some £22 million. Look at the figures to-day: they are exactly the other way round. Or, again, let us take the case of wool. What was the position in regard to wool before the war? We took five times as much wool from Australia as Japan did. What is the position to-day? They get twice as much as we do, although we still take some £45 to £50 million worth. That shows how one cannot or should not seek comparable outlets. But, even if you wanted to, what does it mean? Does it mean the quantity or the value? In 1959, I think it was, New Zealand exported some £59 million worth of dairy products to this country: last year she exported some £36 million worth. In tonnage the amount was exactly the same. Is this what is meant: that the quantity should be the same? New Zealand would certainly say, "No". I think the only certain thing there is about the export of these products is that it will not be at all the same in 1970; and it will be the greatest possible mistake to put the Commonwealth or ourselves into a straitjacket, which was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Home.
Now, what do we want? I suggest that we want assurances that the European Community will be outward-looking in its policy. It is precisely on this point that our delegation, led by the Lord Privy Seal, has done such great work already. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate who spoke and who expressed admiration and good

341
wishes to the Lord Privy Seal. He does, indeed, deserve the thanks of us all for the skill with which he has conducted the negotiations so far—and we have made very real progress. After all, (the Six have accepted and recognised publicly the great importance of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, they have said that if, as a result of our joining, any member of the Commonwealth got into difficulty or was hurt—and, of course, we all have in mind, as they have, the possible case of New Zealand—then they will talk about the measures to be taken to remedy this. Moreover, they have said, in more general terms, that if they cannot get commodity agreements (which is What they seek for these types of products) by 1970, then they are ready to discuss with those Who want to take part in those commodity agreements measures to embrace them in them, and they have said that particularly in regard to the Commonwealth. So there we are: great progress has already been made.
All the same, it is right and we should continue to press for further assurance on these points. It is no good trying to get all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed and have all the pressure groups satisfied about what is going to happen to them now and afterwards. Rather—I agree with so many noble Lords who have spoken—what counts is the spirit behind this and the trust that we may have in those with whom we are hoping to work. Trust in them, trust in the Europeans, is something which, for example, the isolationists find difficult. They are therefore opposed to, or nervous about, going in. I would only say this to them: they should think very seriously of the implications of the fact that the Russians are against our going into this European Community.
Then, another group who are against this are those who are afraid of change. I think that that should not be, and is not, the spirit of this country. Here we have a great chance, after 900 years, of seeing Europe and ourselves together again after the tragic divisions of all that time. Naturally, such a tremendous step gives cause for hesitation. It needs great thought before we make the move. But supposing we miss—what happens? If we miss out, then the United Kingdom must decline relatively and become—I
342
think the expression was—an off-shore island. We should have to try to go it alone, and in doing that we should surely not be able to play our part with the Commonwealth either in taking their products or in giving them capital for development. So, my Lords, I feel it is essential that we in EFTA should try to join with the Common Market.
Then let us not forget that we all have a great opportunity to play our part in influencing the policy of the Six. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, we have a vote, and while we may think of it partly in a negative way so as to protect ourselves, we shall—this is more important—have a positive rôle to play, and I for one believe that we shall be able to play it for our own benefit, for that of the Commonwealth, and indeed, in time, for that of the whole world. I am all for this adventure—the term used by the noble Earl, Lord Home—and I have confidence in ourselves and in our children in being able to carry it out.
7.13 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, one of my friends in your Lordships' House, scanning the list of speakers at my side this afternoon, turned to me with unfeigned surprise and exclaimed: "Que diable faites-vous dans cette galére?" My presence here is essentialy due to the fact that his comment reflects a widespread view that the Common Market is the concern solely of politicians, of lawyers, of economists and of industrialists. But the Treaty of Rome has profound implications for all those professions in this country which are registrable under the law of this country: for doctors and dentists, for nurses and midwives, for vets, for pharmacists and indeed for all those whose professions demand a registrable qualification, and these should be more widely known. Yet in no debate on the Common Market in this House or in another place have the implications of the Treaty for professions been mentioned on a single occasion.
Let me stress at the outset that it is not for doctors or for dentists or for any industrial or other group to seek in their own interests to deflect the Government from a course which they believe to be right in the national interest and which will make a contribution to the prosperity

343
and peace of the world; and yet it is right that those of us who have experience and responsibility should make known on behalf of our colleagues some of the anxieties which are in our minds. Briefly, for professions, and especially for the medical profession, the disturbing article is Article 57. Section 1 of Article 57 lays down—and I quote from the old version, since I have not had an opportunity of reading the new:
"The Council … shall, in the course of the first stage by means of a unanimous vote and subsequently by means of a qualified majority vote, act by issuing directives regarding mutual recognition of diplomas, certficates and other qualifications."
This may mean that a medical or other professional qualification obtained in any of the member States of the European Economic Community will be acceptable without scrutiny in this country as a criterion of a registered medical practitioner; and vice-versa we shall be recognised in the Six. I do not propose to deal with other articles of the Treaty, which are concerned with the practice of medicine, although there are many dealing with the right of establishment and with the health and social welfare services and their harmonisation. But I feel that I should confine my comments to Article 57, because this has given rise to grave disquiet in the medical and the dental and the paramedical professions in this country.
From the medical viewpoint—and I speak as President of the General Medical Council—I should like to sketch in a few sentences the historical background to our misgivings. Your Lordships will be aware that in "his country any unqualified person can practise medicine with certain limitations, and this led in the past to such grave consequences that for a period of nearly 40 years there was great discussion, and before Parliament were at least eight Medical Bills—all of them, I regret to say, abortive—which took note of this anxiety. But in 1858 there was passed the first Medical Act, and its purpose is explained in its Preamble. Its Preamble said that it was expedient that persons requiring medical aid should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified practitioners. For this purpose the Medical Register was set up and the General Medical Council was established.
344
Perhaps I should here interpolate, since much confusion arises, that the General Medical Council is not the British Medical Association. The British Medical Association is a voluntary association of doctors with like purpose and like interests and they work to advance the interests of the medical profession. The General Medical Council is the body charged by Statute with keeping the Register and with maintaning standards of medical education. Notice that the control is in the hands of a statutory body. It is not, on the one hand, in the hands of a Government Department, although the General Medical Council has close relations with the Privy Council; nor, on the other hand, is it in the hands of a purely professional organisation.
Subsequent Acts, those subsequent to 1858, the last being the Consolidated Act of 1956, have underlined the purpose of the General Medical Council to protect the public. They have widened our scope, and in fact for nearly 80 years on the basis of reciprocity we have been able, through our particular machinery, Part III of the Medical Act, to recognise suitable qualifications in any Commonwealth or foreign country. That does not mean that we recognise the country. We recognise those qualifications which we think in that country are comparable to our own standards. We do that by appointing visitors who are not members of the Council, or inspectors, to report on the facilities for medical education and on the standards of examinations of the medical schools. We apply this machinery almost daily to the recognition of qualifications in Commonwealth and foreign countries.
If existing or analogous machinery were allowed to determine the suitability of medical qualifications for practise, if and when the United Kingdom join European Economic Community, then the public could be satisfied that any doctor so recognised from a Common Market country possesses a qualification and experience which furnish, in the words of Section 20 of the Medical Act,
"a sufficient guarantee of the possession of the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient practice of medicine, surgery and midwifery."

345
But it follows that if mutual recognition of qualifications ware accepted indiscriminately, then there might be some threat to the standards which the General Medical Council has existed since 1858 to achieve.
Let me remind your Lordships of but one example of the potential hazards. One of the present members of the E.E.C. applied for reciprocity with this country after the war and a very distinguished medical inspector reported. First, he said that the entry to each of their medical schools was nearly 1,000, except in one or two smaller schools, Where the number was about 200 per year. These are one or two extracts from his report:
"The students entering were utterly without any admissable primary educational standard, the selection for education in the last ten years being practically entirely on political grounds.
"The standards of education everywhere were farcical.
"The want of professional knowledge was deplorable."
And so on, in like vein.
In 1948, the question of reciprocity with that country was revived from high quarters and a further independent report was obtained. Let me quote one or two items from that:
"The oral examinations had degenerated, generally speaking, to a complete farce. Series of pupils are often examined and passed in classes.
"I know of other cases in which students have taken a medical degree. They have told me quite candidly that, although they have been awarded a medical degree and could take up practice, they had never in fact walked a hospital ward during their whole training.
"The gaining of a degree in medicine, therefore, means very little at the present time. The man who gains it may or may not be a competent doctor. His degree is really not a measure of his ability to practise medicine."
It may well be argued that no such adequate evidence exists at the present day because the General Medical Council has not been invited to inspect the schools of this country; but let me remind your Lordships that those who qualified under that régime, if we have indiscriminate recognition of their qualifications, have a potential life as doctors for another 25 or 30 years, and we should have to recognise those also. They may well be able to have their qualifications recognised in other countries and we should not have the same ease of recognition of Commonwealth
346
qualifications as we have had in the past.
Now you might say that this is an extreme example, but there is another independent yardstick by which we can compare medical education in this country with that in the Six—namely, the examinations which are conducted by the State Board of Medical Examiners in the United States. They conduct examinations of all those who wish to obtain licences to practise in certain States of the United States. In 1959, which is the last year for which I have figures, 80 English doctors took this examination and 75 passed—that is a failure rate of 6 par cent. Those who ware graduates of our own medical schools had a failure rate of only 3 per cent. The failure rate for the Paris medical school was 30 per cant. For the larger Italian schools, the failure rates ware—Rome, 30 per cent.; Naples, 51-9 per cent.; Bologna, 351 per cent., and Milan, 71· 4 per cent. Moreover, it may not be without significance for our National Health Service that in that one year 396 Italian medical graduates took their licenciate examinations in the United States of America. For Brussels the failure rate was 37·5 per cant. In West Germany, out of 343 candidates, the failure rate was 34 per cent. This is not due to differing systems of education or differing languages, because there are countries in Europe whose medical education approximates in some measure to our own and who had similar striking success. For Spain, for example, the failure rate was practically our own—7 per cent.
It seems to the General Medical Council that the only safe procedure is that which is embodied in a resolution which the Council adopted at its May session this year, which said that, in the event of our joining the Common Market,
"It is desirable in the public interest that any arrangements made in pursuance of Article 57 of the Treaty of Rome to admit medical practitioners from other European countries to practise in the United Kingdom should have regard to the standards hitherto secured by Part III of the Medical Act, 1956."
This resolution and relevant passages from my presidential address ware communicated to the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. We did not expect other than a formal aknowledgement; and, indeed, our expectations were satisfied.

347
On March 5 last, in another place, the Minister of Health was asked whether he had been in consultation with the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association about their anxieties that signing the Rome Treaty would have an effect on professional standards in this country and might also affect National Health Service Standards. The Minister replied [Official Report, Commons, Vol. 655, col. 31]:
"I have had consultations with those two bodies and will have them in future, but there are specific safeguards about these matters in the Rome Treaty ".
These safeguards I confess that a careful study of the Treaty has failed to reveal, unless the Minister is referring to Section 2 of Article 57, which if I interpret it aright, would require all doctors, whether native or immigrant, to practise in conformity with the laws of the country. I hope that line noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in his summing up of this debate, will inform me, and through me the members of my profession, what these safeguards are
Let me explain quite briefly why anxiety exists. Our English system has been followed, in greater or less degree, in nearly all the countries of the Commonwealth. One finds it in Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, South Africa—until a very short time ago a member of our Commonwealth—in Malaya, Hong Kong, Malta and, in somewhat modified form, in Canada. In nearly all of these countries there are controlling bodies analogous to the General Medical Council, and in most the university medical curricula have close associations with our own. We have long enjoyed close and friendly association with these bodies in the Commonwealth. We could, indeed, with confidence, echo the words of Burke: we hold our Commonwealth countries
"in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection."
and
"these ties which though light as air, are as
strong as links of iron ",
are not to be lightly thrown away.
Our British and Commonwealth system of medical education, registration and professional discipline differs from most, if not all, the Continental systems. The
348
Continental systems tend to lay much more stress on Government control, especially in the field of medical education. They have no analogous higher qualifications to ours. They often do not provide the public with a readily accessible medical register. Here we select our students so that the numbers of medical students in our universities can be counted in hundreds, whereas abroad, in the Six, they can be counted in their thousands. The position of specialisation in Europe is, as has recently been described, chaotic.
It is in matters of professional discipline and conduct that there is a profound difference between the Six and ourselves. We have in this country no code of medical ethics. Through the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council, we are accustomed to judge each complaint of conduct on its merits guiding ourselves by precedent and by circumstances in the spirit of the Common Law. The Continent has its strict codes of deontology which seek to define, both positively and negatively, all the responsibilities of the medical practitioner and the breaches of privilege for which he may be punished. There is to many of us an odd omission in most of these. A practitioner may be accused by another practitioner, by a trade union, by a public body or by the disciplinary body itself; but he cannot be accused, and no complaint can be laid against a doctor, by the patient or the patient's friends. Our disciplinary proceedings are conducted in public. You will notice, my Lords, that they have not been neglected in the Press. Moreover, the decisions of the General Medical Council are subject to an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
My Lords, if I believe in our British system in such matters, it is not simply because it is British, nor because it is necessarily the best sub specie æternitatis. But that system enshrines our experience, our national way of life, our belief in diversity and experiment (I am thinking here particularly of medical education) and our belief that medical ethics and discipline should not be an esoteric secret but are matters in which the common man should have every opportunity of making himself heard and to know and understand what is done. How do these matters stand in relationship

349
to membership of the European Community? Here we encounter a difficulty. The noble Earl, Lord Home, referring to the Six members of the European Community, said on June 21, 1961[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232, col. 628]:
"I think it … inconceivable that any of them or any of us, if we all came together, would surrender sovereignty to a point where it infringed and was harmful to our own national institutions."
Let me quote the noble Earl again, speaking exactly a year ago in this House in relation to the Common Market, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 234, col. 119]:
"… the field … is clearly defined and restricted to economic matters."
The question which naturally arises is whether the control in the public interest of standards of medical education and conduct—a control which, I have reminded your Lordships, is secured by Act of Parliament—is included in Lord Home's assurances and later assurances. We do not know. We have not been told. We have to proceed to a large extent on hearsay. It appears from statements made by Ministers that our Government have in principle made no reservations on Article 57 if we join the Common Market, or to its implementation by 1967. Moreover, if rumour be well founded, it appears that a sharp distinction may be in mind as between the Commonwealth, on the one hand, and the Common Market countries, on the other, in that the General Medical Council will continue to sift Commonwealth qualifications according to its present procedure; but under the rigid system of the Rome Treaty, the Council may find itself prohibited from exercising any similar power or discretion in regard to any medical qualification, however, questionable, granted in any present or prospective member of the Economic Community. If that is intended, are we certain that it is in the public interest? Can such an invidious distinction be acceptable to Commonwealth countries? As your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said earlier, the existing safeguards embodied in the Medical Act are devised in the light of long experience to ensure that no registered practitioner Will be free to practise medicine in this country unless he
350
possesses a qualification and experience which furnish
"a sufficient guarantee of the possession of the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient practice of medicine, surgery and midwifery ".
My Lords, I have confined my comments to medical education and cognate matters because they illustrate a general theme which applies also to dentists, nurses, vets, pharmacists and other registrable professions. Our traditions are flexible and experimental in nature with a limited degree of Government control. It seems that the systems with which we may find ourselves integrated are of a somewhat different nature. If that is so, we must surely ask ourselves: Must we, if we enter the European Community, sacrifice these systems, born of and evolved from our unique experience? Are there not things of great value in this country which we should seek to preserve, and among these should we not wish to see retained, until we are persuaded that they can be bettered, our system of medical education, which has been a signpost to countries all over the globe, our system of clearly defined registration of professional men, designed to assist and to protect the public in many fields, and our standards of professional ethics and discipline administered judicially in accordance with British traditions? These are doubly valuable: they are valuable in themselves, and also on account of the part they play in our links with the Commonwealth.
There is much truth in the old adage, festina lente. The decisions which appear to have already been taken concerning the mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the European Community by 1967 are precipitate. There has been no consultation with the professional bodies most intimately concerned and in the best position to advise. Clearly, there are certain decisions concerning the European Community which urgently press, such as the need to promote trade and investment without impediment between the Common Market countries, and the defence decisions which will save the Community from the hazards of diplomatic and military isolation.
Let me concede once again that it is not for any sectional interest to demur at any sacrifice if, with knowledge Which must of necessity be more complete than

351
ours, the Government hold that both our national interest and the prosperity and peace of the world demand our entry, and there may well be powerful reasons why we should not resist the ultimate aim of political unity. But ultimate unity will be hindered, not fostered, not helped, by imposing uniformity prematurely; and this is the risk to which Article 57, which envisages the mutual recognition of qualifications, exposes both professional education and practice in this country. As Colin Clark, who is a supporter of the Common Market, and who wrote an admirable book, British Trade in the Common Market, says—and this surely instances it:
"there is danger of the central authority of Brussels attempting, amidst a Parkinsonian profusion of officials, to concern itself with local affairs which should be left to national government."
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the time has come when I think we should adjourn during pleasure for the Royal Commission.
House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
7.45 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Appropriation,

Transport,

Education (Scotland),

Law Reform (Husband and Wife),

Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc.

Landlord and Tenant,

Licensing (Scotland),

Penalties for Drunkenness,

House of Commons Members' Fund,

Trinidad and Tobago Independence,

Lotteries and Gaming,

Local Government (Records),

Uganda Independence,

Pipe-lines,

Road Traffic,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation,

352

Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation,

Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation,

Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier) Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth Port and Haven) Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Langstone Harbour) Confirmation,

Letchworth Garden City Corporation,

Dartford Tunnel,

Orpington Urban District Council,

British Transport Commission,

City of London (Various Powers),

Regent Refining Company,

London County Council (General Powers),

River Dart Navigation,

South Staffordshire Water,

Scotswood Bridge,

London County Council (Improvements),

London Bridge Improvements,

Port of London,

Northampton Corporation,

Manchester Ship Canal.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
Debate resumed.
8.2 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, my theme when we adjourned was the mutual recognition of medical and other para-medical qualifications, and I was expressing my anxiety at their acceptance for practice in this country, irrespective of merit or needs, which is envisaged in Article 57 of the Treaty of Rome, for in this field we cannot rely

353
on the qualified majority decision which is there needed; and such mutual recognition is not, either by history or by precedent, a necessary part of even a political federation. The United States of America constitutes a political and economic union much closer than anything now existing in Western Europe. Nevertheless, each individual State retains its control of licences to practise medicine in that State. With a New Yank licence you cannot practise in California, and vice versa; and the same is true of the Provinces of Canada and of Australia. Each State and each Province, too, has its own disciplinary arrangements. My plea is that if there is to be any substitute for present procedures in this country it should seek to maintain the safeguards which they provide.
My Lords, I fear I have spoken at too great length, and I have not touched on how, in my view, the situation might even now be righted. This is a matter for further consultation with other bodies, which I hope will take place as soon as possible. Yet I make no apology for having dealt with a topic which might appear to your Lordships to be negligible and even expendable, in relation to the vast canvas of our national scene. For I hope that in our negotiations for entry into the European Community our Ministers will never forget that this is a matter of vital importance to tens of thousands of the citizens of this country who believe, with deep conviction, that the evolution of our standards of medical education and practice, of our unique standards of entry into the medical profession, and of professional conduct, reflect the peculiar genius of our people to pattern a way of life according to the needs of our nation as a whole. Since I cannot emulate the sparkling and persuasive oratory of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, I can, at least, plagiarise him. May I, substituting medicine for law in some words which he uttered only a fortnight ago in welcoming the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, remind the House that the practice and ethos of medicine in this country
"is not something that you study; it is something more than knowledge; it is something that has given to this country much that makes it itself."
8.5 p.m.
LORD COUTANCHE: My Lords, I feel that I should crave your Lordships' indulgence if I speak briefly upon the interest of the Channel Islands in the present negotiations rather than upon the much larger field that has been covered in the debate up to this moment. The export of the produce of the Islands is of vital importance to their economy. Those exports we in the Islands call agricultural, but in fact I think scientifically they are horticultural. I know that at the present time the position of horticultural exports in the whole Common Market scene is most uncertain—not uncertain in the sense that those who are negotiating do not know exactly where they are going, but in the sense that many people who are affected by those negotiations are not yet fully informed as to what will happen.
I should like to point out that in accordance with the Charters which we in the Channel Islands are privileged to possess, we are entitled to export into this country goods of the growth and manufacture of our Islands free of any customs duties. I remember some time ago the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who leads the Opposition, raised in a previous discussion the question of the Channel Islands, and I felt that it would be right that I should come here to-day, on his Motion, to express exactly, as I understand it, the position of the Channel Islands in these negotiations. In virtue of our—may I call them charter "privileges", rather than "rights", we are entitled to export into the United Kingdom the goods of the growth and manufacture of all the Islands, free of all duties and customs. These rights flow from historical reasons. They are of great antiquity. The greatest of all the Charters is the Charter of Queen Elizabeth I; but it was only one in a long line of Charters, the first of which began with King John and was granted ten years before Magna Charta. So that there is at least antiquity in our claim.
What is the effect at the present time of that position, secured to us by innumerable Charters and always observed by Her Majesty's Government in this country? For a long period of time the existence of these Charters, whilst always known and respected, was not of any

355
great practical importance; but suddenly, in the year 1932, this Parliament passed the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act and a large number of horticultural products became overnight liable to duty. The position of the Channel Islands was at once accepted, thanks to the kindly intervention of the Home Office, by the Board of Customs, and little, if any, difficulty arose. The Islands responded—and I had the honour to be in a position of trust at the time—in a way which I think was very right and proper. We passed laws, which were confirmed by His Majesty in Council, which imposed upon the import into the Channel Islands of similar goods exactly similar duties, so that any encouragement to use the Islands as a "back door" into this country was obviated. At the same time, and in token of the same spirit, the Islands declared their desire to increase the import into the Islands of goods of what we then proudly called Empire origin; and we passed the necessary laws to impose duties upon foreign goods on their introduction into the Channel Islands. These were exactly similar to the duties charged in this country upon similar goods of the same class and description from the same place of origin.
From 1932 onwards a period of great prosperity for the Islands has resulted. The United Kingdom is our only market. Our goods, owing to a happy climatic situation, are early and hardly enter at all into competition with United Kingdom-grown goods. But the authorities of this country—and I say this with great thankfulness—have always so operated the import duties and, when there are such things, quotas (and may I say, with great thanks, that the National Farmers' Union have always helped us) that the administrative and fiscal arrangements arrived at, while not hurting in any way the agriculture or horticulture of the United Kingdom, have been of immense help to the Channel Islands. For that we are exceedingly grateful.
My Lords, that is the present position. I am old enough to remember that it was not always so. I am not going to weary your Lordships with a tale of woe, but before 1932, when we were
356
in intense competition with the neighbouring coast of France, where exactly the same goods were grown under conditions exactly similar to our own, many a year was for us a time of great agricultural adversity. The position I have outlined was the position when the United Kingdom started to think of negotiating on the question of entering the Common Market. I had the honour at that time to be still Bailiff of Jersey and ex-officio President of the Tariff Council entrusted by the States, or Parliament of Jersey with the conduct of these negotiations. I was closely concerned with them from the very beginning.
In this context I should like to express the thanks of the Islands for the wonderful help that we have received from the Home Office and the Ministry of Agriculture in all these consultations. These consultations have continued right up to the present time. Indeed, not many weeks ago my noble friend Lord Waldegrave was in the Island giving us what help he could. I am quite sure that in those who have followed him we shall have some good friends. May I particularly welcome my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, who will help us in future, if for no other reason than that he counts among his forbears a distinguished Jersey ancestor.
That is the position, a very favourable position. The United Kingdom is our only market. I was in the Islands until this morning, and I made such inquiries as I could in order to bring my knowledge up to date. My Lords, it is quite firmly the view of the Islands that we have no option whatever but to follow the lead of the United Kingdom in this way. I wanted to say to-day that Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, in the negotiations which they are conducting, are conducting them not only on behalf of those Who live in this country, but also on behalf of those of us Who are proud to live in what is the most ancient possession of the Crown of England. We are full of absolute and complete faith in the fact that our interests will be watched and safeguarded as Closely as those of Her Majesty's subjects in this country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Lord's speech. Could

357
the noble Lord tall us whether the inquiries he has made show any signs of anxiety among the growers of the Channel Islands as to what will be the effect on their exports to us of the free entry eventually of goods from the Six?
LORD COUTANCHE: Indeed, I can say there is great anxiety, but, as I have said, for reasons which are well known we are so closely associated with the economy of the United Kingdom that it would be impossible for us to take another course. There is, as I say, anxiety, and I am grateful for the fact that the consultations which we are continuing to have are helping to alleviate that anxiety to some extent. In that connection, it is my earnest prayer to Her Majesty's Government at this moment——
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. As the noble Lord knows, as a former Home Secretary I took a strong interest in the wellbeing of the Channel Islands. Would the noble Lord be good enough to say whether, if Her Majesty's Government were disposed to bring in legislation to establish the Channel Islands as part of the United Kingdom, it would be likely that the Channel Islands would object? If this happened, it might help in this situation. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say whether he feels the Channel Islands would, or would not, like it.
LORD COUTANCHE: I think the answer to that question is this. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord when he was at the Home Office. I think the position of the Channel Islands in this matter is beyond dispute. A political friend of mine in Jersey used to say, with great truth, that constitutionally it must be remembered we were "on the winning side in 1066". We are content to stand upon that position, and, so long as Her Majesty's Government are good enough from time to time to spare distinguished members of their ranks to come to talk to us and help us and reassure us, we have no fears. But I think that to follow the course suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, might present very great difficulties. I am glad of these interventions, because I ask that these consultations shall continue.
358
Having said that on behalf of the Islands, may I just express a personal opinion? I live in a place in the Islands (as my noble friend Lord St. Oswald knows, from his own sight quite recently) from where I look out of my window on to the neighbouring coast of France practically every morning of my life. I have lived all my official life, in fact nearly all my life, in very close contact with the Continent. My official work has taken me on missions to many countries of Europe and I think, with great humility, I may claim to know something of the conditions as they exist on the Continent. For myself, I believe that it is to the long-term advantage of this country to join the Six in the European Economic Community. In saying that, I should be failing in my duty if I did not say that I believe there will be a difficult period of adjustment, which may be long, but I like to think that in the long term it will be worth it. But I cannot believe, if reasonable terms and conditions can be worked out, that it can be anything but to the lasting good of this country and also, therefore, necessarily of the Islands, that we should be part of the Community.
To that, my Lords, I would make two reservations and they are very solemn ones. I was brought up to believe in the greatness of the British Empire. I accustomed myself afterwards to believe in the greatness of the British Commonwealth, and I should be very loath to do anything, however advantageous it might be to this country or to the Islands, which could possibly weaken the Commonwealth in any way. Secondly, I was brought up to believe in the greatness of the British Constitution, and in the sovereignty of this Parliament. It is a long time since I studied Anson and Dicey and the great constitutional writers of this country, but whatever advantages there might be for this country and for the Islands, I should be very unhappy if I felt that any action we were taking could in any way detract in an essential part from the sovereignty of this Parliament.
8.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, it is refreshing to have a subject like this, which is not as yet a Party political issue; in other words, we can say and lead out our convictions and our

359
prejudices, without any embarrassment to the Party Whips. But the thing I would stress more than anything else is that this is not only a matter of economics, and it would be a great mistake if we tried to decide it entirely on the price of butter. I very much appreciated the speech of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, which seemed to put the whole subject in perspective. I should like to say how much I agreed with him, and I would emphasise the point that it is not a choice between the Commonwealth and Europe: it is something quite different.
The second thing we should remember is that, so far as I know, there has never been any question whatsoever of a Common Market in the Commonwealth. There has never been a question of free trade.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Quite right.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There has never been any proposal for an economic tie-up of any sort, kind or description. Therefore, we are really faced with the choice, while keeping the links with the Commonwealth, either of joining what one might call the new Europa, or of standing alone from the Continent, as has already been said in the debate, as an off-shore island. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the Commonwealth as a great institution. Indeed, one of the things of which we in this nation should be most proud is, I believe, the fact that we converted what was an Empire gained chiefly by force into a Commonwealth which has held together by voluntary ties, by friendliness and, to a certain extent, by mutual interest. I am very proud of that. But we should remember that these ties are fairly fragile, tenuous, loose ties, and recently we have lost one of the great Dominions. Who knows when we may lose another?
I think we should remember, too, that as time progresses these big countries will become increasingly industrialised—that is inevitable; and the more industrialised they become, the less will they want to buy our manufactured products; the less, also will there be a need for them to give us preferences. As has been
360
said this afternoon, preferences will in any case, probably, ultimately wither down, and almost cease to exist. Those are the facts and the background we must remember, when we make, if we do make, our great decisions on these steps. But I suggest to your Lordships that, if we do join this Common Market, we should do so wholeheartedly.
As I understand it, because of the difficulties of the Commonwealth trade—and particularly, I think, New Zealand, which presents probably the most difficult problem of all, because of its exports of butter and other things—it is obvious that the nations of Europe must give us time to adapt. That we must ask for. Otherwise, we must not try to make too many exceptions. As I understand the scheme, which is complicated enough, goodness knows!, the idea behind it is that there is this unity of nations, which will ultimately abolish the Customs and frontiers between each other, will have free trade and so forth, and will have a uniform tariff around them. Their gigantic size gives them a very strong bargaining position in the world. But every time an exception is made, their bargaining position becomes less and less, and if too many exceptions are made there will be no advantage in this scheme at all. I believe that we must remember that, before we put too much emphasis on trying to press these European countries to give us concession after concession. We must accept the scheme, but, naturally, having regard to our own special interests, and to the necessity of having time to adapt the economies of ourselves and other countries.
As I said earlier, I do not think this matter which has been very thoroughly explored, is entirely an economic one. I think we are witnessing here the birth of a great new force, a great new power. It is a power which I think it was said if the United Kingdom joins in, will have 250 million people, which is an enormous number. It will be a force much more powerful than the United States, and possibly more powerful than the Soviet Union. It is a tremendous force, and I myself feel that it would be a great pity, a great tragedy, if we were left out; if England with all her knowledge, experience and political wisdom, did not take some hand in shaping

361
this new development. It is, as the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said, a great adventure, and I think that to be left out of this adventure would be not only economically disastrous but sad, from the cultural point of view, and from every other point of view that can be imagined. Therefore, again I give it my support.
Some people are agitated, I gather, because they are frightened of joining what are in some cases, perhaps, rather reactionary and difficult régimes. One hears people saying: "Do we really want to joint in, perhaps under the influence of de Gaulle, who has almost a dictatorship in France? Do we want to be under Adenauer, in Germany?" But, my Lords, those are very temporary; after all, we are all temporary inhabitants of this world. So the present set-up will not last for very long. We are building something for the future, not just considering the nature of the political set-up in each individual country at the moment. That will change, and I do not see why it should not change into unity on progressive lines.
My Lords, I was trying to remember—and I think that this is a wholesome thought—whether there was anywhere in history an instance in which a number of countries had joined together without achieving great benefit to themselves, in prosperity, security, power and influence. They have not always used the power to the best advantage of their neighbours; nevertheless, it has always been the case, I think, that they achieved it. We can think of England. What should we be like now if we had continued as a small country fighting Scotland and Wales? We should not have had the great events of our history of the last century or so. Then there was France with her dukedoms; and Italy with her little states; Germany divided, and so forth. Would any of those countries have become great if the smaller states within them had not united? Above all, there is the United States of America, which is one of the greatest.
That is why, as we have heard, the political talks are going on; and I think that in those political talks there is a tremendous opportunity for a tremendous future. We are in the position now of the inhabitants of some such State as Virginia or Massachusetts before they
362
were united. We are frightened, as they were, of giving up sovereignty to a Federal Government. But, my Lords, if we look back on the years which have intervened, if those States could have foreseen the results of Union when they were fearful of it, would any of them have said, "We should like to remain small, isolated States "rather than join in the Union of the great continent of America? People naturally have very isolationist tendencies: they are frightened of giving up sovereignty, even a small amount. But I suggest that by giving up these little bits of sovereignty we really get a much larger sovereignty and a more important one.
I do not want to repeat what I said the other day in the debate on International Affairs, but I should like to remind your Lordships of the fact—it is a formidable fact—that we have here a great alliance between Germany and France, a gigantic coalition coming into being. I should have thought that this country would be very much safer as one of those working in that alliance than an island outside it, watching this huge force in Europe, growing and possibly coming into economic—and even military—conflict with us. That would be a disaster. Lastly, there is this great thing about the unity of Europe. In it we build up great strength able to face Russia. We know that the Russians are very much against the Common Market. They see in it a threat to them, and that it will curtail their arguments. I should have thought that that would be no argument against the Common Market. My Lords, I do not wish to keep you at this late hour, but I would say again that if we do not go into this, it would, in my view, be a tragedy, and our descendants, if there are any, would blame us for ever and ever.
8.33 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, at the outset I should like to wish the Lord Privy Seal every success during these coming four days of difficult negotiations. I feel confident, however, that he will assert himself as an able negotiator in the same pleasant way that, according to certain French authoritative sources, he has become appreciated and esteemed on the Continent. I will assume, then, my Lords, that he will be able to negotiate equitable terms for this

363
country, and I shall therefore took ahead in my consideration of this matter. As was said last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, our entry will bring a new surge of opportunity and a new wave of competition. It is, therefore, to that aspect of the problem that I shall direct my attention this evening, particularly with regard to the rationalisation and adaptation which will become necessary for smaller businesses.
Experience on the Continent has shown that joint action by grouping undertakings offers most advantages for the solution of problems which arose during this period of evolution. Some people in this country, as has been stated, have certain misgivings about our entering the Common Market, and that is why I feel that greater consideration might be given by Her Majesty's Government, and also by industry at large in this country, to this aspect of the matter. I feel that it is not too early for small and medium-sized undertakings to consider the rational planning which will be necessary and which will involve a process of adaptation. I do not propose to go into the question of large undertakings, because they have adequate economic potential, and shall confine my remarks to undertakings which employ, say, fewer than 500 persons.
I feel it may help—and I crave your Lordships' indulgence in this respect—if I mention what has been done in one member state of the Community— namely, France. I believe that similar action is being taken, or has been taken, in Germany and Belgium also, though I am mainly aware of what has been done in France. The French Government, recognising the need for the development of industry, trade and agriculture, and the need for their adaptation to the European Economic Community, felt that it should encourage and facilitate the grouping of smaller businesses—that is, principally smaller businesses—in order to improve productivity, on the one hand, and to lower their costs and prices, on the others. Therefore, the efforts to that end which have been made in France have been due to sponsoring by the Government or to initiatives taken by trade associations.
I would classify these under four headings. The first is co-operation
364
between large groups and smaller firms. I understand that that form of activity has developed along the following lines; that is, the organisation of production, commercial expansion, management, human relations, and social problems. Secondly, there is Government initiative, which has taken the form of starting regional working parties of heads of firms, under the guidance of an experienced monitor, in which the discussion and solution of problems relating to management and increasing production have been aired. Thirdly, there are sub-contract exchanges. Such exchanges have been set up in various provincial cities for the mechanical and metallurgical industries, and these exchanges advise and assist with detailed information on production capacity available within the firms of their members. For instance, specialisation and co-operation between large groups and smaller businesses has been facilitated in that way.
Fourthly, I would come to what I feel is a very important point: Government assistance. This is provided in the form of fiscal and financial advantages to associated firms who have subscribed to an agreement concluded between the State and themselves. To qualify for this form of fiscal and financial advantage, the aims or objects of these associated firms must be market research, sales promotion, the adaptation of one's products to the new market conditions, the granting of a warranty of quality and, finally, those improved managerial methods which correspond to these objectives. I would add that the basis of this joint action is that firms should retain their independence; and I feel that that is true, knowing Frenchmen fairly well and how individualistically-minded they can be—which is borne out if one remembers that around 50 groups of firms have entered into such agreements with the State. The essence of such measures is that they should be of a reasonably temporary nature, and that they should constitute the best means of coping with the phenomena of adaptation.
When the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, spoke on Monday he referred to competitiveness in private industry and said that this had not come about without some help and influence from the Government. However, he went on to say, further, that he would guess that there

365
was much more (that could be done and would be done. In one respect I would agree with him; in another, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider carefully tile problems of small and medium-sized undertakings which will necessarily arise if, as I hope, we enter the Common Market. My Lords, I feel that this is an important aspect of the general problem. It is one which was considered this morning at a meeting of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, a meeting which I attended, and it is one which they intend to look into very fully.
To end, my Lords, I should like to refer just for a few minutes to a matter which was not mentioned in the Lord Privy Seal's statement of October 10 last year but which was in the one he made at Luxembourg on July 17 this year. It is Cmnd. 1790, and is on the question of transport. Paragraph 7 of that Command Paper mentions the question of transport charges in relation to coal and steel and says that E.E.C. discussions may affect our transport policy as a whole. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer to two recent decisions which would seem important in this context. First, the E.E.C. Commission has recently submitted to the Council of Ministers a fairly comprehensive action programme, divided up into seven chapters, for a common transport policy. That is not a decision; it is more of a statement: but what is a decision is a recent ruling by the Community's Court of Justice on the necessity of publication or communication of schedules, prices and tariff arrangements. This ruling of the High Court has made it possible, I understand, for the High Authority to take up their work again in the field of transport, because I understand that their work has been held up for the last three years on account of a difficulty in the interpretation of Article 70 of the Treaty of Paris—not the Treaty of Rome, but the Treaty of Paris.
The point I wish to make concerns the transport of coal and of other commodities or products by pipe-line. It is a fact, I believe, that a large number of gas or coal pipe-lines, and also pipelines for the carriage of petroleum products and so forth, are in operation, under construction or being projected in
366
various parts of Europe. A few minutes ago the Pipe-lines Bill received the Royal Assent, and I therefore feel that the day cannot be too far distant when we shall be exporting commodities by pipe-line to E.E.C. countries. I know that, for one, the Coal Board (I think it is no secret) are keen on transporting coal by pipe-line, and it may well be that coal could be exported to the Continent by such a means. Therefore I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to contribute to the formulation of a common transport policy regarding transport by pipe-line, or whether, till we join the three Communities, we can act only as observers.
As I understand the action programme to which I referred earlier, it proposes to tackle certain problems arising out of the extension of pipe-lines on the Continent. I presume, therefore, that this will be in Chapter V—I saw no mention of it under the various headings; pipelines are not specifically mentioned, but presumably it will be in Chapter V—on
"An approximation of operating conditions and structures as between different types of transport."
In conclusion, on this point I would therefore sincerely hope that development on both sides of the Channel will proceed harmoniously, for it is essential that there should be intelligent planning and co-operation with regard to the development of pipe-lines.
8.48 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I feel that by this time of the night all the arguments for and against our joining or not joining the Common Market have been well paraded, and that the noble Lords who are still here will not wish me to parade them all over again. I feel that I must just state my point of view on the general question briefly, as a prelude to what I really want to say at the end of my remarks, which is something which I think has not been said already. I will state my point of view very bluntly and without much argument, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that I am doing it for brevity and not because I think that the problem is an easy one and that I know all the answers, Which I certainly do not.

367
When everything has been said, it seems to me there remains one plain, cold fact, and that is that if we do not join the Common Market, the Economic Community, the Community will go ahead without us; it will succeed without us; and it will grow in exclusiveness, to our detriment, because our voice will not be heard in its councils. That is how it seems to me. Through the ages we have prided ourselves on our insularity. That has now virtually vanished before the advance of modern invention. The strength of our sea power has diminished in consequence for the same reason. Our Empire has gone, not to return, and the Commonwealth is not a substitute for it, as some people seem to think.
So it seems to me that in this modern world these Islands are too small to stand alone. I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said it was a very fine thing to stand alone—and so it is; but if one stands on a burning deck too long the effect is inevitable. I feel that if we try it we shall just become an economic backwater and a political lightweight. I think that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said we shall just be an off-shore island, which is much the same thing only a more polite expression. Of course, as Foreign Secretary he has to be careful what he says when the Government are still at the negotiating table, whereas a humble Cross-Bencher like myself can scarcely do harm by saying it. It might even do a little good at a time when so many distinguished gentlemen—men for whom one has great respect, and in one case, at least, coming from my own erstwhile profession—are trying to frighten the daylight out of the Government and to push them in exactly the opposite direction.
Not only do I think that we have to enter Europe, but my own opinion is that we made a mistake in not accepting the invitation to go into Europe when it first came to us. In 1951, when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up, we were offered the leadership of Europe on a plate; I am sure of that. Germany had only just regained he sovereign independence and escaped from the clutches of the military governors; France was distraught. The other countries were openly saying that
368
they would like Great Britain to join the Community and to take the lead. But no; we were too haughty. The leaders of industry and commerce in the country looked down their noses and said, "It will never work", and the great Departments of State shook their heads and said it was much too difficult; and our political chiefs, with great respect to them, were far too busy with two General Elections following swiftly one after another to pay much attention to this difficult problem. And so the offer was not accepted and the chance was not taken.
The offer that comes to us now is a very different one. We are not offered the leadership of Europe specifically—I repeat, specifically—but I will come back to that at the end of my remarks. Of course, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, we must not rush at it. Festina lente was another expression which was used. Certainly we must not rush at it; but if we wait another ten years the offer that we are likely to get will be a great deal less palatable, I think, than the one that we have in front of us now. That is how it seems to me.
Of course, we must not consider just our own interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, we are entitled to think of our own interests. Of course we are; but we must not think only of them. We must think also of our friends and their interests. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are the best friends we have in the world. We cannot possibly, of course, afford to lose them, and we must see that their legitimate interests are not gravely damaged. And it is very right that at this time there are very close negotiations going on over in Brussels, and in those negotiations we must be firm. Of course we must be firm and see to it that these interests are properly safeguarded. We must be firm, but not, I think, unreasonable. As the Daily Telegraph so rightly and timelily, I thought, said to us last week, we are, after all, negotiating not with enemies but with friends, and if we seek to have 100 per cent. guarantees for every interest in this country and in the Commonwealth there will, of course, be no agreement.
We are told that these negotiations may fail, and one accepts that; they

369
may fail; but I feel and I submit that we must also accept that if they do fail it will be a calamity for this country. That is, at least, how I feel about it. I should like to join with the many others who have expressed good wishes to our negotiating team in Brussels and to say, as others have said, that I feel very happy that we have been able to field such a first-class team. I have the honour of knowing one or two of them, and I am sure that it is a first-class team under a first-class captain, which gives me hopes in other directions: possibly Ted is a good name for a captain.
But while all this is so, I do not myself feel that it is right to speak of these problems concerning the trading relations of this country with Australia, New Zealand and Canada as if they put the whole of the Commonwealth in peril. Surely it is not quite like that. The Commonwealth—and in this I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—at the present time is in the melting pot. It is very difficult to see what is going to happen in the future, and a lot of wise statesmanship will be required to guide it to a future of permanence and strength, and a lot of care is necessary at this critical time in our dealings with the Commonwealth. But whatever does happen to it or does not happen to it, it is not at this time, and is not likely to become, a rigid trading cartel—not even Mr. Diefenbaker says that—any more than it is likely to be a military alliance. It may be right to say, as Sir Winston Churchill said, that the Commonwealth is buttressed by our pattern of trade within it; but that is not to say that that pattern can never vary. It has varied from time to time in the past and it no doubt will vary in the future.
As to the question of sovereignty and its effect on the Commonwealth, I think that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has really dealt with that; but, for myself, I have always felt that anything that President de Gaulle is likely to accept for France is unlikely to cause us much indigestion, either in this country or in the Commonwealth. On the whole Commonwealth question I feel this: that the future of the Commonwealth, whatever it may be, is not likely to be enhanced by an altruistic sacrifice on the part of this country of the future prosperity
370
and political influence of Great Britain.
That is my view, which I felt it necessary to state not because I think it very important but because it is a background for what I want to end with. I believe that the biggest difficulty in this matter, the biggest difficulty which we shall encounter if we enter the Common Market (as I believe we must), lies within ourselves and our national character. We have, as I have said, for years prided ourselves on our insularity. That is of much less consequence now, and, in parenthesis, will be of even less consequence when the Government comes off the fence about the Channel Tunnel—Lord Gladwyn is not here, I see! Geographical insularity has vanished in consequence, but the psychological insularity remains.
I give you as an example the behaviour of our troops, Army and Royal Air Force, in Germany at this moment. I am not thinking of the misdeeds of a few young men in the streets of Minden or elsewhere: I am thinking of the attitude of the officers and men of our forces in Germany. With very few exceptions, they hold themselves aloof from the people and life of the country in which they are serving. They imprison themselves in their own insularity and self-sufficiency. Your Lordships do not expect to hear me criticise the Armed Forces—I normally do not do so—but I give this as an example of what I believe is a national characteristic, almost a national philosophy. "I hate all ' wogs ', and they start at Calais "—that is at the back of it, and at the back, I think, of a little of the opposition in this country to the Common Market. I naturally wish it to be understood that I am not referring to anything said in this Chamber.
Moreover, we think that we understand the Europeans, but we do not; not nearly so well as they understand each other. We forget or ignore the fact that these countries have lived side by side through the centuries, with no Channel separating them and with common frontiers, frontiers which have ebbed and flowed, and it is only natural that they should understand each other very well indeed. This is what leads us into being greatly surprised when these countries suddenly come to an agreement with each other, almost, as it were, behind

371
our backs, and when we never thought they would do it—and not only come to an agreement, but make that agreement work.
My Lords, I feel vary strongly on the subject. These things must change if we are really to make a success of ourselves when we enter the Common Market. I hope that the Government are thinking about these things and are prepared to give the country a lead. In these days we never do anything unless the Government give us a lead. I know that the Government are planning the consequential measures that it will be necessary fox various Ministries to take to implement our agreement to enter the Common Market. We are told that they are planning a campaign, when agreement is reached, to put the whole of the facts before the people and to get the people behind them. That is, of course, a very right and proper and necessary thing to do; but I hope that the Government will go further: I hope they will speak to the people in no equivocal voice, and will point out to them that this is a turning point in our history, and that we really have to reorientate our philosophy as a nation, if we are going to make a success of it and of ourselves.
Not only must the Government do this. The great political Parties will be having their meetings in a month or so, and by then it may well be that the basis of an agreement will have been reached. If they feel that that basis is satisfactory, I hope that they will say much the same things to their followers. Of even greater consequence is the T.U.C. I listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, had to say about the attitude of the workers to this matter. There is no doubt that there is much scepticism and a great deal of reserve among them. But I believe that if their own leaders, men like the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, will put the real facts to them, and tell them that this is a turning point in our history, the workers will readily accept the logic of the facts. That goes for my old friends, the railwaymen, who are among the most sceptical of the lot at the moment.
That is what I particularly desire to say to your Lordships to-night. To sum up, I feel that if we are going to join the
372
Common Market, as I am sure we should, we shall have to learn to become good Europeans. We shall have to learn to speak as Europeans, not as "they" but as "we". If we do that, I feel very sure that there is before us a future of increasing prosperity and that politically there is a future before us of a leading position in Europe and in the Commonwealth.
9.5 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford has asked me to take his place at this point in the debate, and this I gladly do. Many of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate have indicated the public confusion that exists to-day over the problem of the Common Market. No doubt confusion does exist. At one time there was a complete lack of information concerning the Common Market, but to-day we can almost complain that there is too much. But all the information that is circulated is intended to promote preconceived ideas. My own view is that, whatever may be the merits or demerits of Britain's joining the European Economic Community, the reasons for the nations of Europe joining that Community are not hard to find. For generations they have suffered from nationalism, trade barriers and distrust that left a legacy of hate that culminated in two great wars.
As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said a few moments ago, Britain had an opportunity of taking the leadership of Europe at the end of the war, when the nations of Europe not only felt the need but had the deep desire to get closer together. We did not accept that leadership. At that time many thought that the Common Market and the association of the European nations could not succeed. Well, so far they have given indications of success. I know that it is easy for us to job backwards, but we have to remember that the traditional attitude of Britain over the years, to prevent the emergence of any one, single dominant Power in Europe, must have had some influence upon our attitude at that time. Probably in the light of the circumstances at that time it might have been right for Britain not to jump into the Common Market.

373
As more than one speaker has indicated and as the noble Earl, Lord Home, made clear in his speech to-day, the economic and industrial conditions of this country have changed radically. We have now a highly industrialised economy geared to a larger population than that of the 50 million of these islands. In the days since the end of the war, recurring crises over our balance of payments have given clear indication of the need to widen the area for the sale of our goods. In close geographical proximity to Britain we have the European Economic Community, which offers a market of 170 million people. The attraction does not lie in the possibility of exports to those 170 million people, but in the fact that it provides the necessary wider basis for our own industrial economy.
I recognise that many of my friends who oppose the Common Market argue with some force that outside Europe there is a great potential of nations with great populations who need the goods that Britain can produce. I make particular reference to the emergent nations. According to the critics of the Common Market, they offer opportunities for the development of export trade greater, in the ultimate, than those of Europe.
We have all recognised, as has been expressed many times in this House, the need for providing assistance and aid to the under-developed countries. We recognise that such aid is in our long-term industrial interest. At this moment, however, those nations offer little or no opportunity for substantial development of trade with this nation. I have had the opportunity on many occasions over past years of visiting many of those countries, often in the hope of being able to stimulate and develop trade. Until it is possible to secure a substantial economic development of those nations, trade in any substantial quantity is not possible, because trade is a two-way operation. It depends upon what they can sell as well as upon what we can supply.
This House has, quite rightly, devoted considerable attention to what, to my mind, is the major problem in all this consideration of the Common Market, and that is the Commonwealth—the Commonwealth that is rooted in the
374
British sense of things deeper than anything presented by trade and all its possibilities. We have to ask ourselves at this point in time whether the Commonwealth offers a ready-made alternative to the Common Market. Can we, indeed, describe the Commonwealth as an economic entity that would provide Britain with a basis for an expanding economy? If the answer is, "Yes", and then we should have seized the opportunity long ago.
From the figures of trade, which I shall not weary the House in presenting, we see that Commonwealth trade is, indeed, a substantial proportion of British export and import trade. There is, however, something that we must observe about these figures as compared with the figures of trade with countries within the European Economic Community. Unfortunately, the figures of trade with the Commonwealth have shown a steady decline over the past few years. The figures of trade, both import and export, in countries of the European Economic Community have shown a slow but steady increase. It is also clear, and we must recognse it, that entry into the Common Market would disturb the existing preferential trade system Which was created at Ottawa in 1932. But the Common Market apart, even if there were no consideration of the Common Market, it is doubtful whether this system has any great future. In the post-war period, the percentage of Commonwealth trade covered by preferences decreased steadily. In 1948, between 54 and 56 per cent. of our imports from the Commonwealth benefited from preferences. By 1957, the figure had fallen to 47 per cent.
Another aspect of the problem which we have to recognise, in consideration of the Whole question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, is the fact that both Canada and Australia, two members of the Commonwealth, will have need to develop their own manufacturing industries behind tariffs and that, at the same time, it will not be possible for Britain to absorb all the commodities that the Commonwealth can export. Even if we were able to develop a new concept of a tight entity of Commonwealth trade, to which some of your Lordships have referred, I am positive that it would not be, and could not be,

375
acceptable to the Commonwealth. At the same time, lit is only right that this House should have clear recognition of the fact that it is indefensible to regard Commonwealth relationships solely on a trade basis. The links constitute a much deeper attachment and, to my way of thinking, are rooted more in a political than in a trade concept. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has referred to the danger of presenting to the country the alternative of Commonwealth or Europe. If by any mischance this problem was presented to the electorate as one of Commonwealth or Europe, there is no doubt whatever what the public answer would be.
In the consideration of all these matters, I wonder, frankly, whether our British negotiators—and I, too, have personal knowledge of at least one of them who is a capable economist, with whom I was associated many years ago and for whom I have the greatest respect—recognise to the full, and express it in powerful arguments to those with whom they are negotiating, that Britain has as much to give as to get from the Common Market. I often wonder, as I am sure many electors wonder, whether the negotiations have been bedevilled by the extraordinary anxiety and haste on the part of Her Majesty's Government to find both a carrot and a whip to solve our economic problems. I hope that that is not the case, but I am quite sure that there are many in industry to-day who believe, probably wrongly, that the Government are actuated by those considerations and would appear to demonstrate it by their extraordinary anxiety to bring the discussions to a rapid conclusion.
I recognise that, as many speakers have indicated, the Common Market is no automatic solution for our ills. Entry into the Common Market would merely intensify the changes that we would have to make industrially and economically in any event. I believe that many of the difficulties which have been expressed in newspapers and by speakers throughout the country over past months have been grossly exaggerated. I know that there are great problems. One outstanding home problem is that of agriculture—and I speak as one who is a director of an organisation which probably has the largest farming interests in Britain,
376
farming no less than 34,000 acres. We are quite conscious of all the problems that will result from participation in the Common Market, but we believe that those problems can be solved, and solved satisfactorily.
The question of sovereignty, which has been raised, is one that I simply cannot understand, because I see nothing new in restricted sovereignty. Indeed, I recognise that this country cannot pursue any independent trade policy, particularly in consequence of its obligations under G.A.T.T. Similarly with regard to defence, communications, currency and fisheries—all are restricted under treaty obligations. That is my non-legal approach to that problem.
There is, however, one aspect which deserves the attention of our negotiators. That is, how far we can be sure that the decisions that are made by the supranational authorities are truly democratic. We, at least on this side of the House, are particularly concerned with that aspect of the problem. That leads me to what I regard as an important point. How far does the Common Market offer benefits, as it obviously should to be successful, in terms of a higher standard of living for the ordinary people? How far does it offer protection for the consumer that ensures that the consumer secures the benefits that can be created by closer association with the European countries? The evidence is that in the European Economic Community, consumer interests have gone by default.
Over recent months, I have had close association with German co-operatives, and I have learned much of their reaction in that regard, to which, with your Lordships permission, I will presently refer. But at a time when Her Majesty's Government are declaring an increasing interest in the consumer I think it would be as well to have some declaration of protection of the consumer under our association with the Common Market. I make particular reference to the Molony Report, which states:
"The biggest question-mark hanging over consumer affairs is the possibility of the United Kingdom entering the European Common Market."
Quite recently in the issue of June 23, from which I quote, a German Co-operative publication, Der Verbraucher, has

377
this to say in making reference to the fact that agricultural marketing regulations under the Common Market are being drafted in such a way as to cause price rises in bread, bakery goods, eggs, poultry and pigmeat. A fortnight earlier the same journal had drawn attention to the probability of substantial increases in the price of rice. In many cases, so it stated, prices of rice are expected to go up by at least 10 to 20 per cent. The German consumer may face a 35 to 40 per cent. price increase, if not more. I quote:
"Clearly, these regulations reflect the voice of the European Economic Community farmers' organisations rather than that of the consumers!"
If I have, to give added weight to that—and I do so not in opposition to the suggestion of entry into the Common Market but because of the need for protection of consumer rights—I quote from a speech made but a few months ago by Dr. Mansholt, the Vice-President of the E.E.C. Commission, When addressing the first conference of consumers' organisations. It is exceedingly interesting to read his speech. This is what he said:
"… the consumers "—
that is, the European consumers—
"were not well organised, as far as their representation within the Community was concerned. Consequently, they were not in a position to defend themselves against endeavours which were contrary to their interests."
Dr. Mansholt went on to state that in the first three years since the Treaty had been signed
"the consumers had hardly enjoyed the advantages of the Common Market, in price reductions, which should have resulted from the decrease of duties, abolition of quotas, and rationalisation. On the other hand, he said, the producers did not miss any opportunity to attempt to make their influence felt by means of price agreements, cartels and monopolistic ties."
My Lords, that is the position in Europe to-day; an indication that monopoly interests are becoming dominant. Yet, in spite of that, it is only fair for me to say that the German Co-operative Movement, recognising all these dangers, recognising the necessity for those in their organisation to fight against these interests, would welcome the association of Britain and the support of the British Co-operative Movement in urging our own country's entry into the Common
378
Market; because, in spite of difficulties that exist at the moment, the possibilities are great.
I mention this merely to indicate the dangers that we feel are apparent in the present organisation of the Common Market, and I would hope that Britain herself, in the negotiations, and after the negotiations, would be quite conscious of the inherent dangers that can lie in organisations of that kind. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government would not be associated with a Common Market created solely for the interests of monopolies. Speaking personally, I welcome any move that will break down trade barriers and create a closer unification of Europe. I recognise, too, that Britain cannot live alone; and neither can the Commonwealth. But we must not consider the Common Market as a funk-hole for a beaten and perplexed Government. I believe (that we should approach it rather in the larger sense, with recognition that it does offer opportunities of greater expansion and development of our own community.
I believe there are two fundamentals that must influence the attitude of our negotiators. The first is that Britain can give as much as she can get; and, secondly, I believe, and I should hope, that in all these negotiations, trade conditions and considerations apart, Britain will recognise the emotional basis of our attachment to the Commonwealth The concept of co-operation with Europe is in keeping with my philosophy, and I believe that a Britain associated with the Commonwealth, and retaining her Commonwealth links, could make a far greater contribution to the European Economic Community than a Britain bereft of such links. As more than one of your Lordships have stated, Britain cannot opt out of the mainstream of European development, and I believe that this is our opportunity. Let us make sure that, in seizing that opportunity, we make our true contribution in the sense of our recognition of democratic responsibilities in our association with the Market.
9.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, before I start off on filling one or two holes, I should like to say something which, to my surprise, has mot been said before. Many of us have lost some of

379
our greatest friends and our relations in two world wars, As Omar Khayyam says:
"Lo! some we loved, the loveliest and best"
I think if the dead could rise again now and see that Teuton and Frank have buried the hatchet they would say. "We have not died in vain". It is a remark able change on the European landscape.
I speak as a farmer and a retired economist, though perhaps I ought to say, as so many real economists are here, that I only taught the subject. The farming of this country has been transformed since 1947. Previously to that it was in decline for well over a hundred years. It is interesting to me that in 1846 a Conservative Government repealed the tax on imported corn, and it was not until 1947, apart from periods of crisis and war, that a Government under the Labour Party began the rehabilitation of British agriculture from top to bottom; and I think great credit is due to the Government of which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is here to-night, was Leader, that that initiative was taken in that particular way, because it was not a way which is peculiarly a Socialist way. It was supported by all Parties and the Conservative Party have continued, extended and improved the measures in support of British agriculture.
I can still, however, point to land which has not been ploughed since the Crimean War and still other bits which have not been ploughed since Napoleon. The naglect was very great and it was largely in favour of the creaming of virgin lands in a way which would be regarded in this country now as arrant bad husbandry. The United States, as I understand, have mismanaged their land in such a way that an area one-and-a-half times the size of England has been eroded and made useless. That is dust bowl husbandry.
I personally have never thought that it was prudent even in our own interests to encourage that form of husbandry which plunders the earth. As we have reached such an advanced stage of rehabilitation of the farms of this land, it is a puzzle to me why people are afraid of joining a Community in which French farmers predominate as the farming community, because the French have protected their farmers from the time of
380
Napoleon to this day. Why farmers should fear to come under the auspices of the French, when I think they would be 20 per cent. in the Community instead of 4 per cent., is a very great mystery to me.
Moreover, I do not understand what the National Farmers' Union is objecting to in general terms. It seems to me that if we let the French have their way—that is, if our negotiators let the French have their way—they will get a higher price level (that is what all the propaganda and argument is about) than we think proper. They may even make the Community largely self-sufficient in agricultural products. I understand that has been stated as the fear. Why should we English farmers object? There may be all sorts of objectors, but I cannot see why the farmers should be among them. I hope that this effort to stop the Community from being self-sufficient in agriculture will not be carried to a point Which brings us below the rewards to agriculture which we have had in ten years or more—fifteen years—of Labour and Conservative Governments. I do not think that any decision could possibly be based on what is best for British agriculture, but I merely put the point that I have been unable to see why representatives of British farmers should be anxious at joining a farming community which is largely French, with all that long history of protection.
It is quite obvious from what has been said in this House to-night, and what has been said elsewhere, that much of the particular form of help which the farmers get in this country it is politically impossible to continue for ever, even if it is necessary to keep up the price. Nobody minds if there is a threat to set an ad valorem duty on a Volkswagen that comes into this country, but here we have to go cap in hand for deficiency payments and grants every year, and every year it is a political issue; and the tradition of this country is cheap food. Therefore, I foresee (and I think it was clearly implied in what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Home) that we are not going to get this continued help if we are not in the Common Market. Therefore, I hope it is perfectly clear to all farmers in this country where their bread and butter lies.

381
I have just said that what happens to our farmers in this country cannot be a decisive factor. We are 96 per cent. an industrial country. Therefore it is a question of what is good for the rest. So much has been said that all I would do is to call attention to two points. Our industrial prosperity seems to me to depend more than almost any other country's on what is called the balance of payments, equating our exports and imports. To the best of my belief, we have been in recurring difficulties on the subject since the end of the First World War. There was that business of reparations, then there were the return to the gold standard in 1925, the "economic consequences "of Mr. Churchill, the gambling, the excessive optimism, the abandoning of the gold standard in 1931, the system of free imports without free trade put to an end in 1932, the traditions of a century abandoned. We have been in chronic difficulties over this because we have not a large, stable home market. That seems to me the basis of the trouble.
But I wish to reinforce and support what the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, said. I happened to be teaching economics between 1931 and 1936, and I did my best. It was the worst possible period of our industrial history in modern times. I came to the conclusion that the evil of mass, prolonged, urban unemployment was greater than the evil of war. We have had two terrible wars, but that was a period where a man might not get a job, when he was 25, 26 or 27 years of age and had never had a job, and that was true of many whole communities; one has seen them propping up lamp posts. I have often thought, after that, that this is the worst scourge in this country. We have avoided famine; we are not poor or hungry; but we have suffered some of the consequences of war and we have suffered the devastating, soul-destroying periods of mass unemployment. That seems to me the factor which should determine our going in—is it advantageous for the equitable management of regular employment?
I was wondering whether, in order to reassure the sensitiveness of the trade unions, the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, might be adopted, that something should perhaps be added in Article 117 where it talks
382
of assuring living and working conditions and equalisation in an upward direction. It mentions living and working, but it does not mention that scourge. I think that every legislator ought to have up in front of him, in letters of fire, an adaptation of Milton's famous line: "They do not serve who only stand and rot".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most interested in the noble Earl's speech and the period to which he refers. It must be remembered that from 1931 until the war broke out there was grave unemployment in this country and all these balance-of-payments difficulties occurred. Agriculture was left to rot then terribly, while the same kind of deflationary method that some people want to-day in this country was pursued. Might I also point out that since the war the Labour Government started a policy of full employment and an assisted agriculture, and the result has been that the balance of payments has been greatly helped to the extent of £400 million to £500 million a year by British agriculture production saving imports.
THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH: My Lords, I should like the noble Viscount to know that we who normally sit on the Cross Benches realise very fully the great work that was done by the Labour Government.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am extremely gratified that the noble Viscount has been pleased with anything I have said on this subject, as it was he, after ail, who opened the debate in a speech which was, to my mind, a tour de force of emotional vigour and which has really made this debate, because there are not so many others who have agreed with him, on the whole.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have got one beside me though.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am in support of the Common Market. There is one matter which I should like to mention with regard to the Dominions. I have noticed in most of the speeches in this House and in most of the Press that what people mean when they use the term "Commonwealth" is Canada,

383
Australia and New Zealand: most of them do not think of anything else at all. I think that altogether there are 47 members, and the members they mention are the rich. They are the countries with the highest standard of life on this planet to-day. I am not against the rich. May the rich prosper! As a hill farmer I always say that my prosperity depends on the vale farmer being really prosperous. I am not against the rich; I like them. Nevertheless, I think that the time has come—and they also have been moving towards it with great deliberation, not thinking too much of us—when they will be independent.
I should like to read the inscription at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbour:
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shores.
"Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to me."
That is not particularly good poetry, but as a sentiment its magnificence resides in the fact that it has been fulfilled. That is what has made the greatness of the United States. I always think of the United States as the firstborn of our many beautiful daughters, and I rejoice accordingly in her strength and greatness. But it is through the open door that she has become prosperous. But take Canada, Australia, New Zealand and such countries as the Argentine and Brazil. What is their attitude to the man who comes to the door? He has to prove that he is rich and healthy, and has something behind him.
I do not think that any of these countries will follow and reach the destinies of which they are obviously capable
384
unless they have a more liberal policy. Only one of them, so far as I know, is entirely free from race prejudice—I refer to Brazil, for which perhaps the greatest future of all lies. It is a country of 50 million, in the basin of the Amazon, which could perhaps accommodate a thousand million, so great are the possibilities. Nevertheless, unless this is done in Australia and Canada at a greater pace they will be left behind. It is not our affair, but I believe that they have reached the point of coming of age, and cannot be tied to our apron strings. There is another part of the Commonwealth which is extremely poor and of which one third, I suppose, goes to bed hungry every night.
I see the possibilities in the Community, and not in any other way, so far as we are concerned, of an expanding economy such as we had when we were the leaders in the 19th century of a continual expansion of exports over imports—and I know of no other way of helping people. The balance is then lent and is invested, by one organisation or another, so producing an investment in capital development—dams, and all those things which are necessary to get these new nations launched. They then become consumers and buy more. I see that Article 129 provides for a development fund which I think is intended for that sort of purpose. But what obviously is necessary is either some form of Marshall Plan or Point 4, which only the Americans are doing. But that is something we should do for the benefit of those we have launched on independence in Africa and Asia. We ought still to be their mother. They need it. I do not really think that the mature white Dominions do. They have gone their own way, and may they prosper! My Lords, it is getting late, and I will not continue.
9.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, to a certain extent this debate reminds me of the philosopher's cat. Your Lordships will remember the saying that the philosopher is like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a oat which is not there. I think that the Continental Powers of Europe are like blind men in a dark room looking for a cat which is not there yet, but which is expected. This is not surprising. When a lot of people are getting together to try to work out What is likely to happen in the future, and What can be made of the future, this is the natural situation. When you are building from nothing, all men are blind, all rooms are dark and all cats are absent. But when we in this country see a collection of our friends together in a dark room, looking for a cat Which is not there yet, I think that the least we can do is to go in and help them look for it.
I attended closely to and took fully the point of what the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary was saying about the distinction between the Treaty of Rome, which is there—anybody could read it; we know roughly what we are talking about—and the future developments towards political union, which are only beginning to be talked about, and we are not even in on the talks. If I interpreted the Foreign Secretary aright, in the first part he said that at the moment the negotiation's rested on the interpretation of the word "reasonable" Which is used in GATT and other economic international organisations. This is natural enough. It is the sort of thing that negotiations do rest on at any given day at 6 o'clock in the afternoon and it makes it difficult for one to debate too concretely on negotiations in progress. One can only say—at least, I can only say—that I think the Government is right to be doing this, and that when it makes its report to the nation the nation will decide in the usual way whether it thinks the terms are good enough to go in. I hope that they will be good enough for us to go in.
But I think it is clear to everybody in Europe Who has thought about this matter that the Treaty of Rome is only the first stone in an edifice which as yet has no shape. Something is going to be built in Western Europe. It is
386
not as if there were no precedent. The history of the Western world is full of small units which fused to make bigger units. I think something can be learned from what has happened in those cases. One thinks at once of (the creation of the State of Germany, out of tiny princedoms. It was first a customs union, exactly as we have now; later there was the growth of the German Empire as we remember it, punctuated three times by war. Germany was forged in war. Again, Italy is a fusion of tiny princedoms, based on various attempts, less successful, at a customs union, but again born in war. The United States itself, the Federation of the American States, emerged out of a war. The precedents are hopeful, in that there are now living Federations on those places which had tiny units; but they are also depressing, as the normal midwife of a close political union is battle.
We have to think carefully about this. There are so many sorts of Western European union that we could have—a mere customs union; the twice yearly meetings of heads of Government, as General de Gaulle has proposed; a confederate structure, a federal structure, or even a super State with Pan West European parties, so you would have one Socialist Party for which you could vote in any constituency from Sicily to the Shetlands. I think myself that we shall probably have all of them in order, one after the other. It would not be a bad thing. It is a most attractive prospect.
But let us, before we do anything else, think of the Martian in his saucer. He has heard on the interplanetary news bulletins that there is talk of a unified Europe, and he comes closer to have a look. He sees Europe, which is a complicated feature sticking out between two seas—fertile, heavily populated, bristling with industry, with transport systems. He then thinks that these earth men are quite right; that this place is crying out for a bit of political unification; that they could well have done it before. There is ice in the North, in the South the sea, in the West a bigger sea, and in the East mountains and deserts. It is an obvious unit. Then, when he gets into a little closer communication on the local radio, he finds that this is not what we mean at all. We

387
do not mean Europe up to those mountains and deserts in the East. We mean Western Europe, stopping half way at a medium-sized river called the Elbe, in the middle of a flat plain and south of that at some gently undulating wooded country in Central Germany.
I think the Martian goes home puzzled: "Why do they unite only up to there?" We know the answer well enough, of course. We have to live with the political and military facts of life as well as the geographical and economic ones. But, although Western Europe is a convenient political unit, it is not a natural unit at all; it is not a natural geographical unit; it is not a natural economic unit. It is simply a unit fortuitously defined by the line where two great military machines met each other in 1945.
We have to look rather far ahead on this one. What is our long-term hope and policy? Is it victory over Communism in war? Obviously not. Is it a perpetual stalemate, lasting for centuries and centuries, without any softening of the political struggle and without any reduction of the military threat? We hope not. What is left? Surely one thing only, and that is that the two sides in the cold war should simply get bored with the struggle between capitalism and Communism and go on to the next thing, whatever that may be. We do not know yet. It is another cat which has not arrived in the dark room. To our noble and Christian predecessors who began to sit in this House, it was intolerable to think that Jerusalem should be in the hands of the infidel. It still is, and many of your Lordships are still Christians; but we do not now worry about that any more. We have simply become interested in the next thing. And so it must be with this struggle between Communism and capitalism, if we are to survive. Everything we do now ought to be reconciled with this distant aim—and it is distant; and nothing we do now ought to make it more difficult for East and West to grow out of the present perilous deadlock, just as Christendom and Islam grew out of it 500 years ago.
How do the political and military potentialities of the European Community square up with this long-term
388
overall need? A single Federal State of Western Europe, a United States of Western Europe, is a rather seductive idea to us, while to the Americans it is absolutely irresistible. If we were to adopt it in the long run, it would justify their whole history. They would be able to feel, "You see, we were right all along. Our way of doing things has been proved the best, even to the countries we ran away from in order to do it ". It would be like the boy whose father first of all disapproved of his wearing hipster pants, and who a year or two later, found the father himself wearing them.
This thing has a very strong appeal to the Americans. The Americans want us to have a really close union in Western Europe for three bad reasons and one good one. The toad ones are: first, because they did it themselves; secondly, because it might finally put an end to the Franco-German wars in which they keep getting mixed up; and, thirdly, because it might strengthen NATO. My Lords, I say that these reasons are bad because the first refers to the eighteenth century, the second refers to the last war, and the third refers to the next. Whereas our political purpose should now be to find peaceful ways of living in the twentieth century.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but is the noble Lord in favour of not strengthening NATO?
LORD KENNET: It seems to me that the military capacity of NATO is, in most relevant fields, two to three times greater than that of the opposing bloc. I believe that we could rest easy for a moment on strengthening NATO absolutely.
The good American reason for wanting us to have a close union in Western Europe is that our British presence in a closely united Western Europe would act as a bridge between the United States and the Continent of Europe and would tend to prevent a polarisation in economic and political affairs between the Continent and the United States. This is obviously desirable. For this, and for various other reasons, I hope that in time we shall come into a very close union in Western Europe, even a Federation. I see no terrors in that. The Comet and the Caravelle, and Euro-vision, have already made it extremely difficult not to go in that direction.

389
But—and here I come to the point—let us leave hooks out for the Yugoslavs, and the Poles, and the Czechs, and the Russians. Let us remember that we have no right to talk of a European Community; only of a West European Community. I was very interested in what my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had to say about the German and French utterances in favour of a European Community stretching up to the Urals. I think he saw these utterances as a suggestion that in the course of time Communism might be rolled back to the Urals and you would get a capitalist democratic union from the Atlantic to the Urals. This idea is, of course, of almost unspeakable danger. But, equally, if we were to think of the world as it would be after disarmament and after a German settlement, such a Federation would, on the contrary, be a profoundly beneficent thing for the people concerned and for the rest of the world too.
Let us, above all, keep defence out of the Western Europe Community which we are about to build—and I believe that we are about to build it. We already have an alliance, and (with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn) a very strong Alliance. Let us keep defence there where it belongs. There is no reason to suppose that our military affairs will be better conducted if we have a sort of two-tier system, as the French dream of at the moment, consisting of Germany, France and Italy and ourselves on top, and a sort of milling plebs of Norway and Turkey and the rest in the second tier. Such an arrangement would do nothing to reconcile the inherent contradictions of weapons of mass destruction in a small crowded Continent, about which I bored your Lordships last week. At its best, it could only infuriate the outsiders; at its worst, it might make much more difficult the German settlement and the disarmament settlement, which must be our first aim, as surely as getting to a doctor must be the first aim of a very sick man. In fact, military needs are already affecting the Common Market. I believe that the marked lack of interest shown by the American and British Governments in the proposals for a zone of disengagement in Central Europe, which the East have once again been
390
making, may have something to do with securing German intercession with France for acceptable terms on which this country could enter the Common Market.
All that is necessary to keep defence out of a Western European Community, and to keep it in NATO, where it belongs, is a decision to do so. There is no law of politics which says that if a supra-national Community is to be built, even if a Federation is to be built, it must have a common defence staff, common armed forces, a common strategy, or a common defence policy. It will have what it is given, and it is quite possible simply not to give it those attributes. We in this country, especially, have experience of working Constitutions where defence is a reserved subject. It is difficult to see immediately why it is any easier to reserve defence upwards to the Colonial Government than it would be to reserve it, as it were, both downwards and upwards to the constituent States in a European Community and to a wider alignment of States than that Community—namely, NATO.
To buttress the peaceful nature of the Western European Community which I hope we shall build (because in these days weapons creep into everything, unless you stop them), I hope that we shall do all we can to bring EFTA neutrals, and other neutrals, into as close a relationship with Europe as France and Germany will permit. I say "France and Germany" because the Americans are as keen to keep the neutrals out as they are to get us in. I think this is a short-sighted part of American foreign policy—a hangover from the age of massive retaliation, when Dulles said "It is immoral to be neutral ". If Sweden, Austria and Switzerland (and it is good news indeed that they are making their first statements to the Community) can be brought close in, and Finland and Yugoslavia, too—and why not, because we do not have to ask the Russians' permission about this?—or nearly in, it will do a great deal to forestall the increased military rigidity which one may otherwise fear.
Let us have a strong and peaceful Western European Community, and let us leave the defence, as I say, in NATO, until the day when we can dismantle

391
NATO and the Warsaw Pact, following on a disarmament agreement. At that time, let us make the Western European Community truly European. In the meantime, let us make this Community the embodiment of the Europe which builds the cathedrals and the bridges, not the Europe which knocks them down; of the Europe which studies man, not the Europe which burns him and gasses him; of the Europe which can fly a drug to a sick child in an hour, not the Europe which can fly 20 "Hiroshimas" to someone else's city in an hour.
I do not think we need worry unduly about the Commonwealth. Whatever butter we eat, and whoever eats their butter, the New Zealanders will still talk English. In 40 years' time I should like to see this country no longer the special consumer of the white Commonwealth's exports, but the special university of the whole Commonwealth, white, brown and black equally. The Britishness of the Commonwealth, which we all value, does not reside in tariff preferences, not even, I think, in law. It resides in the English language, which is an instrument of understanding. If we do not use our Britishness for that, we can have no pride in it; and if we do not use our Europeanness for building and healing, we can have no pride in that either.
10.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has won in recent times a reputation as one of the most thoughtful Members of your Lordships' House, and I should like, if I may, respectfully to congratulate him on the speech he has just made. He said something which I did not quite follow, but I think perhaps that was because I misunderstood it. He said that many Members of the House of Lords were still Christians, but that we do not bother very much about that nowadays—though I may have that wrong.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my point was that many Members of the House of Lords are still Christians, but they do not bother very much about Jerusalem still being in Moslem hands.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Perhaps I ought to be bothered more than I am
392
about Jerusalem being in Moslem hands. But, to be candid, I do not bother about it; and I daresay that it does not keep other noble Lords awake. At any rate, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the Whole speech, now that I understand it perfectly. Of course, I should like to congratulate all speakers; and if I single out the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is merely because he is the leader of so many so-called European aspirations. I would take the unusual course, too, of congratulating all those who have stayed to listen. I think that really represents the highest art of all, the divine gift of perseverance.
I feel in a certain difficulty, because it would be impossible for me to pretend that I am (in total agreement, or even in partial agreement, with the speech of my noble Leader, whom I revere in a way which, through modesty, he would perhaps hardly recognise. But I cannot be said to be in total or even partial agreement with his speech. I sought inspiration, in trying to explain my point of view to him, from a book with which I know he is much more familiar than I am—namely, the book of Ecclesiasticus, which I think he knows by heart or, at any rate, a great deal better than I do. I think this sentiment from it might possibly help me in replying in advance to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee:
"Where older men than thou are met and wiser, take thou thy place and give thy whole heart to their teaching. Old tales of God's wonders thou shalt hear, and sayings of much renown."
I have listened to some old tales which are not in all respects relevant to the problem with which we find ourselves confronted.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: One of the follies of youth.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I stand to be corrected, but, if I may, I ask the noble Viscount to take note of this sentence also, which comes in his favourite book:
"If a poor man would speak to thee, lend him thy ear without grudging. Give him his due and let him have patient and friendly answer."
If the noble Viscount is precluded from answering me himself tonight, I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will take that up tomorrow. But I am consoled by the thought that other very

393
senior noble Lords of my own Party have addressed us—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—and their speeches must be put, at any rate, against those of the noble Viscount and of the noble Earl, if he takes the line we expect of him tomorrow.
It seems to me, my Lords, that we have had an altogether friendly debate. I think Sir Winston Churchill once referred to a certain Election as a demure Election—not as a term of praise—and I suppose there has been very little disagreement today. I do not think anybody has, as it were, dragged the Roman Catholic Church into it. But I am glad of that, because at times there has been a fear among some Members of the House that the Treaty of Rome was especially associated with the Pope. I would gladly accept any amendment Which had the effect of turning it into the Treaty of Canterbury, but it is perhaps a little late in the day. However, I am perfectly ready for that. I know there is some feeling, which may be justified, that the Pope has had something to do with the appointment of the manager of the British team to Australia; that of course may be true. But I speak with an almost infallible knowledge, when I say that he has bad really nothing to do with the very complicated economic issues which have been explained to us so clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Home.
It seems to me, my Lords, that there are two main issues before us. One is an issue of principle, which was in fact before us last year, and noble Lords who have spoken will not think I am disparaging them if I say that many of (the speeches today have confirmed and developed (shall I say?) arguments that were, in fact, highly relevant last year and are relevant still. Obviously the whole question of whether this idea of the European Community is an elevated one, and whether we ought to desire to find an association with it, is in itself a major issue of principle. I will say a word, but only a word, about that at the very end of my speech.
There is also the question which has arisen during the last year, and especially during the last few weeks: the question of the precise stage that the negotiations have reached. Here, if I offer thoughts, they are my own thoughts and
394
may have no especial validity, but I feel that those who believe as intensely as I do in the desirability of our entering the Common Market have a certain duty at this time to make plain where they stand in regard to what we understand to be the present state of negotiations. But on my general attitude, I have really very little to add to what I said last year, when I said that I was 100 per cent. in favour of our joining the Common Market—and one cannot, I suppose, be more than 100 per cent. in favour of joining something. If that were intellectually possible, I would adopt that stance but, at any rate, I stand in that matter Where I stood. But if we take the present state of negotiations, it is obviously not enough for us to say, "I am in favour of the Common Market," and then leave it to someone like the admirable Mr. Heath and hope for the best. He has, I think, earned the admiration of everybody by his labours, but I think it is only right to offer just a few thoughts about the present situation.
It seems to me, my Lords, that negotiations are obviously at a critical stage. I feel rather happier today than I did when I came here, because the noble Earl, Lord Home, did not allow any note of crisis to creep into his speech. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that some of us, in reading the Press over the weekend, have perhaps overestimated the dangers of the situation. But, surely—and this was brought out in one way or another by various speakers: certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—nobody expected such a complex and varied operation to be carried through without a moment of crisis of some kind. It would be inconceivable, I suppose, that the whole thing could go smoothly through without any danger of anything that looked like a break at any time. Certainly the Six themselves, in their own negotiations, relating both to the Treaty in general and to the agricultural arrangements last winter, have been through such crises and have survived them. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will bear me out there.
It would be very feeble on our part automatically to assume that an approach of crisis indicated an approach of failure. At the same time, we must, I suppose, standing here, outside the intimate details, but listening and reading

395
as we can, envisage the possibility that the terms which the Six are prepared to ofler for temperate foodstuffs might in our view be inadequate. They might not be sufficient, in our view, to enable us to discharge our obligations to the Commonwealth, and we must accept that possibility, if we are forced to break off negotiations for a time. I should like to say as strongly as possible that, in my opinion, if that were to happen it would be a tragedy. It is what I feel one must say at this stage. It is, of course, no good saying that we should accept anything presented to us, sign it on any terms. But that is not the situation; and if it is our conviction, as certainly it is mine, and the conviction of most Members of this House, I fancy, that it would be a tragedy——
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It may be to my noble friend a tragedy, but Mr. Gaitskell, in the broadcast to which I referred earlier today, said that if we found that we could not go into the Common Market it would not be a disaster.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not think everybody would agree, with exaggerated respect to my noble Leader——
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And Mr. Gaitskell.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD:—that would equate that view of Mr. Gaitskell with the view of my noble Leader, or would see any resemblance between the view of Mr. Gaitskell and that of my noble Leader. And if my noble Leader, with his great responsibilities, is prepared to divert in one direction, I may, perhaps, with my smaller responsibilities, be allowed to divert in the other. Mr. Gaitskell has said that, on balance, it would be a good thing to enter the Common Market. I cannot, therefore, equate my noble Leader's point of view with the statement of the Leader of my Party.
LORD GLADWYN: It might be a tragedy, but not a disaster. A tragedy and a disaster are different things.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am grateful for that synthesis in this difficulty of reconciliation: the noble Lord,
396
with his years of displomatic training, has come to the rescue of the Labour Party.
It would certainly be a great shock to business opinion if the negotiations were broken off. It would be a psychological shock to the whole country if they were broken off for any length of time. It would lead, as I would think, to a period of turning into ourselves. We should begin by blaming foreigners, assuming that all the fault was theirs, and priding ourselves on our innate wisdom. I personally should suppose (I do not know whether or not Mr. Gaitskell would agree with this) that the whole West would be facing a decade of mutual recrimination. We should blame the Six; some of the Six would blame us, and some of them would blame one another. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it would certainly be wonderful news for Mr. Khrushchev and to everybody who wished this country ill. The United States would probably also come in for their share of blame. We cannot tell what effect it would have on their policy, but it could not have a good effect in any way.
It is difficult to suppose that it would draw us closer towards the Commonwealth if, as a result of trying to meet the wishes of the Commonwealth, we felt compelled to destroy the chances of an agreement which was recognised as being to the advantage of this country. I can hardly believe that it would do anything but harm in the long run to our Commonwealth relations.
If we look at what has happened, particularly over temperate food, which is very much at the centre of our minds, we may reflect that Imperial Preference has existed only for thirty years— the noble Earl, Lord Home, put that in perspective very well it seemed to me—and during the whole of that time it has been steadily reduced at the wish of the outer Commonwealth countries themselves. The average Preference of British exports was 12½ per cent. in 1937 and is now down to 5 per cent., and in large parts of the new Commonwealth it does not exist at all. It seems to me at least likely that, even if the Community had never been heard of, Imperial Preference would have died of its own volition by 1975.

397
What is a matter of importance, of course, is the level of agricultural prices within the Community. If they are very high they obviously maintain a lot of inefficient producers—the Foreign Secretary set all that out with great clarity this afternoon—and though that would be to the advantage of British farming it would not for the unfortunate producers overseas, and would affect the level of food prices everywhere. The crucial thing, of course, is that the Commonwealth should develop a fairly low level of agricultural prices, and I see no reason why they should not he obtained; but I do say, speaking as one who yields to no one on the idea of our joining the Common Market, that clearly there are conditions which must be satisfied, and it cannot be certain as we stand here that they will be satisfied without any suspension of the talks. I hope they will, and I pray they will, but one cannot be certain they will. But it seems to me that, even if the negotiations have to be temporarily broken off, we cannot fail to achieve success this year if we are really determined on the objective.
I have paid, I hope, proper tributes to those who have achieved vastly more than I have for this country and for the Labour Party, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and my noble Leader beside me, but I must point out that this is something desired by those much younger than they are or than I am. There are in the Labour Party today two very strong movements, one associated with the aim of nuclear disarmament—and I shall say nothing about that tonight as it has not at the moment, perhaps unfortunately, any champions here—and the other the Campaign for Democratic Socialism which has received the patronage of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and has done so much to establish among the young a firm and patriotic foreign policy supporting the defence of the West.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would quote one or two sentences, certainly not more, from the last document issued by the Campaign for Democratic Socialism, because it is, on the whole, representative of all that is best among young Socialists, if we leave out for the moment the nuclear disarmament movement. This is what the writers of this document say:
398
"From its inception the Campaign for Democratic Socialism has been firmly in favour of Britain joining the Common Market."
They comment at the end of this particular manifesto:
"If we are socialists,"—
this has reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth—
"we can hardly be deaf to the conviction of every Socialist Party in the Six that the Common Market is a spur to social progress, or to their unanimous desire to have us in."
Note that, my Lords: the "unanimous desire" of European Socialists to have us in the Common Market. They go on:
"If we are internationalists, we can hardly believe that a fastidious determination not to soil our English hands with the dirt of the Continent is a suitable progressive posture for the end of the twentieth century."
That is the point of view of young Socialists who have done more than any group in the Labour Party for Socialist aims in the Party in the last year or two.
I feel certain that those people who believe in world government, which must be the aim of all of us, will find it very difficult to disagree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. He pointed out that if we really believe in the establishment of an international police force, and if we really believe in the establishment of an effective world authority, it is very difficult not to agree that the European Community is a step in that direction. I said this last year, and on the next day the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, replied, sweeping aside, if I may say so, these arguments. If the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, whose words are followed all over the world, is to speak to-morrow, I hope that he will reply, if not to me, at any rate to the noble Lord, Lord McNair. How can he really convince anybody who follows the argument that, if one believes in world government, one should reject the European Community? I recognise that there are many shades of emphasis, but in the last resort, faced with these complicated economic difficulties—and I am certainly not saying that we should accept everything we are offered—the question is: do we believe that this is a great ideal worth pursuing, or should we prefer to see the negotiations fail? This, in the last resort, is the only question which faces us.

399
I have no doubt that if we are determined, as I believe we are—and as, indeed, I believe the majorities of both the great political Parties in this country are—then, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill, we have only to persevere to conquer: but it will not be the conquest of any other human beings; it will be a conquest only in the sense that it will be the achievement of a partnership—a unique partnership of infinite value to this country
400
and to Europe; and an untold promise to the Commonwealth and the whole world among generations yet unborn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.