Sitting of 7 June 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 26th June, at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce delays in the hearing of cases before Metropolitan magistrates.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): My right hon. Friend is in consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and with the Chief Magistrate, on measures to help the Metropolitan magistrates' courts to deal with the heavy and increasing volume of work falling upon them.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I can let him have details of a case to be tried at Clerkenwell in September in relation to a motor offence committed last November? Is he also aware that the average waiting period is anything from six to
    630
    seven months in the case of parking meters offences, and is not this a very deplorable state of affairs?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I await with interest these details, but I should doubt if that is the real average. We know about the problem, and we are taking measures, including the appointment of an additional stipendiary and an increase in the existing court buildings, as well as the building of a new court house at Lavender Hill, which should be open next spring.
    Mr. Fletcher: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this congestion means that an increasing number of people are unnecessarily kept in custody, without bail, awaiting trial?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not think so. I think that, from what the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) said, this is mostly a question of motoring and parking offences, in which, on the whole, the question of bail does not arise.
    Mr. MacColl: Would the Minister say what is preventing the use of lay justices' courts to supplement the work of the stipendiary magistrates?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: As a distinguished lay justice, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, interested in this. We have accepted in principle the Aarvold Report on integration, and we are urgently considering ways in which lay justices can be brought in to help us in the trouble.

    Detention Centre, Cirencester (Inquiry)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a public inquiry into the proposal to build a detention centre near Cirencester.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The county council was informed on 4th June of my decision to appoint a barrister to hold an inquiry, and the necessary arrangements are now in train.
    Mr. Ridley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that decision? If the objections on planning grounds appear to him to be formidable, will he not continue to press this proposal after the inquiry?
    Mr. Butler: I must now await the result of the inquiry.
    Miss Bacon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it would only be on planning grounds, and not because of the objections of people to having a detention centre in the area?
    Mr. Butler: I think that when I have decided to have an inquiry, it is improper to pursue this any further.

    Metropolitan Police District (Chigwell)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage in the working out of the Greater London plan he will discuss with those principally concerned whether the Chigwell urban district of Essex should, or should not, remain within the Metropolitan Police District.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am considering whether any change in the Metropolitan Police District will be necessary as a result of local government reorganisation in London, and I shall keep in mind the desirability of consultation with the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both the Metropolitan Police and the Essex County Constabulary give excellent service to my constituents, but that, through no fault of the police, there is considerable hooliganism and lawlessness in parts of the Chigwell urban district, and that future police arrangements are of great concern both to the local authority and local people?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for this testimony to the police. I am aware of the facts as stated by him.

    Homosexuality
    Mr. A. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the cost to Government funds of the survey of homosexuality undertaken at the request of his Department in 1958 by Mr. Richard Hauser; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) what precautions his Department takes to ensure that those appointed to residential youth establishments under
    632
    his control are not homosexually inclined.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The cost to Government funds of the research on which Mr. Hauser's book The Homosexual Society was based was £525. I assume that my hon. Friend's Questions relate to the statement in that book to the effect that a senior Government official, who was responsible for scrutinising appointments of staff in residential youth establishments, had stated that he deliberately chose certain types of homosexuals for certain jobs. The author has felt unable to disclose the identity of the official concerned; but diligent inquiries have failed to show that any such statement was made by any officer who is responsible to my right hon. Friend. I need hardly add that this reported statement does not represent official policy.
    Mr. Brown: Can my hon. and learned Friend assure the House categorically that the allegation made by this senior Government official, which has received much publicity, is absolutely untrue?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The policy contained in this alleged statement is quite and absolutely untrue. We have made the most diligent inquiries to find out from whence this rumour came. Mr. Hauser is unable to disclose this since he would regard it as a breach of confidence. All I can add is that the only establishments for which the Home Office is responsible and which might be described as residential youth establishments are borstals and detention centres and that applicants for appointments in these services must satisfy the Civil Service Commission as to their qualifications and, of course, inquiries are made about their previous history.

    Furness Road, N.W.10 (Parked Vehicles)
    Mr Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action the Metropolitan Police are taking in respect of large trailers, unattached to any motivating engine, which are left for long periods unattended in Furness Road, N.W.10, and cause obstruction;

    633
    (2) what measures the Metropolitan Police are taking to avoid obstruction by articulated lorries to access to the school in Furness Road, N.W.10.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): So far as their other commitments allow, the police have continued to give attention to this road and have taken action where offences are observed. Since July, 1961, proceedings have been taken or process applied for in 23 cases, and 93 oral warnings have been given, in respect of obstruction and other offences.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is it right that the police should have such a heavy burden placed on them by the users of these industrial premises? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the residents are grateful to the Metropolitan Police for their diligence, but that recently another accident has occurred to a child? Is it right that a factory should take over the public highway for its own industrial purposes?
    Mr. Renton: I should like to acknowledge the hon. Member's tribute to the police. This is a very difficult matter and I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that unless these commercial vehicles are committing an offence of obstruction they are not committing any breach of the law. The police cannot enforce laws which do not exist. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is aware of this general problem and is inquiring into it.
    Mr. Manuel: This matter has arisen on several occasions, not merely in respect of unattached trailers but also regarding the constant use of the streets in many areas, particularly in the London area, by commercial vehicles. Is he aware that some of these lorries are never in a garage? Should not garages be provided by the people who own these vehicles instead of them constantly using the streets for this purpose?
    Mr. Renton: I have already endeavoured to answer that question when replying to the Question on the Notice Paper, and, indeed, twice at Question Time last week.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this nuisance is not confined to one part of London but that it is general in all the suburbs? If the existing laws are not strong enough,
    634
    will he consider whether some measures should be introduced to give the police additional powers?
    Mr. Renton: That, of course, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who is looking into it.

    Gas-operated Airguns and Pistols
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for the illegal sale of gas-operated airguns and pistols have been instituted in 1962.
    Mr. Renton: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. and learned Friend take note that only a few days ago in the City of London these very dangerous gas-operated air-guns, which should not be sold without a firearms certificate, were on sale openly? Should not dealers and gunsmiths be told that it is illegal to sell these gas-operated pistols, airguns and so on, so that they may take them out of their shops instead of openly selling them?
    Mr. Renton: The Home Secretary has no authority to interpret the law, but it is a plain fact that these particular weapons are operated by means of compressed carbon dioxide and, therefore, would not appear to be air weapons but would appear, subject to what the courts may find, to require a firearms certificate.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is there not some incongruity between Home Office policy which insists on retaining the death penalty where murders are committed by weapons of this kind and its refusal to take any powers to prevent the indiscriminate purchase of these weapons?
    Mr. Renton: That does not arise out of this Question.

    Training Centres (Advisory Council's Report)
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from his Advisory Committee on Training Centres.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I understand that the Council's work on the report is not

    635
    quite complete; but my right hon. Friend hopes to receive it in time for it to be published this autumn.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is rather disappointing? Would not he agree that owing to the desperate shortage of residential accommodation for juvenile delinquents, particularly remand homes and approved schools, it would be a good thing if we could get these training centres so that children could live at home but still be under supervision?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Lady says but there is, in fact, a wide diversity of opinion among the penologists and other experts on this matter. It would be better to resolve what the experts, in their conflicts, have to say instead of giving a premature decision.

    Ashford Remand Centre
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in the Ashford Remand Centre in the last three months have been there for over eight weeks; and for how many hours a day they are locked in their cells.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: At the end of February, March and April the numbers of those who had been in the centre for over eight weeks were, respectively, 8, 13 and 15. At present inmates spend an average of 14 hours a day in their cells; the possibilities of reducing this period are being actively examined.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since I raised this matter in the debate in the House on 10th May, some of the parents of the inmates have been to see me? Two of the fathers, whom I regard as very reliable, allege that their sons and 10 others have been in this remand centre since 6th April and are not due to be in court until 19th June next. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far from spending 14 hours in their cells they allege that, apart from three periods of a quarter of an hour each for meals, two periods for exercise and one period of 15 minutes for visitors—a total of one and a half hours—these boys aged 17 and 18 are locked in their cells for 22½ hours with no recreation or work of
    636
    any kind whatever? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this again and, if more staff is needed, will he see that it is sent?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, in fact my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary is to visit this centre next week. I will go further and say that if the hon. Lady wishes to visit it we would arrange for her to be received there. I am anxious that these matters should be looked into. There are difficulties about staff, but I am informed that a full-time teacher is available for the education of boys who are waiting, and I understand that the position has slightly improved since she made her statement in May.
    Miss Bacon: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the situation has improved, since this shows that it is worse than when I made my statement on 10th May? Is he aware that these are not convicted criminals? They have not been convicted of any offence and if they were in any prison in the country they would not be treated in this manner.
    Mr. Butler: It has been improved in this respect; it happens that today—and I made inquiries today—no boys awaiting removal to approved schools have been in the centre for more than eight weeks. That has been one of the great difficulties—waiting entrance to approved schools. I agree in other respects that the possibility of reducing the period when they are locked in their cells should be investigated, and that is why my hon. and learned Friend is to visit the centre next week.
    Mr. C. Royle: Is not the position a complete abuse of everything we envisaged for remand centres? It is surely impossible that this kind of thing should ever go on.
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the difficulties. I was aware of them when the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) raised them in May. I have made my own representations and I am hoping to see the position improved. That is why the Under-Secretary is to visit the centre.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a serious scandal? He has known about it for

    637
    a long time. It is not good enough merely to say that the matter is still being actively examined. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not give an assurance that these boys will not in future be kept for these extraordinarily long hours in their cells?
    Mr. Butler: I am afraid that some of them are of an unruly disposition and close supervision is essential. This must be associated with the provision of staff, and I cannot promise a complete improvement in the sense desired by the hon. Member. The matter is under active consideration and, as I have said, the Under-Secretary is to visit the centre.
    Sir G. Benson: Surely there is no evidence that detention for long periods in approved schools is any more beneficial than detention for shorter periods?
    Mr. Butler: One difficulty is entry to approved schools, which are overcrowded. As I said in my speech in May in the debate on the Estimates, we are increasing the number of places at approved schools, many of which are not under the Government but under local authorities. A second problem arises in regard to persons awaiting trial. By putting into force the observations in the Streatfeild Report, we are hoping to improve matters.

    Metropolitan Police Force (Strength)
    Mr. Barterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the increase in the strength of the Metropolitan Police force in the first four months of 1962.
    Mr. Renton: One hundred and seventy-seven men and five women.
    Mr. Barter: Can my hon. and learned Friend indicate the trend disclosed by recent recruiting figures to the Metropolitan Police? Does he agree that the improved recruitment to this very fine force contributes most highly to the combating of crime in the Metropolitan Police District?
    Mr. Renton: Yes. The present strength for ordinary duty is 17,531 men and 443 women. There is, however, still a deficiency as against establishment of 2,560 men and 138 women. More are
    638
    needed, especially more men. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's tribute to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force. They are a fine body of men doing a difficult job and they deserve all our encouragement.

    Private Security Organisations
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from police authorities and others about the growth of firms hiring out private police forces.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The only representations received in recent months have been from the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales, from whom a deputation was received in the Home Office on my behalf on 16th April. The deputation raised several points about the position of private security organisations, and were told that the matter was being kept under review.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the Home Secretary view with equanimity the mushrooming of private police forces? What safeguards are there to prevent people with criminal records starting these security organisations and employing in them people with criminal records? Has not the time come to take some action?
    Mr. Butler: I answered the hon. Member on 29th March about the use of police uniforms and said that the enforcement of the provision prohibiting the use of police uniforms was a matter for the police concerned. I then said that I was doubtful whether any further legislation was necessary. I have watched the situation since but I do not notice a mushrooming of this development. If I did, I would certainly take action.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Sentences (Caning)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) for what offences sentences of caning, in addition to imprisonment, can be inflicted in Northern Rhodesia.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, circulate the list of these offences in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not time that this power to inflict sentences of caning on Africans in addition to imprisonment was withdrawn, particularly as the carrying out of the sentence is a matter for the Federal Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore review this matter and introduce a more enlightened policy?
    Mr. Butler: In general the prisons are controlled by the Federal Government, but certain district prisons are controlled by the Northern Rhodesian Court. In general this is a matter for the Northern Rhodesian Legislature.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often the power to order caning has been used during any convenient recent period? Will he examine this question again, both as the Home Secretary of this country and as the person responsible for Central African affairs?
    Mr. Butler: Of course, I will watch this, and I should be glad to give an answer to that question if it were tabled.
    Following is the information:
    Sentences of caning in addition to imprisonment are regulated by Section 27 of the Penal Code which in effect provides that such sentences may be awarded for burglary, housebreaking, theft, rape, attempted rape, indecent assaults on females, defilement of girls under sixteen years, attempted defilement of girls under sixteen years, defilement of idiots or imbeciles, procuration, procuring the defilement of women by threats or fraud or administering drugs, indecent assault on boys, disabling in order to commit felony or misdemeanour, acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent arrest, inflicting grievous harm, maliciously administering poison with intent to harm, wounding and similar acts, assault causing actual bodily harm, assaults punishable with five years' imprisonment, robbery, attempted robbery, assault with intent to steal, demanding property with menaces with intent to steal, being found armed, etc., with intent to commit felony.
    Section 27 further provides for the award of sentence of caning and imprisonment where a person under twenty-one years is convicted for any offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of or exceeding three months except where such imprisonment may be awarded only on non-payment of fine or upon insufficient distress. This latter provision must be read with Section 70 of the Juveniles Ordinance the effect of which is that the double
    640
    punishment can only be awarded to juveniles above the age of sixteen. Under the Native Courts Ordinance and the Barotse Native Courts Ordinance the native courts have similar powers.

  NYASALAND

    Miss Sarah Chavunduka
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he is aware that Miss Sarah Chavunduka, a teacher employed at Blantyre Secondary School by the Nyasaland Government, had to flee the country following threats made against her in the Malawi News of 26th April; and what steps he will take to ensure freedom of speech in Nyasaland.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. My information is that Miss Chavunduka is still on the staff of the school and is carrying out her normal duties.
    Mr. Goodhew: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and welcome the fact that he has been able to return to the country since I tabled this Question. Is he really happy about the position in regard to freedom of speech and political thought in Nyasaland? Is he aware that the Assistant Director of Education for Nyasaland has been sacked whilst home on leave? She is a European. Is my right hon. Friend happy about the whole question of political thought and freedom of speech in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Butler: I should not like to make any generalisations. There was difficulty about this lady. She went on a visit to Salisbury and was not leaving the country. She has now returned. I can only bear in mind the representations made by my hon. Friend.

    Development Finance
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) what consultations he has had with Dr. Banda in Nyasaland regarding the participation of the Nyasaland Government in any overseas loan schemes.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I had general discussions with Dr. Banda and his colleagues which covered the needs of the

    641
    territory for development finance. I cannot say anything further at this stage since these consultations have not yet been concluded.
    Mr. Thomson: I thank the Home Secretary for that Answer. Is he aware that Dr. Banda has made complaints about the Federal Government initiating financial arrangements with territorial responsibilities without consulting the Nyasaland Government? If I give him details, will he look at them?
    Mr. Butler: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will send me the details, I will look at them.

    African Housing
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office), if he will give details of the help proposed by the Colonial Development Corporation towards African housing in Nyasaland.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Colonial Development Corporation already assists African housing in Nyasaland by way of a loan of £1 million made in 1957–58.
    Mr. Thomson: How many homes do we provide under this scheme? Are there any plans for expanding this very useful scheme of help to Nyasaland?
    Mr. Butler: No, I cannot give any details at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will table a question I will answer it.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    English Language Information Centre
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made with the establishment of a Commonwealth English Languages Information Centre.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Following the Commonwealth Education Conference this recommendation was referred to the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee, which has it under consideration.
    Mr. Williams: I am delighted to hear that it is under consideration. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the author of the booklet, "The Modern Commonwealth "—the Secretary of State himself —said:
    "Anyone who wishes to maintain and strengthen the Commonwealth should give special attention to the teaching of English."
    This is not a matter which should merely remain under consideration. When will a decision be taken and action followed through?
    Mr. Sandys: I attach the very highest importance to this question. The House may be assured that I shall give what support I can to trying to ensure that something happens as quickly as possible. Certain action is already being taken in regard to the recruitment of experts for the teaching of English.
    Mr. Shinwell: When this country is fully committed to the Common Market will the teaching of English be necessary?
    Mr. Sandys: I have no doubt that there will be a wider interest in the learning of English.

    Festival of the Arts
    Sir E. Leatherasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what measure of support and cooperation he proposes to give to the projected Commonwealth Festival of the Arts, about which he has been informed, in 1965.
    Mr. Sandys: I have recently been approached by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Arts Festival Society and I hope to discuss with him the plans for the Festival in the near future.
    Sir E. Leather: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that a number of Commonwealth Governments have already pledged their full support, and may I hope that we shall not be any less enthusiastic in supporting this very important and imaginative design?
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: In discussing this, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the immense interest which there would be if this kind of festival took

    643
    place not merely in London but in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland?
    Mr. Sandys: I know that there have been proposals on those lines.

    Colonial Development Corporation
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if he will now announce his decision about enabling the Colonial Development Corporation to initiate a scheme within the territories of the independent members of the Commonwealth;
    (2) if he has now decided to change the name of the Colonial Development Corporation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
    Mr. Sandys: I have nothing as yet to add to my Answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Questions on 12th April.
    Mr. Strachey: Weeks go by, and would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we had an answer to this proposal, which he has looked on very favourably, as we understand his Answer, and which the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has specifically endorsed from the Dispatch Box, whether for the Government or not? I think that all hon. Members regard it as thoroughly desirable and, indeed, necessary.
    Mr. Sandys: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a review of this is going on. I am anxious that it should be completed as quickly as possible, but it raises certain administrative and legal matters, and my present advice is that it will very likely require legislation.

  TANGANYIKA

    Former Civil Servants (Pensions)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many ex-members of the Colonial Service or Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are receiving pensions from the Government of Tanganyika; how many of these are receiving increases less than those received under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, of the United Kingdom; and when a public officers' agreement safeguarding conditions of service and pensions between the Government
    644
    of the United Kingdom and the Government of Tanganyika was signed.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): The grant of pensions and pensions increases by independent Commonwealth Governments is a matter for those Governments, and I regret that detailed information of this sort is not available to me.
    A Public Officers' Agreement between the British and Tanganyika Governments was signed on 14th March, 1962, and will be published as a White Paper.
    Mr. Tilney: When will the Agreement be published? Have the Government of Tanganyika given any guarantees as regards basic pensions? Would it not have been very much better if all these matters had been dealt with before independence rather than after independence?
    Mr. Braine: The Government of Tanganyika have undertaken that pensions should be paid or continued under the laws and regulations in force on 13th March, 1962, or under laws and regulations not less favourable. We are ready to publish the White Paper, but we are seeking the agreement of the Government of Tanganyika on this now. The question whether matters should have been decided and acted upon before independence is outside the sphere of my responsibility.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some anxiety about the conditions under which some of these pensioners are now living, in the sense that the ever-changing colonial and ex-colonial scene results in hardships which they could not possibly have foreseen? Has not the time come for the Government to consider underwriting the agreements so that the interests of these pensioners are guaranteed?
    Mr. Braine: I think that the whole House has sympathy with the pensioners in the way which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The hon. Gentleman may have observed that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation announced that an inter-departmental working party has been set up to examine this whole question.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Does my hon. Friend realise that this important matter affects an increasing number of people in this country? Is he aware that some of us feel that it might have been better if the Government had paid greater attention to the problems of the pensioners and had got the money side right in these newly emerging countries before they went ahead and provided large subventions for capital expansion in these areas?
    Mr. Braine: There may be something to be said for that, but I would not wish the House to gain the impression from my hon. Friend's observation that independent Commonwealth Governments as a general rule are not paying decent pensions and granting increases commensurate with those in this country. This is not so.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the inter-departmental inquiry, which we hear of with satisfaction, have within its terms of reference arrangements by which these pensioners can still be employed in Africa in suitable cases, where I cannot help believing their services would be of enormous value to the newly independent countries and where they will be much happier than if they have no job to do at home, even though they are provided for financially? This is a matter in which a little generosity from the Treasury could make a very great difference, both to the pensioners and to the territories?
    Mr. Braine: The terms of reference of the working party are a subject for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. The wider question of making the best use of these former servants of the Crown is always in the Government's mind.

  CEYLON

    Former Civil Servants (Pensions)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he received a reply from the Government of Ceylon to his letter of October 1959 drawing the Government's attention to the United Kingdom Pensions Increase Act, 1959; what was the content of that Government's reply; and in what year the salary scales were fixed
    646
    on which the pensions of ex-colonial civil servants of the Government of Ceylon are calculated.
    Mr. Braine: A reply was not called for and none was received.
    The pensions are calculated in accordance with the salary scale in force at the date of retirement.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what hope there now is of any of the Ceylon pensioners ever getting an increase? Will he try to expedite the report of the working party which has just been set up so that the House will know what the recommendations are by, say, the end of July?
    Mr. Braine: I cannot answer the first part of that supplementary question. This is a matter wholly within the responsibility of the Ceylon Government. I should not have to remind my hon. Friend that independence really does mean independence. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared, through our High Commissioner, to forward representations made by the Ceylon Pensioners' Association.
    Mr. Wade: Is it not very desirable that there should be a consistent policy in the rate of pensions granted to all ex-colonial civil servants? Are Her Majesty's Government endeavouring to achieve that?
    Mr. Braine: There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the position of these pensioners. They are the employees of former Colonial Governments or independent Commonwealth Governments. They are their employees and not ours. That does not mean that we do not have a sense of responsibility towards them. We bring to the attention of all independent Governments in the Commonwealth any increases in pensions which are made here. We are perfectly prepared to forward any representations through our diplomatic channels.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Are my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend satisfied that it is both just and expedient to place the full burden of these pensions upon the Commonwealth Governments, bearing in mind that the necessity for increases in these pensions may stem from policies

    647
    in this country over which the Commonwealth Governments have no control?
    Mr. Braine: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I is completely satisfied with the position, but I would once again point out that these people are the former employees of other Governments. A good many of these Governments are in fact paying good pensions and increasing those pensions in line with what we are doing in this country. To assume responsibility for the whole lot would be a grave disservice to the cause of good Commonwealth relations.

  PAKISTAN

    Books (Confiscation)
    Dr. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what approaches he has made to the Pakistan Government on behalf of Messrs. Peter Owen Limited consequent on that firm having recently had a consignment of books to the value of £58 12s. 10d. confiscated by the Pakistan customs when these goods, sent for delivery to the International Book Depot, Karachi, were left unclaimed by the Habib Bank Limited, the agent for the customer; and whether he will make a request to the Pakistan Government to reimburse the amount obtained by the auction of the books.
    Mr. Braine: I am glad to say that as a result of representation made by our High Commissioner in Karachi the Pakistan Customs authorities have agreed to consider an appeal from the firm for the return of the auction proceeds, despite the expiry of the ordinary time limit.
    Dr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend and the High Commissioner for their efforts in this matter. This will be very good news not only to the firm mentioned in the Question but to British book exporters in general.

  EDUCATION

    Junior School, Newsham
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the difficulties still being experienced in Newsham
    648
    junior school, near Blyth, which, though scheduled for demolition many years ago, is still being used in crowded and unsatisfactory conditions; and if he will make available additional financial aid to the local authority in 1963–64 to deal with this problem.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): My right hon. Friend knows that the Northumberland authority is anxious to improve conditions at Newsham school. Priority has to be given in the school building programme to meeting the needs of new housing and shifts in population and only a few places can be found for the replacement of old primary schools of this kind.
    Mr. Milne: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that reply merely tinkers with a long-drawn-out problem? Does he appreciate the tremendous debt owed to the headmasters and staffs of schools of this description? Will he ensure that some sense of urgency is instilled into the Minister in dealing with this very urgent problem?
    Mr. Thompson: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the services of the staff. I assure him that we try to get on with this kind of work when we can.

    School Works (Heating Arrangements)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Education in how many estimates for school works for 1962, which had already been passed, he has now made a reduction in those referring to heating in schools where the present heating arrangements are inadequate.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Projects of this kind are normally minor works and it is for local education authorities to decide how to use their allocations.
    Sir B. Janner: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not permit the cutting down of arrangements which are absolutely essential to provide proper heating for children in schools? Has not the experience of our weather in the last few months caused him to deal with this matter? Does not he realise that there

    649
    should be proper heating arrangements for children? What does he propose to do about this matter?
    Mr. Thompson: We want to get all these conditions up to modern standards when we can. The authorities must decide how they allocate their minor works resources.

    Goldsmiths' College (Petition)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Education whether he has studied the petition, signed by members of the staff and students of Goldsmiths' College, which has been sent to him protesting at the Government's policy with regard to training college students, and the proposed introduction of teaching auxiliaries in infants' schools; and what action he is taking in response to the petition.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he has considered the petition presented to him by the Students' Union of Goldsmiths' College on 28th May dealing, in particular, with the discrimination in grants between university students and training college students; what action he will take to remove this discrimination; and what reply he has made to the general points made in the petition.
    Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has today written to the Students' Union of Goldsmiths' College. I will circulate the text of his reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fletcher: Whatever the reply may be, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this continual discrimination against training school teachers is causing widespread dissatisfaction and that it cannot possibly be in the best interests of education?
    Mr. Thompson: That question falls into the same error which the students appear to have fallen into. My right hon. Friend's reply deals fully with that point, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads it.
    Following is the letter:
    Curzon Street, London, W.1.
    7th June, 1962.
    Dear Mr. Laycock,
    You handed me on 28th May a petition signed by students of Goldsmith's College.
    The petition stated that the students of Goldsmith's College wished to register their protest against the present state of education in the country as a result of the Government's policy over the past ten years, and you listed four points in particular. I shall comment on these first:
    (1) Section 1 of the Education Act, 1962, does not discriminate against training college students. Grants are paid to all recognised training college students in accordance with arrangements approved by me, and there was therefore no need to impose a duty on local education authorities to pay them, as there was in the case of university students. I have already made known my intention that there should be full parity between teachers' training grants and awards for university students, and this principle forms the basis of the new grant arrangements which I shall announce as soon as I have completed my discussions with the local authority associations.
    (2) On your second point, I explained when you presented your petition that Government policy on university grants was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have sent a copy of your petition to him for information. I will therefore confine myself, on this point, to reminding you of a few of the facts about university development over the last ten years and the level of Exchequer support pledged for the future.
    Between 1951–52 and 1961–62, total public expenditure on the universities rose from about £35 million to over £104 million a year. By 1966–67, it will be at least £150 million a year. In 1952, the last year of the Socialist Government, the value of university building started was only £2·4 million; this year 1962–63, and for each of the next three years, it will be at least £25 million.
    In 1951–52, there were 83,500 students; today, there are 110,000 university students and 17,000 students taking courses of about university level in other higher education establishments. Over 9 out of 10 undergraduates in England and Wales receive financial assistance from public funds this represents assistance to students to a degree which is not approached in any country, so far as I am aware, in Western Europe or America.
    The Government has approved an expansion to 150,000 student places in the universities by 1966–67. By undertaking to review university finances in two years' time, the Government has tried to ensure that the developments necessary to provide the additional places will not be held back through fear on the part of the universities that the real value of the recurrent grants will be eroded in the later years of the next quinquennium.
    In the Government's view, these facts speak for themselves, and the record forms no sort of basis for justifying the statement that the advance of higher education in this country has been jeopardised.
    (3) On the recommendation of the National Advisory Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers, training college

    651
    places are now being doubled, from 24,000 to 48,000 at a cost of some £44 million. The programme now in hand is therefore equal to eight new universities with 3,000 students in each.
    Since agreeing in 1960 to the National Advisory Council's recommendation that a further 8,000 training college places to complete the additional 24,000 should be provided, I have not received any specific request from the Council for the extension of training college provision. They have in their recent Report drawn my attention to the need to ensure, in the long term, a major expansion of the general base of higher education from which we could draw more teachers and with this I fully agree. But the Council recognised that these were matters for Lord Robbins' Committee enquiring into the future system of higher education in this country and I have sent their recommendations, as they wished to Lord Robbins.
    When you refer to "a suggestion to institute a sub-standard training for some teachers" I take it you have in mind my recent references to some form of auxiliary service in the infants' schools, and to the possibility of short-service commissions for some teachers. I think you should know that both these suggestions were listed, amongst others, by the National Advisory Council itself as early as January of this year as possible short-term measures to relieve the shortage of teachers, and were remitted by them to a special working party which has now met four times, and which is urgently pursuing its consideration of these problems. As I have repeatedly said, no decisions have yet been taken.
    (4) I am not clear what you mean by "the teachers' demands for an auxiliary service of school welfare assistants". One of the purposes of the present discussions is to examine how an auxiliary service, if one were established, could best be used in the schools. I have emphasised that auxiliaries would not be teachers and would always work under the direct control and supervision of qualified teachers. This clarifies rather than confuses the issue.
    Finally, you refer to your conviction that "the whole state of education, from the Infants' school to the Institutes of Higher Education, is seriously endangered by your Government's policies".
    I find it hard to understand how the students who signed your petition, and your Executive, could have come to so sweeping a conclusion after a dispassionate examination of the facts. I am far from being contented with the state of education—and I hope no Minister of Education ever will be. But what matters is not whether at any given moment there are still many improvements to be made—what matters is the speed of our advance.
    You refer to the last ten years. Let me remind you of one or two facts.
    (1) Schools
    We have built 2,300,000 new school places. which accommodate about 1 in 3 of all school pupils. Put this another way: in the ten-year
    652
    period 2 new schools have been opened, on average, every 3 days.
    In 1951 there were 5,636 all-age schools. Now there are less than 1,000, and almost all of these will go when present building programmes are completed.
    The number of 15-year olds increased by 46 per cent., while the number of G.C.E. "O" level passes increased by 92 per cent. At "A" level 94 per cent. more pupils got 117 per cent. more passes.
    (2) Further Education
    In 1952 Colleges of Advanced Technology as such did not exist. Now there are 10 with 9,500 full-time and sandwich students. The mid-1960s will see 15,000 students, and the colleges are now planning for 21,000.
    The technical colleges building programme is going ahead at an unprecedented rate. Projects since the 1956 White Paper have exceeded £100 million, and a further £17 million is included in the 1963–64 programme. Severity-six new colleges or major extensions to existing colleges will come into operation this year.
    In 1952 the number of day release students was 290,000. Now there are over 500,000
    (3) Teachers
    I have already referred to the expansion of the training colleges. In the ten-year period the number of teachers in full-time service increased from 237,000 to 312,000. In further education the number increased from 9,200 to 21,500—almost 3,000 more than the target of 18,600 by 1961 set by the Willis Jackson Committee.
    (4) Finance
    Ten years ago we were spending some £300 million a year on education. Now we are spending over £1,000 million a year.
    These are some of the statistics. What of the background to them?
    It is true that the infants' schools will be faced with difficulties in this decade mainly because of factors beyond the control of any democratic Government—the earlier marriage of young women teachers, and the rising birthrate. You may feel in these two facts a cause for dismay. I do not; I am glad that the problems we face—and I do not underestimate them—spring from an increasing confidence and well-being among young people.
    The primary schools are today better schools, filled with better-fed, better-clothed, better-taught, and happier children, than at any time in the history of this country.
    I have quoted some figures about G.C.E. results. They reflect not only the increasing numbers of pupils staying on in the sixth forms of grammar schools, but also the striking success of the secondary modern and other non-selective secondary schools, which have quickly established their own curricula and traditions as the "secondary education for all" of the Butler Act of 1944, has become a reality. As I said in the House of Commons on 17th May, the opportunities for further education for these boys and girls who are going to the secondary modern or comprehensive schools are broadening all the time. I

    653
    would commend to your attention the booklet Forward from School recently published by the Ministry.
    In short, I find both your particular strictures and your admittedly rather vague case to be in conflict with the facts.
    "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job", Sir Winston Churchill once said on a graver occasion. Education is not a job that can ever be finished, and I gladly accept my share of the responsibility, as one of the partners in the education service, for providing the tools. To this end I welcome constructive criticism, for it shows where the next advances should be. But while I would not wish to appear unresponsive to the views of training college students, I cannot find your petition a very helpful contribution to the problems now facing the education service.
    Yours sincerely,
    DAVID ECCLES.
    M. R. Laycock, Esq.,
    President,
    Students' Union,
    Goldsmiths' College,
    New Cross, S.E.14.

    Sport (Disabled People)
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Education what representations he has received from the British Sports Association for Sports for the Disabled regarding an allocation of money following the implementation of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The President and General Secretary of the Association wrote to my right hon. Friend three days ago and he is arranging for them to discuss this matter with officers of the Department.
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend will be aware that the General Secretary wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week or two ago. Will he bear in mind that it would be very helpful if he could assist, through an allocation of this money, those less fortunate as well as those who are fit and well? This would be greatly appreciated?
    Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend is very sympathetic to the objects of this Association. We should, however, find out exactly what it has in mind.

    School Building Programme (Gateshead)
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Education what school building projects were submitted for the school build-
    654
    ing programme of 1963–64 by the Gates-head education authority; and why none were approved.
    Mr. K. Thompson: One new secondary school and the replacement of three primary schools were proposed. None of these projects was approved because my right hon. Friend had to give priority to more urgently needed projects in other areas.
    Mr. Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the approval of no projects for 1963–64 has caused considerable con-earn? In view of the study which he is carrying out, may I ask for an undertaking that Gateshead will be visited in order that an inquiry into the conditions of the schools may be instituted?
    Mr. Thompson: We shall certainly try to acquaint ourselves as fully as possible with the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman take a day off during the Whitsum Recess and go to Gateshead to convince himself how moderate were these proposals and how appallingly badly this authority has been treated?
    Mr. Thompson: The authority has had building programmes in the last three years totalling £1,381,000. I hardly think that that is bad treatment. However, I am always glad to have an invitation to visit an authority.

    Mature Students (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Education what steps he proposes to take to give further financial assistance to mature students, particularly those who are married with dependants, who are undergoing teacher training.
    Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Short: When deciding what to put in this announcement, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these allowances act as a deterrent to mature students undergoing teacher training? Will he also bear in mind that a married student with two children at the training college in Newcastle receives allowances

    655
    of about £9 a week on which he is supposed to exist for three years? If the hon. Gentleman is "on the level" about attracting mature students, will he try to make considerable increases in these allowances?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman will discover, when it is possible to make the announcement, that the needs of the mature student have not been overlooked.
    Mrs. White: How soon will an announcement be made? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that recommendations were put forward in February and that everyone, not only the mature student, is most anxious to know what will be his position?
    Mr. Thompson: We have had to have consultations with the local authority associations and with others. Some of the authority associations are meeting in the next three days. It is not possible for us to reach conclusions until we know that they will be agreed by the authorities.

    Ripple Primary School
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Education (1) if he is aware that the number of children, at present 25, attending Ripple Primary School is likely to increase owing to more houses having been planned for the village, and that one of the two teachers now due for retirement is willing to teach part-time under any new head teacher appointed; and if he will take those facts into consideration before deciding the future of the school;
    (2) what representations he has received from the parish council, school managers and the Worcestershire Diocesan Education Board against the proposal to close Ripple Primary School and compel the parents to send their children four miles to Upton; and if he will make further inquiries before deciding whether to approve such a project.
    Mr. K. Thompson: All three bodies have written objecting to the proposal to close this school and covering the points mentioned. My right hon. Friend will obtain the comments of the local education authority and make any other inquiries he thinks necessary before reaching a decision.
    Sir P. Agnew: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this school furnishes an example of cold administration being in conflict with human considerations which may affect the very continuance of the corporate life of the village?
    Mr. Thompson: We shall try to deal with the facts when we get them with that point in mind.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Bombed Sites
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulties confronting local authorities with bombed sites in keeping these free from rubbish, and preventing them from becoming danger spots to children; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to enable these authorities to fence off these sites and charge the costs to the freeholders of the land.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): No, Sir. Local authorities already have power under the War Damaged Sites Act, 1949, to tidy up these sites, and if necessary to take possession of them for up to ten years. They also have powers under Section 144 of the Highways Act, 1959, to deal with sources of danger adjoining a street. Sections 27 and 34 of the Public Health Act, 1961, and Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, provide alternative ways of dealing with sites which although not dangerous are detrimental to amenity.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under present legislation local authorties have to meet the cost of dealing with this matter under his suggested proposals? Is it not unfair that landholders and freeholders who pay no taxes and no rates should make the local councils clear up and keep these sites tidy and clean and free from danger? Should not the council have the authority at least to fence them in for safety's sake and charge the cost to the freeholder?
    Dr. Hill: If action is taken under the Highways Act, 1959, where there is an unfenced or inadequately fenced source of danger to persons using the street, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind obtains.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish a White Paper containing all the relevant scientific data on the effects of nuclear testing and the technical aspects of verification of such tests.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I explained in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 15th May, I do not think that it would be practicable to publish a White Paper at this stage.
    Mr. Henderson: On an analogous matter, in view of the difficulty of obtaining full information as to what has been taking place at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider publishing as a White Paper the Report of the 18-Power Disarmament Commission, which is to be presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations in a very short time?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into that. I think that these are sometimes published as United Nations papers, and, in that case, that may be sufficient. But, if it is necessary, I will look into the other point.
    Mr. Gaitskell: With regard to my right hon. and learned Friend's point on the effects of nuclear testing, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the matter? Is he aware that there are a great many contradictory and confusing statements made by different scientists and that it would be of considerable help to all of us if we could have an authoritative review of the position, possibly by the Medical Research Council?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that, but it will not necessarily resolve the conflicting statements of scientists.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In the event of the Prime Minister deciding to publish a White Paper, will he have particular regard to the effect of these tests on the food supplies of the world, not only particularly on fish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that is expected of me —but also on agricultural produce? In addition, will he have regard to the effect of the weather on the food supplies of the world?
    The Prime Minister: I will try to bear all these points in mind. May I take the opportunity of welcoming the hon. and learned Gentleman on his return? That is the first question which he has asked me since his return to the House.
    Mr. MacDermot: Since the Prime Minister says that it is not practicable to publish this information, will he confirm that he is not suggesting that there are any security objections to doing so?
    The Prime Minister: That, of course, would have to be taken into account in any White Paper which was published.

    OFFICIAL CARS OVERSEAS
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to all representatives of the Government that, whenever they are travelling by car on official business in other countries, they should wherever possible use a car manufactured in this country.
    The Prime Minister: Official cars overseas are normally British made. I do not think it necessary to issue instructions.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Prime Minister realise that, according to a report in the Daily Mirror of 31st May, one of his Ministers, along with a very high-ranking official of Her Majesty's Forces, rode up to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and' Traders' parade of British cars in West Berlin in a non-British car? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that was prudent? Cannot we have some practical advertising when we are abroad?
    The Prime Minister: This incident was, perhaps, a little incongruous. In fact, all the representatives abroad use British cars, but there has been an arrangement in West Berlin, and only in West Berlin, as part of the arrangements for meeting the stationing costs of allied forces and missions that the cars are supplied by the German Government.

    PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister (1) if, in his conversations with President de Gaulle, he discussed the

    659
    possibility of constructing a Channel Tunnel;
    (2) what reply he gave to President de Gaulle's request, made during their recent conversations, to share nuclear secrets with the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what agreement he reached with President de Gaulle on the subject of Great Britain's willingness to renounce Commonwealth preferences and acquiesce in the formation of a French nuclear striking force as part of the price for entering the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 5th June.
    Mr. Wyatt: First, will the Prime Minister take the matter of a Channel tunnel very seriously, because, whether we go into the Common Market or not, it is a way of providing much cheaper transport costs for our exports? We shall need everything that we can get in helping us in competition. Secondly, even if the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to say what was his answer to President de Gaulle when he asked him to share nuclear secrets, will he say what will be the Government's policy? Is he going to say to the French Government that they will have to wait and find out for themselves, or is he hoping that there will be a general agreement internationally which will obviate the need for this?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a further Question to the Minister of Transport on his first point. On the second point, these are large questions of policy which I could not possibly deal with in question and answer.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Prime Minister aware that semi-official statements from Paris have alleged categorically that the Prime Minister did agree in his conversations to give up Commonwealth Preferences after the transition period? In view of the anxiety which these stories have aroused, will he give an assurance that this is not so?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I had much better stick to the communiqué, for the reasons I have
    660
    explained. All these matters were debated yesterday and can be debated today.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Prime Minister, without infringing any diplomatic niceties or giving away military secrets, say whether he and/or President de Gaulle favour the tunnel or the bridge?
    The Prime Minister: That is so delicate a question that I think I must, like Agag, tread very delicately, either underground or overground.
    Mr. Warbey: On the question of a French nuclear striking force, as the Prime Minister virtually admitted on Tuesday that he carefully refrained from raising this matter in his conversations with President de Gaulle, is not this a case of the dog which did not bark, and was not the Prime Minister's failure to bark on this occasion an acquiescence in what President de Gaulle wants to do?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot accept any of the implications or innuendos of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we want neither the tunnel nor the bridge and that we are perfectly satisfied with the Channel?

    HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (RESEARCH)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Council for Research in the Humanities and the Social Sciences with functions similar to those of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, as recommended in the report of the British Academy, entitled "Research in the Humanities and the Social Sciences," a copy of which has been sent to him.
    The Prime Minister: The possibility of Government action on this report is being discussed with the British Academy.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this report by a very

    661
    distinguished Committee criticises the very haphazard and inadequate way in which cultural research is financed in this country and points out the serious financial difficulties confronting a number of learned societies, concluding that the situation can be remedied only by some co-ordinating action by the Government? Will he give an assurance that something will be done?
    The Prime Minister: This report has been presented. The first thing to do, surely, is to discuss it with its authors.

    AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER AND NEW ZEALAND DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with the Australian Prime Minister and the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister about the agreement concluded with the European Economic Community to end Commonwealth Preferences and apply Common Market tariffs against their manufactures by 1970.
    The Prime Minister: As I have already told the House, my discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia and the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand are confidential.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that both the Prime Minister of Australia and the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand publicly asked for an assurance that the agreement reached on ending Commonwealth Preferences on manufactures would not apply to Commonwealth foodstuffs? Is the Prime Minister aware that Commonwealth spokesmen have publicly stated that this is a major 'break-through which will set the pattern for the agreement to be negotiated on Commonwealth foodstuffs? In the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance such as that demanded by the Australian Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand?
    The Prime Minister: This matter was dealt with by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday. It was dealt with in yesterday's debate and can be discussed again today.

    ASTRONAUTS (TRAINING)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to train astronauts in the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: There is no intention of training astronauts in the United Kingdom.

  POST OFFICE

    Postal Facilities, Exmouth and Sidmouth
    Mr. Mathewasked the Postmaster-General if he will now reconsider his decision to withdraw postal facilities at Exmouth and at Sidmouth on August Bank Holiday Monday.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Yes, Sir. I am looking into this matter and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mathew: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. When considering the matter, will he take into account the importance of this service to seaside resorts during the summer holidays, and, when future decisions of this kind are to be taken, will he instruct his local officials to consult the local authorities which are directly affected?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, certainly.

  HOSPITALS

    Hospital Beds, Salford (Old People)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health if he will state the present and average numbers of elderly people on the waiting list for beds in Salford hospitals, giving the numbers of men and women separately, and also the numbers of additional staff needed at the two Salford hospitals at present understaffed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): At 1st June, one man and 20 women were on the geriatric waiting list for direct admission to Hope and Ladywell Hospitals; the monthly average for the past year was 3–4 men and 28–29 women.

    663
    Staff is now being recruited for 10 additional geriatric beds. Staff for the existing 222 is reasonably adequate.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Lady aware that last week-end an elderly Salford lady who had a stroke was left without attendance all the week-end whole doctors tried desperately to get her into hospital, and that this sort of thing frequently happens? In this case, the lady concerned had no one to look after her except a 76-year-old invalid? Will the hon. Lady do something to stop this lack of care for old people and ensure that there are beds for them when they desperately need them?
    Miss Pitt: I was not, of course, aware of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will send me details, I will look into it. In fact, priority is generally given to urgent cases. I shall not comment further without knowledge of the particular instance.

    Hospital Beds (Old People)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the large number of old people who need hospital treatment who cannot secure beds in any hospital, mainly because of staff shortages; and what measures he proposes to improve staff recruitment.
    Miss Pitt: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend will shortly be giving advice to hospital authorities on the maintenance of realistic waiting lists, particularly for geriatric and chronic sick beds. Numbers of staff generally are on the increase.
    Mr. Allaun: May I ask the obvious question? Would not the best possible way to recruit more hospital staff be to give them an increase in pay?
    Miss Pitt: The obvious answer is that the figures have been steadily rising and are now at the highest level ever.
    Mr. Lipton: Will not the hon. Lady admit that the staffing situation in the geriatric hospitals is more difficult than it is in most other hospitals? However she may try to whittle down the waiting lists, does not she realise that there is a long waiting list in the London area and that sometimes people have to wait
    664
    many months before they can secure admission?
    Miss Pitt: I do not accept that. Not all hospitals have all the nurses they would like to have, but the number of chronic sick beds closed for lack of staff even on such figures as we have is less than the average.
    Miss Herbison: Even though the number of nurses may have been increasing, the hon. Lady must know that there is a grave shortage in some areas and that it is because of this shortage that we have the type of case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred. Does not she realise that it is no use saying that she will have the matter looked into, if an old lady was left lying a whole week-end without attention, since looking into the case afterwards will not help her?
    Miss Pitt: I have no doubt that in the case to which the hon. Member for Salford, East referred the local doctors provided what services were available, and I hope that the local authority was called in, too. On the general question, I cannot speak for Scotland, but there are, in fact, more nurses practising now than ever before.
    Mr. Allaun: In such a case, where an elderly lady has lain in bed all night without proper medical attention, the fact that a doctor has attended her temporarily during the day is not enough. Such a person needs the hospital service. Although recruitment may be improving, is not the situation still so bad that many wards are closed purely for lack of the necessary staff?
    Miss Pitt: Nevertheless, as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's earlier Question, ten additional geriatric beds have been provided in Manchester, and the Hospital Plan provides for a considerable increase in all areas of the country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir.

665
The business for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 26TH JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee. A debate will take place, on the appropriate Votes, on the Distribution of Industry.
As the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY, 27TH JUNE—Debate on the British Transport Commission.
THURSDAY, 28TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
There will be a debate on the Cotton Industry, on an Opposition Motion.
Motions on the Silo Subsidies Schemes for the United Kingdom and on the Agriculture (Field Machinery) Regulations, 1962.
FRIDAY, 29TH JUNE—Committee and remaining stages of the Jamaica Independence Bill.
Motions on the General Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order, and the Ulster Museum Order.
MONDAY, 2ND JULY, and TUESDAY, 3RD JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Gaitskell: When does the Leader of the House propose that we should consider the Lords Amendments to the Sea Fish Industry Bill, in particular the Amendment to Clause 3 which restricts the subsidy to vessels purchased in Commonwealth shipyards?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously not in the week's business that I have announced. There is a discussion relating to this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless this House has an opportunity of considering that Amendment, very important financial questions will have been settled in another place which are the prerogative of this House? Will he bear in mind that it is necessary that the House of Commons should consider changes in the Government's financial policy of very considerable importance to British shipyards?
Mr. Macleod: I take the point, but it does not concern the business which I have announced. I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, or one of his Parliamentary Secretaries, who will be speaking tomorrow.
Mr. Gaitskell: May we, at least, have the assurance that the Government do not intend to use their majority in the House of Lords to override a decision made during the Committee stage?
Mr. Macleod: I did not think that we had a majority in the House of Lords.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion on the Notice Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and about 60 others on the subject of safeguards against monopoly? What reply, if any, has he given to representations which he may or may not have received from the President of the Board of Trade urging him to find time for the modest Measure put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) which would give him the additional powers which he so urgently needs?
[That this House, concerned at the need for providing adequate safeguards against monopoly, urges the Government to ensure that it has the requisite powers for this purpose, and meanwhile to support and provide time for the consideration of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman).]
Mr. Macleod: I have no statement on Government business affecting that Motion, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that we are very much concerned with this problem, which we are carefully considering.
Mr. Wade: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a Motion moved by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on 25th May on the subject of Service pensions—a Motion which was approved by the House? May I also draw attention to a Private Members' Bill, the Pensions Bill, introduced by myself without opposition, which has a direct bearing on the same subject? Is it the Government's intention after the Whitsun Recess to carry out the terms of the Motion or to facilitate the passage of the Bill, or both?
Mr. Macleod: I make it quite clear that, as far as the acceptance of that Motion by the Financial Secretary is concerned, we are in no way using this as a pretext for delay. We are taking it as a basis for action, and the House will see that in due course.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the reverses in another place, would it not be a good idea, when the House reassembles, to have a debate on imagination in order that we might inculcate into the Front Bench the sort of ideas which back-bench Members in another place would like in relation to the policy to be followed by the Cabinet?
Mr. Macleod: With respect to my hon. Friend, she has drawn first place for the second time running in the Ballot for notices of Motion. She can put that down on Wednesday, 4th July. That would be a splendid subject.
Mr. Rankin: Has the Leader of the House noted that there is a Bill now before us on severance pay, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)? Is he aware that on Second Reading that Bill was not opposed? Will he therefore consider granting time to see it through its further stages?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I could not give that undertaking. There are so many Private Members' Bills which have had a Second Reading and, perhaps, other stages. I am afraid that they must take their chance.
Mr. Dudley Williams: May I refer to the Motion mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan)? Does not the Leader of the House think that there is a good case for this being debated, especially in view of the undertaking which has recently been given by the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. Paul Chambers?
Mr. Macleod: I do not think I should like to add to the answer which I have given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). I understand the feelings which have led him and so many of my hon. Friends to put this Motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Shinwell: The Leader of the House will recall that on several occasions I have asked whether he
668
would find time for a debate on a Motion standing in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends on the subject of clemency for certain persons who have been sent to prison in connection with a nuclear demonstration. When I have asked him about the debate he has reminded me that the subject was one on appeal. I understand that the appeal has now been rejected. As there is no time for a debate before the Recess, obviously, I wonder whether an alternative—this was represented to the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion —might be that he could consult the Home Secretary with a view to his exercising a measure of clemency.
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, within the powers vested in him, to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in respect of those persons associated with the Nuclear Disarmament Campaign who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment at the Old Bailey.]
Mr. Macleod: This matter has been previously considered—obviously rightly —to be coming under the sub judice rules under which we operate. I will speak to the Home Secretary on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward.
Mr. Ridsdale: Shall we be able to find time soon to debate the position of public service pensioners, about which there is a Motion on the Notice Paper signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]
Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether time can be found for that Motion, but all these matters have a close link, as my hon. Friend knows well. I have given an undertaking in relation to the debate which we had and to which the Financial Secretary replied.
Mr. G. Brown: In view of the statement which we saw in the Press yesterday about the suggested take-over by

669
B.O.A.C. of Cunard-Eagle, may I ask the Leader of the House when he will arrange for us to have a statement of Government policy on this matter?
Mr. Macleod: We have no present intention of putting a statement before the House on this matter. There are a number of Ministers concerned. I will draw their attention to what the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said.
Mr. Gough: Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to giving another day, and preferably two days, to a debate on the Common Market as soon as possible after the Whitsun Recess? May I draw attention to three short points? First, in yesterday's debate, which lasted for five minutes less than six hours, 72½ per cent. of the time was taken by Privy Councillors. Secondly, on this subject there are some very strange bedfellows, and, with the greatest possible respect, it is almost impossible for the Chair to give a fair allocation of time on the two sides of the topic. Thirdly, at the end of today's debate it is almost certain that at least 50 back benchers will be disappointed because they will not have been able to take part in the debate.
Mr. Macleod: As my hon. Friend realises, all questions and matters affecting the calling of hon. Members are for the Chair and not for me. As for future debates on the Common Market, I gave a general answer on that last week, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with it to some extent in his speech yesterday.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I press the Leader of the House to provide an early occasion to discuss the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger, since this has most interesting reflections upon Government policy of introducing competition in this field?
Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I can go further than what I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown).
Dr. D. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend find time before the end of the Session for a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police?
Mr. Macleod: This is a matter which the Government are now studying. We shall need more time for that study, and then it would be appropriate to consider whether an opportunity should be found for a debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Going back to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the occasion recently on which the Government were defeated in the House of Lords, may I ask whether the Leader of the House realises that in not bringing that unusual position immediately before the House of Commons he is guilty of contempt of the House of Commons? Will he reconsider the matter with a view to having it discussed in the first week after we return following Whitsun?
Mr. Macleod: With respect to the hon. and Learned Member, I think that that goes too far. I have taken note of the point made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Cole: While I realise that it is still before the Standing Committee, may I ask the Leader of the House to give an assurance that it is intended to deal with Report, Third Reading and the later stages of the Road Traffic Bill before the House finishes its Parliamentary year, because this is a matter of much concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Macleod: Yes. I understand that position. Naturally it is the Government's hope and intention to secure that Bill.

B.A.O.R. (HILDEN CAMP COURT MARTIAL)
Mrs. Castle: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of procedure which affects the rights of hon. Members. I apologise for not being able to give you earlier warning, but the relevant facts have only just been brought to my attention.
Yesterday, a number of us were gravely concerned by Press reports of the imprisonment in Germany some weeks ago of six Service men in Germany belonging to the 1st Battalion of the Lancashire Regiment, two of whom had received very heavy sentences for

671
inciting mutiny and four of whom had lighter sentences for disobeying orders. The reports say that the facts have only just come to light because the court martial had been held in secret. The Army authorities would not say whether the men had pleaded guilty or not, nor give their home addresses, so that there was no way in which we could find out whether they were our constituents.
A number of us yesterday tried to table Questions on this matter, asking for a statement. We were informed that we could not do this because the matter was sub judice, the men having appealed. I understand that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, refused permission for a Private Notice Question on the same grounds.
My attention has just been drawn to a very full report in today's Daily Telegraph by the special correspondent in Hilden, which begins,
"Lieut.-Colonel H. G. Kemball, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Regiment, told me today the full story of the events which led to prison sentences for six of his men."
The story goes on,
"Colonel Kemball, who had the War Office's permission to speak …"
From this report, I gather that one of these men was one of my constituents. Incidentally, there is no mention in the story that the men have appealed. This means that hon. Members have been denied the opportunity of asking for a statement on this case which would have enabled them to put Questions in the interests of their constituents, whereas at the very same time that we were being refused that permision the War Office was giving permission to the commanding officer of these men to put the War Office's side of the case. I suggest to you that this means one of two things—either that you were misinformed that this matter was under appeal or that there are different rules of procedure with regard to a matter being sub judice applying to hon. Members and to Government Departments. I suggest that this is a very serious matter which ought to be cleared up at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: I will try to help the hon. Lady as far as I can. As for Questions refused at the Table, I did not specifically examine them in detail
672
myself, although I was aware of their existence. I will do so if she wishes me to do so. She is aware of the operation of our sub judice rule. If there is an appeal—and such is my information—it would depend on the precise terms of the Questions which, as I say, I have not seen, as to whether they were properly disallowed. I have no reason to think that they were not properly disallowed in the circumstances. Without being discourteous to the hon. Lady, I ask her not to assume that the grounds on which I felt obliged to decline two Private Notice Questions are necessarily those which she stated. It is not my practice to give reasons in public, but I was satisfied that it would not be right to allow either of them.
With regard to other people's sub judice rules—'that is to say, rules about contempt of court and so forth as enforced by courts of law—I know nothing. I have to be guided by our rule which in the matter which the hon. Lady is raising has, I think, been rightly applied.
Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that a completely one-sided statement has been made publicly as to the circumstances of this case, should we not now be allowed to ask the Secretary of State for War to make a statement on this point? I ask for an opportunity of asking Questions. It is now set on the record completely to the detriment of the men and we are in no position to exercise vigilance on behalf of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: I will try to help the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady will permit me to finish what I am saying. This is much too complicated a matter for me to rule off the cuff, by reason of the existence of a Question desiring a Written Answer this day in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I should have to look at the whole rack of questions in some detail before I knew where I was. I have no power to comply with the hon. Lady's request.
Mrs. Braddock: Is there no possible way by which we can be informed

673
whether any of these men are constituents of ours? Is there no possible way of obtaining information of that sort? Have we reached the stage at which there is no way to obtain the names and addresses of the persons involved? Have we reached that stage?
Mr. Speaker: No. I do not think that any of the Questions was addressed to that proposition as far as I can now remember.
Mr. Bellenger: Without attempting to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, especially if the matter is sub judice, for the House is obviously precluded to a large extent in putting Questions, may we take it that if in the public interest the Secretary of State wished to make a statement on general terms tomorrow he would be allowed to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I will decide that when the application is made to me.
Mr. Fletcher: In your Ruling, and for the benefit of the House generally, Mr. Speaker, would you bear in mind whether the sub judice rule can possibly have any application to questions directed not to the merits of the trial but to whether a trial, a court martial, took place in conditions of utter secrecy? I submit with great respect that the sub judice rule could not possibly have any application to questions directed to inquire whether courts martial in Germany have taken place in secrecy without the public having any right of access?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member does not misunderstand me. What our sub judice rule applies to, broadly, is that which may be prejudicial to what is going on in the trial or appeal, as the case may be. I do not want to make off-the-cuff pronouncements on it. If it were being asserted in appeal, for instance, that the court martial was illegal because of some circumstances of secrecy in which it was held, then we might be so involved, but I have no recollection of eliminating any Question directed to that point at any time.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to the same point, while one sees the difficulties when a matter is sub judice of asking any question which goes to the merits of the matter, or even to the procedure of the trial or any suggestion that the procedure
674
was wrong, would it not be an extension of our rule if this rule were applied to questions which merely sought information as to what had happened? A court martial, like any other trial, is supposed to be a public trial, and a statement of what took place at the trial, what the charge was, what was the nature of the evidence and what was the verdict and the sentence, would not infringe any rule of order, would it, either in the House of Commons or in the courts, as long as it was limited to a statement of what had in fact occurred and did not raise any question of criticism or argument about its propriety? The present position is that we cannot find out the facts?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will not misunderstand me or the hon. Gentleman. In these matters I have to rule on the terms of these specific questions when submitted. I have no recollection of any Question asking what happened at the trial or elsewhere. If one were submitted I would have to rule on it.
Mr. Macleod: Perhaps I may be able to help the House by making these two suggestions. First, on the general point, we have on a number occasions found ourselves in difficulty with questions on the sub judice rule. Perhaps I may tell the House that it was my intention to ask the Select Committee on Procedure, which we have recently set up and which, as the House knows, is considering the question of the application of a particular Standing Order on minorities, when it has completed that consideration to consider as an early matter the question of our procedure in relation to the sub judice rule. That is on the general point which a number of hon. Members have raised. On the particular point, I can say that I shall, of course, consult at once my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and, if it is both appropriate and in order—and one cannot make up one's mind in advance on that—for him to make a statement, perhaps it might be made tomorrow morning.
Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the men involved happens to come from Salford. That is the man who suffered three years' imprisonment. His aunt and uncle came to see me about this case last week, and I can inform the House very

675
definitely on the appeal position. The appeal position is that the forty days had been exceeded during which he could appeal. There is, however, a further period during which he can petition for the right to appeal, and that has now been done. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a Written Question in my name appearing in today's Order Paper and accepted by the Table, quite correctly, because it makes no reference to this case. What is involved in no ways affects the appeal in this case. Therefore, because of the fact that we are due to go into Recess for 17 days, which means that there will be no opportunity for an oral supplementary question, I thought, Mr. Speaker, that it would be the correct procedure to ask you, as I have done, for the right to put a Private Notice Question in this case.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must know, I am sure, that it is in the general interest that I should maintain the practice of my predecessors in declining to give reasons for disallowing Private Notice Questions. If the hon. Member wishes to see me privately, I will tell him why it was not within my power to allow that. I hope that that may dispose of this matter for the moment.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The debate yesterday has, I think, thoroughly justified our demand that the House should debate the Common Market before the Brussels negotiations reach the crucial stage. I think it is fair to say, first, that the debate has shown a great deal of realism. On the one side, there has been far less of the suggestion that we must go in, at whatever cost—that this will solve all our economic problems—and that we shall be bankrupt if we do not go in. Equally, there was little of the completely anti-European xenophobic line that we sometimes get. This was exemplified the other day by a gentleman who said during the very long cold spell, "I knew we would get all this cold weather once the B.B.C. started giving temperatures in centigrade".
I think that the debate has justified, too, the view that we on this side of the House have taken, as re-affirmed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that it really is senseless to decide our attitude to Britain's entry until the terms are known. We have the speech yesterday of the Lord Privy Seal, which was a very far cry from the wishful optimism of last August when Ministers could say that it really was not going to be a question of having to choose between Europe and the Commonwealth. That was clearly said last August. Now the right hon. Gentleman, after many months of hard negotiations, knows perfectly well that such a choice may become inescapable. My right hon. Friend showed, quite clearly on which side, in his view, if that choice had to be made, this House would have to come down. But while the negotiations still continue, while we have still not reached a point of no return, it is absolutely right that the House should debate these issues and make clear our anxieties and the safeguards on which the Government must insist. So far from weakening the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in negotiations, as he seemed to suggest,

677
he should realise not only that the House has a right and a duty in this matter, but that his hands will in fact be immeasurably strengthened by this debate.
I cannot avoid the feeling that the Government have negotiated throughout from weakness. First, they were panicked into their decision last July by the economic crisis. Secondly, they have talked all along as though there were no viable alternative. Once negotiations start from that assumption our whole bargaining position and ultimate freedom of decision are lost.
The debate has ranged over a very wide field—sovereignty, law, foreign policy and agriculture. I should like to begin with the purely economic question, because there was an idea about a year ago, when the Prime Minister made his announcement, that these were purely economic negotiations. Most people have now turned their back on that idea. I shall talk about that in a moment. So far in the debate there has been far less extravagant talk about the economic effects of going in—the idea that British industry is so incurably flabby and degenerate that only the cold douche of European competition will restore us to vigour and vitality.
We must face the fact that in the three years from 1958 to the first quarter of 1962, owing to the Government's policy of liberalising imports of manufactured goods, the import of those goods rose from the monthly average of £26½ million to £52·7 million in the first quarter of this year. That means that they were practically doubled. There was a cold douche of imports of manufactured goods without any notable effect on our competitiveness. I do not know whether it is suggested in any quarter that we are likely to see a much bigger build-up of imports of manufactured goods from Europe, but what we have had so far, particularly from America and Europe, has not had very much effect.
I think there is more general agreement that, in the long term, while on balance Britain's industry may gain, which is the view I take, we also face a serious risk that our industrial cost structure will be raised through dearer food and the effect of dearer food on wages, and that in the short-term we are
678
virtually certain to face rather serious financial consequences, especially as British investors and speculators become free to transfer their capital abroad. In terms of trade, I feel that we face a bigger danger from diversion of investments if we do not go in than from diversion of trade. Certainly we have to balance against any possible gains in the Common Market—likely gains but limited—the inevitable loss of markets in the Commonwealth and certainly in East-West trade as well.
I still take 'the view, too, that while some of our more progressive business men are ready and keen to take advantage of longer runs in a larger market, there are still many employers who are looking to the Common Market primarily as a means of strengthening their hands in a show-down with labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good groaning about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really must read the report issued by the British Employers' Confederation last August. They will find full justification for what I have just said.
When one looks at the whole sorry, miserable history of the pay pause over the last year, I wonder whether there is not some reason for thinking that there are some Ministers at least who regard Europe as the means of enforcing the general wage freeze which the Government have been trying to get ever since the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The whole House knows, as we have argued many times—there is no disagreement about this, I am sure—that in Europe or out of it this country can achieve economic strength and virility only by our own efforts, by our skill, ingenuity and our capacity for organisation, and also by our sense of purpose and the ability to manage our national economic affairs with a good deal more intelligence and vision than have been manifest in the last few years. I am glad that 'the Lord Privy Seal yesterday stressed the point that there will be opportunities for us in that market—but only opportunities.
Last year, when we stressed the need for Britain to be free to plan her industry and her economic expansion, that was regarded by hon. Members opposite as rather making a party point.

679
There is also the point that now the Prime Minister tells us that he is going to fight the next election on "Conservative planning works". Indeed, he has gone further. In his message to the Conservative candidate in West Derbyshire, he followed his earlier take-over of the Gladstone and Disraeli tradition by putting in a bid for the 1945 Election spirit. The Conservative Party now represents itself in that way. I can appreciate the Prime Minister's trying to get on the band wagon. We are making not a party point but an all-party point when we come to the question of planning. It is we who have always put forward the conception of planning. The Conservatives are now moving in this direction.
The plain fact is that the whole conception of the Treaty of Rome is anti-planning, at any rate anti-national planning in the sense that either hon. Members on this side of the House or the Government understand it with the National Economic Development Council. The title and chapter headings of Part I of the Treaty and the whole philosophy of the relevant articles show a dedication to one principle, and that is the principle of competition. Herr Hans von der Groeben of the Commission says:
"The Treaty is founded on the principle that the course of economic events in the Community is to be guided by competition."
What planning is contemplated—a tremendous amount of planning is involved in the Common Market—is supranational, not national, but it is planning for the one purpose of enhancing free competition.
Let us look for a moment at some of the instruments of national planning in Which some of us in this House believe. First of all, there is public ownership. The Lord Privy Seal rightly says that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to prevent public ownership as such. I agree. But one cannot then use the public sector for planning purposes, for the establishment or enforcement of priorities, for anything which involves discrimination. The Treaty says:
"Member States shall in respect of public enterprises and enterprises to which they grant special or exclusive rights neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular
680
to those rules provided for in Article 7 and in Articles 85 to 94 inclusive."
In other words, one can have the form but not the substance of purposive public ownership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Springs (Mr. Blyton) last night drew attention to recent decisions of the Iron and Steel Community. I would go further. I do not think that the Minister will deny this. Even the Government's chosen instrument for regulating the steel industry, an instrument which we regard as grossly inadequate—the Iron and Steel Board— could not, in fact, survive if we joined the Common Market. I think this view is now generally accepted, but the Lord Privy Seal will perhaps give us his own view.
I turn to the distribution of industry. This is a vital control for securing full employment, which we shall be debating the day that we come back. My fear is that our powers, such as they are, for distribution of industry could become a dead letter. A grant of the size given by the Government to get Fords to go to Merseyside or B.M.C. to Bathgate would undoubtedly be regarded not merely as a location inducement but as a State subsidy favouring British car production. While industrial development certificates would remain, one must ask what use they would be if a firm which was refused permission to develop in London or Coventry were then free to go anywhere it wanted in Western Europe.
Take the question of take-over bids. At the last election, faced with a major take-over scandal in the middle of the election, the Government promised urgent reform. Subsequent action has proceeded with rather elephantine caution. There is now, I suppose, rather less than a 50/50 chance of action being taken before the next election. But we must ask whether under the Treaty of Rome we should be free to take action to regulate take-over bids. I and my hon. Friends have proposed that where there are important take-over bids or mergers affecting some vital industry the State should have the right to interfere, and perhaps veto if a foreign concern sought to take over a vital British interest or to sanction, with safeguards for the public interest, of course, or in other cases where a monopoly was

681
created, public ownership to ensure that it was a public and not a private monopoly.
Looking at the Treaty of Rome, I feel that these measures would be precluded in many important cases because of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. Equally, our proposal from this side of the House for new publicly-owned industries based on new scientific research, extension of the powers of N.R.D.C. to cover manufacturing, research and development contracts in the civil field, and so on, might well fall foul of the provisions about subsidies and State intervention. Even Conservative specifics, such as the 7 per cent. Bank Rate that we get halfway between elections, the credit squeeze and other deflationary exercises, would have to be subject to challenge in the Common Market, so—I think this is vital to both parties—would emergency action to control speculative capital movements, because in my view purposive direction of our national economic affairs without power to control capital movements is an illusion. What would happen would be that the price mechanism and the markets of the City would then reign supreme.
I will spend only a moment on the question of tax. We are enjoined in the Treaty—I know it involves a unanimous vote in this case, though I would feel that its importance will be over-ridden by the rather vague provisions of Article 101—to harmonise our system of indirect taxation. This not only means a sales tax, which has been rejected by every Chancellor, Labour and Tory; it will also certainly mean a drastic re-deployment of our entire tax system in favour of indirect against direct taxation and regressive against progressive taxation.
Even today—we have criticised this— 47 per cent. of our Revenue in this country comes from direct taxes against 24 per cent. in France, 26 per cent. in Italy, and 39 per cent. in Germany. In Britain half our social services are financed out of general taxation, in Germany 15 per cent., in France 10 per cent. and in Italy 7 per cent. The question has been put—I do not know the answer to it; I hope the Lord Privy Seal will tell us—whether our Health
682
Service could survive financed as it is today.
The question of selective investment allowances would be ruled out despite their relevance to purposive investment policies. As to estate duties—I know there is no universal enthusiasm for this form of taxation on the other side of the House, and many of us have said that it has become rather a voluntary tax—with the higher rates that we levy compared with many European countries, once the freedom of capital movements was introduced, they would become virtually a dead letter. I know that that will not worry some hon. Members opposite.
So I think it is clear that planning as we envisage it, and even as hon. Members opposite see it, would be subject to severe restriction under the Treaty of Rome. I think the House is entitled to be told by the Ministers who are going to speak today what protocols or reservations the Government are insisting on, or are they imperceptibly moving to the concept of supranational planning by a talented but, in the constitutional sense, irresponsible commission in Brussels?
So far I have been talking of Government responsibility for planning. But what of the responsibility of this House for our economic legislation? There are important questions that we have to look at here. I do not claim to know the answers. If my interpretation of the Treaty is wrong, I am sure the Lord Privy Seal will tell us. I think it should be frankly recognised that acceptance of the Treaty might well mean a fundamental change in the position of Parliament. We are committed under the Treaty to assimilate our code of law to the requirements of the Treaty. Under Article 169, if a member State fails to comply with an obligation to alter its code of law, the Commission may refer the matter to the court, and under Article 171:
"If the Court of Justice finds that a member State has failed to fulfil any of its obligations under this Treaty, such State shall take the measures required for the implementation for the judgment of the Court."
Article 189 refers to the power to make regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. I am concerned here with regulations, some of

683
which, on my reading, can be made with a simple majority, with no veto. The Treaty provides that the
"Regulations shall have a general application. They shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each member's State."
I emphasise "directly applicable". Regulations made in Brussels, then, become part of our domestic law. This is what I hope we shall have explained. We should like to know how this would work under the conditions of our Parliament.
It will, of course, require legislation. To that extent we shall go through, at any rate, the motions of preserving the sovereignty of Parliament in these matters. But the Government must tell us how they and the Six interpret this requirement. Is it the proposal that we pass a blanket Act saying that hereafter all regulations made in Brussels shall become British law, enforceable in British courts without even a nominal scrutiny by the House? Is that proposed? Since two entirely different systems of law are involved—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made this point before—we should like to know how it would work out in practice. Or does it mean that we bind ourselves in advance immediately to legislate in order to give effect to these regulations? This might cause a lot of difficulties.
I see the Leader of the House looking a little anxious. He will not be there much longer, and so he does not have to worry. Suppose there was, for example, a decision promulgated in the last week before our Parliamentary Recess. I do not often feel sympathy for the Patronage Secretary, but I should have thought that he would be in a very difficult situation. Suppose a regulation were promulgated during a Recess. Should we have to be recalled? Since we are bound to give effect to regulations—we are not "asked" to give effect; we are "bound" to give effect —does it mean, as it appears to, that Amendments in Committee or on Report will be inadmissible, out of order and precluded; or is it to be done, perhaps by Statutory Order? These are the points that we ought to know about.
If it is done by Statutory Orders, would they require an affirmative resolu-
684
tion? But has that phrase any meaning if they cannot be negatived? Alternatively, could they be prayed against? If they were successfully prayed against, what advice would Ministers then have to tender to the Sovereign on receipt of such a Prayer, when the Sovereign is a signatory of the Treaty, after the House had carried a Prayer? Before we are rushed into a decision this July—and this is another reason for emphasising the wisdom of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday—we are entitled to have these questions answered. There may be fundamental changes in the position of Parliament over a very wide range of our legislation, and as Members of the House we are trustees not only for our constituencies but trustees for all who have sat and who may hereafter sit in this place.
I do not intend to weary the House by going into all the five conditions which we have laid down. They were very fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend yesterday. For that reason, I do not propose to repeat what he said about E.F.T.A., and I hope that the House will excuse my hurrying rather rapidly over the subject of agriculture on which last night we had a conscientious, valiant and even informative speech by the Minister of Agriculture. We were all grateful to him for the trouble he took to explain these very difficult problems.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for drawing a contrast between his speech and that of the Lord Privy Seal. Whereas the Lord Privy Seal said that he would not deal with confidential matters which were subject to negotiations, the Minister of Agriculture drew aside the veil for us and in ringing tones proclaimed his views of what should emerge from the negotiations. The Lord Privy Seal has talked in terms of problems to be solved—he is a cautious man—but the Minister of Agriculture has talked in terms of categorical imperatives and other things which must be accepted in the negotiations. This, that or the other thing must be done, whether in terms of price reviews or the safeguarding of horticultural imports and the rest. They are brave words. Have they any gold backing? Have the Six agreed, and what happens if they do not? We are, of course, grateful for his

685
elucidation of these mysteries of the E.E.C. agricultural agreements and the distinction—he called it sophisticated— between target prices, import prices, guide prices, threshold prices, sluicegate prices, reference prices, intervention prices and the rest—I am not claiming to be exhaustive. His intervention on this was very helpful, but the plain truth is —[Interruption.]—does the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) understand these things?
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I was only saying that the whole thing is priceless at the moment.
Mr. Wilson: I intend to come to that point in a few minutes. The hon. Member has a point there.
After forty days and forty nights of agricultural negotiations in the Six, with the clock and the calendar stopped at five minutes to twelve, 31st December, 1961, after that agreement had been reached, it took the Six nearly two months to agree on the exact drafting of what they thought they had agreed, and impatiently we waited in the House for the English translation; and after sax more weeks it was vouchsafed to us; and now we have it, for my part it might as well have been in Sanskrit. I have the feeling that that was the Minister of Agriculture's first reaction when he saw it. Yet we all know that certainly the future of British agriculture and horticulture and the future of Commonwealth food imports and so of Commonwealth trade in general depend on the interpretation of those tablets.
I should like to put one question to the Minister of Agriculture. Of course we recognise the different treatment in the agricultural arrangements for what we in this country call deficiency payments and what we call production grants. Can he tell us what is the position with fertiliser subsidies and the lime subsidy? Will they be allowed, or are they to be on the index of prohibited practices? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): At the moment, all the countries within the Six have certain grants to agriculture, but in the fullness of time the Community is to have to decide what types of grants will be eligible for payment
686
and which will not, and these will apply to the Community as a whole.
Mr. Wilson: That answer was very helpful, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In other words, we do not know. What is important is to realise that we do not know, because it means that in this respect, too, we are being asked to sign on the dotted line to be told afterwards what it is we have signed.
I will now turn, as my right hon. Friend did, to the problems of Commonwealth trade. I shall certainly not repeat all that he said, although he was clearly right, as was the Lord Privy Seal, to say that there was no one Commonwealth problem, but six, or eight, or ten, or twelve depending on how they are defined. For British Colonial Territories and ex-Colonial Territories it is, as we have repeatedly urged, utterly inconceivable that we should accept a solution which treats those territories less favourably than ex-French or ex-Belgian territories, yet here again there is still no agreement within the Six on their policy for associated overseas territories beyond the end of this year.
In this connection, I should like to refer briefly to two special problems exemplified by the West Indies, although not confined to that area. The first is that of the Sugar Agreement, which we raised in the debate a year ago. Destroy that and we have undermined the prosperity and the very life of important British territories; and it would be quite wrong to talk about the Communist menace and terrorists and the rest of it if we sign a treaty which in this respect would create the very conditions in which Communism could so rapidly breed and develop. Nor, I hope, shall we be answered by pious references to international commodity agreements. It was the Labour Government which negotiated the International Sugar Agreement, 'but we still needed the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to supplement and to give security to the sugar-producing areas of the Commonwealth. Even the present Government, when Tory freedom triumphed and public monopoly was replaced by private monopoly, had to continue the Sugar Agreement with Heath Robinsonian arrangements of levies and subsidies and rebates. The Commonwealth

687
Sugar Agreement is still in force and vital, perhaps we shall be told by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, but if Article 234 has any meaning it would have to go, and we want to know what the Government are going to do about it.
The other question is that of oil, and here I think of Trinidad, 80 per cent, of whose export earnings come from oil and oil products, but also of Borneo and other areas of the Commonwealth. We remember that in 1956 the Prime Minister presided over the sale of the Trinidad Oil concern. I shall not repeat the arguments which we had then. But one point made by the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that he was agreeing to this sale only on condition that the production and the finding of oil there was developed very rapidly as a result of the sale. What we want to know is how that commitment is to be honoured if so vital a market in Britain and Europe—I think that it accounts for about one-third of Trinidad's oil exports—is lost. On this we shall expect an answer this afternoon. There may be an answer and we hope that there is, but we should like to know more about it before we commit ourselves.
My right hon. Friend dealt with the problem of Commonwealth manufactured goods. All of us feel that the answer to the problem of industrial products from low-wage countries, as he said, is a widening of the market in all the advanced countries of the world. In this connection, although I disagree with much of what he has said about the Common Market, I very much welcome the initiative taken by Mr. George Ball, the American Under-Secretary of State, in G.A.T.T. to get the world-wide textile agreement, and we wish it well.
The other point raised by my right hon. Friend was the immediate reaction of the Australian and New Zealand Governments to last week's agreement about manufactured goods. I would agree that probably this is a decision on which we could not die in the last ditch. I know that this view is not fully shared by hon. Members sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite, but some hon. Members opposite have been finding last ditches in which to die for years,
688
and this is another. This is what the Common Market is really about, and if we decide that the terms are right for going into the Common Market, I think we must accept the fact that because it is primarily an industrial customs union at any rate this problem is one which has to be faced. What we are concerned to ensure is that this should not become a precedent for the settlement of the problem of Commonwealth agricultural products.
We must make it plain again that a temporary easement, a temporary relief, is not a solution. We believe Commonwealth foodstuffs to be almost the most vital issue, at any rate on the economic side, but we are not concerned with the choice between slow strangulation and sudden death, not with the process or time in which we reach an ultimate solution, but with what the ultimate solution is. Australian and Canadian grain and meat and New Zealand dairy produce are the most mentioned, but we do not need to remind the Government of other important Commonwealth products. I remember that when we had responsibility for these things the Australian Government attached almost equal importance to dried fruits and canned fruits as to some staple products. Canadian apples represent the mainstay of important communities in Canada, and we must not think entirely in terms of big volume of trade.
We have said that the test is not words, not a question of formulae and solutions, but whether x years from now, whatever x is, the volume of these goods from Commonwealth countries imported, if not into Britain, at any rate into an enlarged community, is maintained and preferably increased. This is the test and there is no evading it. Here we have seen the Government pushed from one untenable position to another. First, we were to secure an agreement maintaining the position of Commonwealth producers in the British market. That was the hope last August. The Government have slender hope of that now, and I do not believe that they would expect that ten years from now, if we joined the Common Market, there would be as much Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs coming to the country as now.

689
Then we had the second scheme. It was said that joining the Six would mean some replacement—a substituted replacement—of Australian grain or meat, or New Zealand dairy produce, by European produce, so that we were seeking an equal compensating outlet in Europe. The Government are absolutely right to seek it, but this hope seems to be growing dim. Now the Government are putting up a third proposal and we have seen the activities of the public relations officers this week.
It is now said that we shall expand our domestic market as a result of joining the Common Market and that although the Commonwealth countries might have to face losing part of the share that they have in the market, expansion of the market would make up for that. In other words, what we are asked to believe is that although the proportion of Commonwealth wheat Which is coming here will be reduced by the working of the import levy and replaced by French wheat, nevertheless, as a result of our likely prosperity, we shall so stuff ourselves with bread and biscuits and cake, that the total volume coming from the Commonwealth will be maintained. This argument would not fool a seven-year-old child and certainly has little hope with Mr. Menzies.
Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman is accusing the Government of shifting their position, but is it not he who is shifting his? Did he not say last August that instead of entering into negotiations with the Common Market the Government should go flat out for a Commonwealth free trade agreement? Which countries did he have in mind as being willing to sign a fully reciprocal free trade agreement with us?
Mr. Wilson: I read my speech very carefully.
Sir T. Beamish: Read it again.
Mr. Wilson: I have read it again, recently. I had to. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads it, he will find that what we said then was that we noted that the Government had entered these negotiations and that I said in my speech, regarding the visit of the three Ministerial bag men who had been going all over the Commonwealth, that
690
they would have spent their time better proposing first a Commonwealth free trade area rather than trying to sell to an unwilling Commonwealth the pro posals which they were trying to sell and I still believe that.
There is the third proposal on which I have just touched. It is that although the Commonwealth may lose through existing guarantees and safeguards it will be helped by international commodity agreements. As my right hon. Friend said, we are great believers in international commodity agreements. I had a lot to do with them at one time. I had a lot to do with the first drafting of the International Wheat Agreement. But let it be said quite frankly that an international commodity agreement, whether a full-dress buffer stock scheme, as with tin, or a multilateral system of long-term contracts or minimum guarantees, as with wheat, provides no answer to the Commonwealth problem.
I hope that the House will be in no doubt as to what the basic problem is. The problem about Commonwealth entry is the price fixed for each commodity and the import levy associated with a given price. If the basic price, whether for wheat, dairy produce, pig meat or coarse grains, is high, Commonwealth food will inevitably be excluded, in the interests of the E.E.C. producers, by this import levy. That is what the agricultural agreement means. This is why we have been right to stress so often from this side of the House—and I think that the Lord Privy Seal said the same thing —that an outward-looking, low-cost, low-tariff Community is one thing— allowing full and free imports from the Commonwealth and other countries and ultimately making possible the Atlantic freer trade area conception which President Kennedy has outlined—but, on the other hand, an inward-looking, high-cost, high-tariff Community, dedicated to the expansion of European production to the detriment of Commonwealth trade, must be regarded as unacceptable.
Let me be absolutely frank. We do not know and shall not know the answer to this problem before July. We do not know whether it will be high prices or low prices. The forty days of agricultural negotiations to which I have referred produced not an agreement but

691
simply an agreement to make an agreement. It settled the form of agricultural regulation but not its content or its price. We cannot know.
I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for not being able to tell us what price we shall get, because no one in Europe knows what the price will be. We do not know whether the price of commodities will be kept high—and so be fatal to Commonwealth trade—or low. No one knows, and it is clear that the E.E.C. countries will not go through the agonies of a further round of agricultural negotiations before July or August.
We do not know, but we have our suspicions, that the price will be high. Last night the Minister of Agriculture rather supported those suspicions with what he said when he spoke about the likelihood of high prices. I think he said that as an assurance to British agriculture. But, by the same token, what he said was very ominous for Commonwealth food imports. I say this in all seriousness: my fear is that we shall be asked in a month or two's time to sign what, in effect, will be a blank sheet of paper with no price stated, no import levy, and with the invitation to come in and negotiate from within.
It will have certain political advantages. The Prime Minister will be able 'to go round the country telling the farmers—the rather diminishing number of Conservative farmers—that the price will be high and that they have nothing to worry about, while, at the same time, assuring the Prime Ministers' Conference that the price and the levy will be low. To sign a blank sheet of this kind would be a very dangerous act for the Government to be involved in. I hope they will tell us what they are going to do in order to secure some clear and specific assurance about the inward-looking or outward-looking character of the market.
Before I turn in conclusion to the political aspects, I want to refer for a moment to the problems of East-West trade, about which we expressed anxieties last year. There are two reasons for anxiety. First, it is clear that the articles dealing with the Treaty-making power can make it impossible—I think that is
692
a matter for decision by a qualified majority—for member countries to have separate trade agreements with the Soviet Union or with Eastern European countries, apart from West Germany, who, as usual, can commit every kind of dalliance with East Germany while the rest of us are solemnly warned by Dr. Adenauer of the dangers of such promiscuity.
I can understand that tariff negotiations and similar questions of commercial policy must be handled by the Community as a whole. There will be no unilateral tariff deals. I can understand measures to prevent trade deals which allow one country to obtain cheap raw materials which would enable her to undermine the trade position of other member countries. This would be reasonable. But most East-West trade pacts deal with quotas, which are, by definition, outlawed as between members.
We agree to allow more Soviet cameras or Polish bacon into this country in return for increased quotas for British textiles or pottery into Eastern Europe. Why should such agreements be subject to veto? What are the Government doing about this question?
My second reason for anxiety about East-West trade relates to the fact that since a high proportion of our imports from Eastern Europe is made up of foodstuffs, those same agricultural provisions which may freeze out Commonwealth food will equally exclude Eastern European foodstuffs. Eastern European countries can buy from us only to the extent that we sell to them: exclude their exports and they will stop buying from us. For example, Poland is now buying £20 million worth a year of British exports—mainly manufactured goods. If we cut off imports of her ham and bacon, as we would have to do under a system with a high import levy, those exports will stop, and we shall not be selling our manufactured goods to that country.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend showed that against the gains we hope to achieve in our exports to Western Europe—if we go into the Common Market—must be set the inevitable losses to some extent, in our exports to the Commonwealth. To this must be added what I have just mentioned—the smaller but still significant losses through the strangulation of East-West

693
trade. When we do that the net trading gains become rather more problematical. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will deal with that question tonight.
This bears very much on the question: what happens if the negotiations fail? Let us be clear; this will not be the end of the world. We shall still have our very substantial dollar trade, which we can expand if we will; we shall still have our East-West trade, and we shall have our Commonwealth trade, and freedom to develop it, by closer economic integration, by joint planning of Commonwealth development projects, by long-term contracts—and also, I hope, by a purposeful development of those industries in this country whose products are needed in Commonwealth markets. We never have accepted that this decline in Commonwealth trade, about which we keep hearing, is inevitable. It is partly the result of Government policy and partly the result of the candy-floss economy.
In conclusion, I turn to the political problem. Yesterday my right hon. Friend emphasised again that the Treaty of Rome, as such, contains no political commitments. If we sign it we are not thereby pledged, explicitly or implicitly, to any advance towards a federal constitution in Europe, a United States of Europe, a common foreign policy in Europe or any such thing. There is no such commitment. But whereas, last year, the Prime Minister could still say that this was a purely economic, commercial and trading negotiation, and not a political or foreign policy negotiation, everyone is now earning to realise that there are certain political overtones in the negotiations
In his speech to Western European Union—secret and confidential, and made available to hon. Members only through the courtesy of The Times—the Lord Privy Seal made no bones about this point. He said that there will be political as well as economic implications. The question is: what kind of commitments and what kind of implications will there be? The Lord Privy Seal was fairly reassuring about this yesterday. He used the word "pragmatic". We always like to hear that word. But do the Government agree with Mr. Spaak, when he said last month that the Six have decided that if Britain does join the Common Market she must
694
also belong to Europe politically? Or do the Government agree with Mr. Marjolin, who said that the Europeanisation of agriculture means that we shall need a real European Government and not merely periodic meetings of Ministers of the Six countries? Or are the Government secretly relying on President de Gaulle? The House has a right to know more about this, and Europe must know where the Government stands; otherwise, in a year or two, I fear that we shall have all the charges of "perfidious Albion" thrown at us in five, if not six, European languages.
But I have a graver fear—referred to by my right hon. Friend yesterday; the domination of Western Europe by a Paris-Bonn axis, dedicated to an intransigent line in East-West affairs, Right Wing, possibly semi-neutralist and, before long, nuclear-powered. My right hon. Friend was right to say that it is for anyone to argue whether we shall be more likely to prevent this development inside or outside the Common Market.
What some of us feared—and still fear—is that President de Gaulle will allow the negotiations to reach a state of near-agreement and then barter his consent to Britain's entry against Anglo-American assistance in his dream of becoming a major nuclear power. We are still worried about this. We do not know what the Prime Minister said to President de Gulle. We deplore—as I believe he did—the triumphant issue by a French Department of State indicating that the Prime Minister had allowed President de Gaulle to walk all over him. I do not believe that happened, but I wish that we knew more. I wish that the Prime Minister or the Lord Privy Seal would tell us that he categorically refused to barter Britain's entry to the E.E.C. against any nuclear deal; that he has strongly pressed the President to seek national self-realisation in other fields, and even that he took time off to tell the General something of the Blue Streak story, which might be extremely illuminating to him.
We hope also—not only because of our dear commitment to E.F.T.A. but on other grounds—that the Prime Minister pressed the President to use his influence in the Six to prevent any discrimination against the association, under Article 238, of Sweden, Switzerland and Austria,

695
on the ground that they are neutrals. The same applies to Ireland's application for full membership. This kind of talk, and the dithering on this question, confirms the fears of those who feel that this is a bloc with a military motivation, dedicated not to trade but to the cold war. N.A.T.O., and not E.E.C., is the military defence forum of the West. We greatly regret that, so far, we have had no assurance from the Government that they support us on this question of the neutrals.
We emphasise our opposition to the development of E.E.C. on political lines —for that means federation, a United States of Europe or a common foreign policy—for all the reasons mentioned in this debate, but perhaps for one above all, namely, Britain's position in the world, due to our special relation with the Commonwealth, and especially with that newly-emerging world of African and Asian countries which are now struggling forward to the light.
While all of us in the House weigh, conscientiously and with a full sense of responsibility, the deep issues before us —of economic advantage for ourselves and our partners; or control over our economic destinies; of political sovereignty and the authority of Parliament—while all of us know that this decision will have to be taken, when the terms are fully known to us each one of us knows that we have no mandate, political or moral, to take any action which will derogate from our power, through this rapidly changing multiracial Commonwealth, to play a decisive part not only in Europe but in world affairs.
4.44 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am sure I can echo the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in the last sentence of his speech about the importance and the great future which lies ahead for our multiracial Commonwealth.
In view of the course of this debate, it would probably be convenient to the House if I were to concentrate my remarks upon the Commonwealth aspects of this problem. We have promised our partners in the Common-
696
wealth that we shall not join the European Economic Community unless we can make arrangements to safeguard their vital trading interests. We made that promise, we stand by that promise, it remains as it was, unqualified and unaltered. I think it just as well at the outset to make that quite clear.
The negotiation of these arrangements, as most people expected, has proved to be the crucial problem of the Brussels talks—the nub of the problem, as one hon. Member described it yesterday. I am naturally not forgetting the problem raised by British agriculture, nor the economic and political issues which are of direct concern to ourselves. Nor am I overlooking our obligations to our partners in E.F.T.A. But, since they are seeking to join the Community themselves, they are of course able to negotiate at the conference table. The Commonwealth countries are in a different position. They are not seeking membership, and consequently they are not direct parties to the negotiations.
This, of course, greatly adds to the responsibility which we bear. For in conducting the negotiations, we have to weigh the effects not only upon our own people but on the well-being of millions of others all over the Commonwealth. That is why we have attached such special importance to close consultation with other Commonwealth Governments throughout the proceedings. At the outset we promised that we would maintain continuous contact and seek the views of the Commonwealth Governments concerned at every stage. I think I can say that we have certainly fulfilled that undertaking. I believe that all Commonwealth Governments would readily recognise that in the history of the Commonwealth there has never before been such continuous and effective consultation at all levels.
British Ministers have visited Commonwealth countries to discuss this prolem. Similarly, Commonwealth Ministers have come here, and we have encouraged them to go themselves to the Continent so as to make personal contact with the Governments of the Six. A veritable flood of telegrams is passing to and fro between us all the time. Direct contact is maintained through our High Commissioners in their capitals and their High Commissioners here, and through

697
Commonwealth representatives in Brussels. There have been numerous visits by officials in both directions. As the negotiators, we of course have to judge the tactics. We have to make up our minds how the hand can best be played. But we have invariably discussed beforehand with other Commonwealth Governments any proposals which are to be put to the Conference; and we try always as far as we can to meet their wishes.
In these negotiations, our aim is to devise arrangements which will maintain for Commonwealth countries their present opportunities to trade with Britain and with Europe, and to secure this in a way which will not violate the basic principles of the Common Market and the Treaty of Rome. This, of course, is not an altogether easy matter. For, even if the Six accepted this objective without qualification, we would still be left with the task of defining precisely just what are the rights and advantages which Commonwealth countries at present enjoy.
If we are thinking in terms of strict legal rights, the question is relatively easy to answer. The Ottawa Agreements, which apply only to the signatories in 1932, provide certain general rights of entry and preference, although it must be remembered that the Ottawa Agreements are subject to revocation at six months' notice on either side. In addition, we have made, with certain Commonwealth countries, specific agreements governing particular commodities for a specified number of years. For example, there are the meat agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which continue until 1967, and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—to which the right horn. Member for Huyton referred —which at present runs until 1969.
There is no difficulty in defining the rights conferred by these specific agreements. But it is not any good looking at this question purely from the legal standpoint. Apart from the fact that most Commonwealth Governments have no contractual agreements with us at all, even those which have legally binding pacts have never contemplated the possibility that the British market could be closed to them at the end of the period specified in the agreement. They have always assumed—and with every justi-
698
fication—'that when the current agreements expired they would be renewed for a further period in the same spirit, although not necessarily on precisely the same terms. Similarly, Commonwealth producers whose products are not covered by specific agreements have quite naturally taken it for granted that they would continue to have easy access to the British market.
At the same time, they have known that they could not necessarily count on free entry for unlimited quantities for all products for all time. In the interests of our own manufacturers, we have already for some years had to ask for restrictions on imports of textiles from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Even in the field of foodstuffs we have, in the case of butter, been obliged to depart from the principle of unrestricted free entry in order to ensure a fail return to New Zealand producers who were being undercut by dumped butter from other sources.
One of the difficulties that face us is that Commonwealth trade covers such a very wide range of products. The present arrangements for free entry into this country vary from commodity to commodity. So do the future prospects and expectations of the producers. Moreover, different products present different problems to the European Community. This makes it obviously impossible to devise any simple and uniform formula which could be applied to all countries and to all commodities. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained, it has been necessary to split up the problem and to deal with it separately in a number of sectors for each of which we shall seek to find some acceptable solution.
Undoubtedly, the most difficult question is that raised by temperate foodstuffs, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred yesterday at some length. The reason is that these compete directly and on a large scale with agricultural production within the Community. Broadly speaking, we are endeavouring to negotiate, for an initial period, arrangements which will, as far as possible, assure to Commonwealth producers trading opportunities in Britain and in Europe equivalent to those which they at present enjoy. That is what we mean in this connection by the term

699
" comparable outlets". But that, of course, is not enough. The Commonwealth producers must have some assurance of continuity after the initial period. Commonwealth producers must have confidence that over the years the enlarged Community will continue to treat them fairly in the same way as they are confident of fair treatment at present from Britain.
On the other hand, the Six are not unnaturally reluctant to give precise and perpetual guarantees for the entry of Commonwealth produce, such as we ourselves have never felt able to give. Any trade arrangements which we have made with the Commonwealth have always been the subject of periodic review. Therefore, following this line, we have proposed to the Six that while maintaining the objective of Comparable Outlets, the arrangements agreed in the initial period should be reviewed from time to time, and where necessary amended to take account of changes in the situation or of any world-wide commodity agreements which might in the meantime have been concluded.
Our Commonwealth partners recognise —I think perhaps better than some of their champions here—that the negotiations in Brussels, however successful, are bound to involve changes of many kinds. This was frankly accepted in a recent speech by the Canadian Finance Minister, Mr. Fleming. Speaking in New York on 17th May, he said:
"Canadians are realists. We would not attempt to insist that all present arrangements must be left intact and that no changes can be contemplated. We fully recognise that, with the important changes that are occurring in world trading arrangements, all of us must be prepared to face far-reaching trade adjustments."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) accused us yesterday of riding roughshod over the Commonwealth and said that New Zealand would be ruined unless free entry was maintained. The New Zealand Government have all along been aware of the difficulty of reconciling the principle of unrestricted free entry with the principle of a Common Market and a Common Customs Union. I made this dear to them myself, in our talks in Wellington as far back as last July, and they recorded, as the House will
700
remember, in the published communiqué at the end of our talks that while they naturally preferred the continuance of free entry—these were their words—they were
"prepared to examine any other methods of protecting New Zealand's interests."
Mr. R. H. Turton: My right hon. Friend has misquoted my remarks. What I said yesterday was that if we denied to New Zealand first the right of free entry and also adequate comparable outlets, we should be destroying New Zealand's economy and riding roughshod over the Commonwealth.
Mr. Sandys: I looked up my right hon. Friend's speech this morning, but I will not pursue the point, as I am quite prepared to accept his correction. My point is equally valid on the question of free entry. New Zealanders have— and I think with moderation—shown their readiness to examine with an open mind any other arrangement which might safeguard their essential interests.
The Leader of the Opposition referred yesterday to criticisms made last week by Mr. Menzies and Mr. Marshall-other hon. Members have naturally spoken about this—of the solution proposed for manufactured goods from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commonwealth should have been frankly told about this. I agree with him. Of course, they should have been frankly told, and they were frankly told. There has been absolutely no lack of frankness between us all on this question, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make this clear.
As far back as last July when I visited those three countries, before the negotiations had even started, I made it quite clear that there was one item which we could not reasonably expect to negotiate with the Six: and that was unrestricted free entry for manufactured goods from the developed Commonwealth countries. That obviously stood out a mile before we entered the negotiations. Last March again we told the three Governments of the scheme we intended to propose, and we discussed it with them in the weeks which followed. Although we naturally did not expect them to give their blessing

701
to any concessions, I am sure that they would not complain that they had not been fully informed and fully consulted.
In order to keep this issue in perspective, it is perhaps worth remembering that the goods affected represent about 2 per cent, of Canada's total exports, 0.7 per cent, of Australia's and 0·05 per cent, of New Zealand's. I assure the right hon. Member for Huyton that these manufactured goods have been treated as an entirely separate problem, and that we have no thought of allowing this solution in a very limited field to set a pattern for solutions in other sectors.
Mr. Denis Healey: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to embarrass him too much by asking this, but I understood from what he said earlier that with regard to temperate agricultural products he is asking the Six to agree that at the end of the transitional period there shall be continual reviews by us and the Six to make sure that there is what he called fair treatment for Commonwealth exports to Europe as a whole. Supposing that at one of these reviews the British Government and the Commonwealth Governments consider that what the Six are prepared to concede is not fair to the Commonwealth. Will Britain be free on her own to take compensating action to give Commonwealth access in this market which is denied in Europe? This is the crucial thing for making an agreement satisfactory to the Commonwealth countries.
Mr. Sandys: This is a very important issue. This is what we are negotiating about at the moment, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into detail about it. What is vital in the negotiations on this issue is to be clear about the principle on which the review is to be carried out. If we can get that right, then probably the result will be all right, and this is one of the important questions which will be negotiated in these coming weeks.
I think that that is as much as I can say now. There is no intention on our part to leave the position entirely in the air so that nobody knows what will happen at the end. Whilst we cannot,
702
for the reasons that I have given, ask the Six to agree to perpetual arrangements which we have never been prepared to give Commonwealth countries, we cannot leave the position in the air; and therefore we must agree with them the principles on which the review is to be carried out at the end of the initial period. I think that this is the best answer that I can give at this stage.
A great deal of attention has naturally been focussed on the right of access to the British market, and this is of course vitally important. But what matters in the end to the Commonwealth producer is his ability to sell his goods when he has got them into the British market. I think that this was simply and rather strikingly summed up the other day by a former Australian Prime Minister. Lord Bruce, when he said:
"The right policy for Australia is the policy which will make Britain financially sound and prosperous. Unless the British people have the money to buy Australian produce, access to the British market is not worth a sick headache."
Several hon. Members referred to the question of manufactured goods from Commonwealth countries in Asia. The Six fully accept the importance of helping countries like Pakistan and India to raise their living standards. They are already providing very substantial loans for development plans in both these countries, and I think they naturally recognise that it would not really make much sense to stifle the new industries which they are themselves helping to create.
The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton, and other hon. Members raised the question of tropical products. This is closely linked with the question of association for overseas territories. The Six are at present in the process of revising the relationship between the Community and the territories which are already associated with them. Until this work is further advanced, it will not be possible for us to have any detailed negotiations on this matter.
However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have asked that the former British territories concerned should be offered the opportunity to become associates on the same terms as the former territories of the continental countries. I also assure the House that

703
the West Indies are naturally included in this proposal.
The Leader of the Opposition urged that free entry should be allowed for all tropical products. I have a good deal of sympathy with that idea. Difficulties do, however, arise over certain products. But, as I think the House knows, oil seeds are already duty free in the Community, and we have proposed the removal of duties on some of the other main tropical products, including cocoa and tea.
One or two hon. Members have expressed the view that if Britain joined the Common Market, our financial position might become more difficult. Some reference has been made to the balance of payments position. It is a rash man indeed who is prepared to predict anything about the balance of payments more than a very few months ahead. But on the general question all I would say is that this opinion does not seem to be shared by the Australian Finance Minister, Mr. Harold Holt.
In a speech in the Australian Parliament in Canberra a few weeks ago, when he was discussing the possible effect of Britain joining the Common Market, he said:
"I believe that the City of London will become strengthened as the main financial centre of the world. In that case, Australia may well receive through London further capital investment from European countries where at present we are relatively little known."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others urged that instead of going into the Common Market we should seek to expand Commonwealth trade, and the right hon. Member for Huyton, who apparently had refreshed his memory about an earlier speech, still seems to hanker after a Commonwealth free trade area. Whether we go in or stay out, we must do everything in our power to expand in every way Commonwealth trade of all kinds. But this is not an alternative to the Common Market in Europe. We can continue negotiations to enter the Common Market without in any wise reducing our efforts to try to find new ways of expanding Commonwealth trade. Much as we should welcome a Commonwealth Common Market—or most of us I think would welcome it—it would not suit any of the Commonwealth countries,
704
all of whom are trying to develop young secondary industries behind the protection of a tariff wall—not to mention the fact that a common Commonwealth agricultural policy might raise some quite awkward problems for the British farmer.
Mr. H. Wilson: I want to make it plain that I was not suggesting that we should break off negotiations and try to get a Commonwealth free trade area. My reference was in response to the courteous intervention by an hon. Gentleman opposite. I was talking about building up the Commonwealth, and I agree that this should be pursued. I raised it in this context, that some hon. Members might have given the impression that if the negotiations were to fail, this would be the end of the world. I was saying that that was not so. I do not accept the structural inevitability about Commonwealth trade, but I was not pressing the idea of a Commonwealth free trade area as an alternative to continuing the negotiations.
Mr. Sandys: I obviously agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the negotiations fail it will not be the end of the world, but I think it will be a great misfortune.
All the Commonwealth Governments have recognised that the ultimate decision as to whether Britain joins the Common Market is one which we here alone can take. Ours is the responsibility. No one can relieve us of it; nor does anybody want to. On the other hand, since it profoundly affects the interests of the Commonwealth, we have undertaken, quite naturally and properly, to discuss the whole matter with the Commonwealth Governments, not only separately but collectively, before anything is finally decided.
As the House knows, a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is being convened for this purpose in September. September was chosen because it was thought that, although the negotiations would probably not yet be completed, we should by then have a pretty clear idea of the kind of overall package which the Six would be prepared to accept. This will be fully discussed with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at this meeting in September. It is only after hearing the views of other

705
Commonwealth Governments that we shall come to our decision, and they may be sure that in doing so we will study their interests with the same critical care and with the same sense of responsibility as if they were our own.
In the meantime, I hope that Commonwealth Governments will, as far as possible, reserve their comment and not commit themselves to irrevocable positions until they are able to see the proposition as a whole and to assess its overall effect. In the next two months, a series of proposed solutions for particular aspects of the problem will be announced. I know it is difficult not to react as each piece of the jigsaw puzzle emerges. But, as the Leader of the Liberal Party rightly said, what matters is how the pieces fit together.
I have spoken so far mainly of the economic aspects of this question, but of course, the political consequences are every bit as important. There are those who take the view that, even if we are able to negotiate satisfactory safeguards for trade interests, the cohesion of the Commonwealth would be fatally undermined by Britain's political involvement in Europe. I can quite understand these anxieties, but I do not share them in the very least. Our present-day Commonwealth, with its varied membership—the multi-racial Commonwealth to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—is not, and is never likely to become, a political unit. By that I mean it could never be a closely knit group of States pursuing a uniform external policy in foreign affairs or defence. Its future lies in quite a different direction.
The value of the Commonwealth to the world derives from two factors. The first is the diversity of the nations which compose it, most of which are leaders of thought and action in their respective spheres. The second is the close and informal contact between its members, in the course of which they are, all of them, all the time, helping to shape each other's views on the issues of the day. As it develops, and as new member-States become more firmly established, the Commonwealth will, I believe, develop a growing influence for stability and understanding, extending far beyond the circle of its own membership.
At times, the Commonwealth will make its voice heard through joint de-
706
clarations such as the one on disarmament issued by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers last year. But, more often, the collective thoughts of the Commonwealth will be exercised indirectly and unconsciously through its individual members, each providing leadership in its respective sphere.
With Britain, and the other countries which are seeking admission into the European Community, the Community would have a population of over 250 million people, larger than either the United States or Russia. As its machinery for consultation develops, it will undoubtedly become a political influence in world affairs of the first order. As a member of the European Community, Britain would play her part in shaping the economic policies and political views of this powerful group of nations. Far from weakening the Commonwealth, Britain's membership of the Community would bring to the Commonwealth as a whole a new and important element of influence and strength.
If the difficult negotiations which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is conducting with such skill, patience and determination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—are to reach agreement, there will have to be quite a lot of give and take. Concessions will undoubtedly have to be made on both sides. But let no one imagine that we have decided to join the Common Market on the best terms we can obtain, whether they are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. It would be fruitless at this stage to try to define just where the breaking point might come, but one thing should by now be obvious to all.
If our admission to Europe should involve the disruption of the Commonwealth, that is an entrance fee which we are not prepared to pay. On the other hand, if the terms are fair, I am unshakeably convinced that Britain's entry into the European Community will be good for Britain, good for Europe, good for the Commonwealth, and good for the stability and progress of the world.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Rodgers: I understand that it is the generous tradition of the House of Commons to be indulgent to a maiden speaker, and

707
on this occasion it is certainly indulgence of which I feel most in need. As I understand it, this indulgence is based on a compact by which a maiden speaker avoids controversy, presumably to prevent an unreasonable demand for restraint being placed on hon. Members who might otherwise seek to intervene.
Listening to the debate yesterday, I tried very hard to discover an aspect of this discussion on the Common Market upon which it would be possible to be utterly non-controversial, but it did not seem to me that even the complications of which we heard yesterday and again this afternoon of farm gate, threshold, intervention, target and guide prices were entirely above controversy. I hope, then, that the indulgence of the House may prove elastic on this occasion and that I shall be allowed to get away with some mild controversy, provided that what I say proves acceptable or unacceptable equally to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members yesterday drew attention to the extent to which the centre of the discussion has shifted in the last twelve months. A year ago, it was the detailed consequences of entry into the Common Market for a wide range of our industries Which most concerned not only Members of the House of Commons but those outside. But now, in the memorable phrase of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), the price of tomatoes is happily not generally regarded as the vital factor which will determine the outcome of the negotiations. Not that I imagine that any of us would choose to be contemptuous of the special interests that would be affected by entry; for example, the fishing industry or the growers of Scottish oats, or the Scottish growers of oats, whichever it is. And I confess that here I am fortunate in my constituency interests.
Stockton, and Tees-side as a whole, depends substantially on the chemical and heavy engineering industries. There is little doubt that these would be able to compete successfully in the Common Market, with fortunate consequences both for employment and prosperity generally. Certainly I am confident that the high ability, skill and resourcefulness of the people of Stockton would enable them to respond to any challenge
708
that might be presented to them. They want a dynamic, developing Britain, but they know that the only way to achieve it is through hard work and the full deployment of our talents—not that I would wish to mislead them or anyone else into believing that the Common Market would answer all our economic and industrial problems. Nor would I urge anyone to believe that it would be effective soon enough to relieve the real hardship and distress being caused at present by growing unemployment on Tees-side. This requires action by the Government now.
For many years Stockton was served faithfully and well both in the House and constituency by my predecessor, Mr. George Chetwynd, to whose work I should like to pay tribute. Mr. Chetwynd is now Director of the North East Development Council, and in this capacity he is continuing to give his time and effort to the problems of the North East and particularly to the future prosperity of the region.
I hope that the tremendous importance of the subject we are now debating will not distract the Government from giving close attention to the immediate problem of more jobs, particularly for school-leavers, in Stockton-on-Tees and throughout the North East. If I were able, as I am not, to be controversial, I would also remind the Government that my constituency of Stockton marches with Middlesbrough, West, which is just across the Tees.
Economic prospects aside, much of the debate yesterday, and I suppose that the same will be the case today, turned on the consequences for the Commonwealth of British's entry into the Common Market. On the one hand there seems to be complete agreement that Commonwealth interests must be safeguarded, while on the other there seems to be much disagreement about the consequences for the Commonwealth if Britain enters the Common Market.
Regarding the principles involved rather than the deails, I must confess that, having listened carefully to the debate yesterday, it seems to me that some of the opponents of the Common Market are too anxious to put the Commonwealth beyond criticism and to treat its critics as they would treat critics of the Crown. Surely the Commonwealth

709
is not a fragile plant to be nurtured under glass and always in the sun? If it were, it would not have survived to this day, despite the many changes and strains in the thirty years since the Statute of Westminster.
The best friends of the ideals for which the Commonwealth stands are not necessarily those who speak loudest in its praise or take whole pages in daily newspapers to express their views. That the economic interests of the Commonwealth countries must be taken account of we are all agreed, and I am sure that we were greatly impressed by the points made on this by the Leader of the Opposition. However, Britain's obligations regarding trade seem to be not so much obligations towards a collective Commonwealth as collective obligations towards separate Commonwealth countries. It is the separate requirements of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the African territories and the West Indies that concern us. It is bilateral relations which are mainly in this respect at stake.
I say this because the identity of the Commonwealth as a whole tends to be lost sight of and because the friends of the Commonwealth—of which I count myself one—cannot have it both ways. Either the Commonwealth is primarily an association of mutual self-interest, or it is bound together principally by ties of kinship, affection and sentiment. If self-interest predominates, then self-interest may lead any Commonwealth country off on its own in quite a different direction at any time. No one has denied that self-interest, as a corollary to sovereignty—which no one denies to be an additional important aspect of the Commonwealth association—has often motivated the actions of separate countries and will certainly do so again.
We can raise no objection to this because in a free association freedom may properly be exercised. But if this is the case, while other Commonwealth countries may be expected to express their views, Britain is as free as they are to make her own arrangements—if necessary for entering the Common Market.
If, on the other hand, the ties of kinship, affection and sentiment are the most important, can they really be so
710
easily severed by Britain's association with Europe? Kinship in terms of friends and families in Commonwealth countries will certainly endure—and with it affection. Sentiment is also much too strong to be broken, at least over a generation. Personally, I believe that the factors which bind us together in the Commonwealth are largely of, kinship, affection and sentiment. I have a greater faith and hope than some people that our friends in the Commonwealth will believe that, whatever decision we may make on the Common Market, we shall not sever ourselves completely from those who have previously regarded us as friends. This is not the way I normally find my friends behave when I choose to make other friends in addition to them.
The only danger seems to lie in the coming months. If supporters of the Common Market are consistently represented as enemies of the Commonwealth, I fear that opinion in the Commonwealth may be persuaded that they are. In that case, if Britain does enter the damage done to the Commonwealth connection will be hard to repair. Many of the statements expressed by hon. Members on either side have sought to do more to redress the balance in favour of a temperate, middle view. But I believe that there is a special responsibility on all opponents of the Common Market not to claim to be the only true friends of the Commonwealth idea.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, we are still pitifully short of the facts on which a final view of the terms of entry must rest. Unless a blank cheque is to be presented to the Government, more information is needed. But, in the last analysis, the final decision will be made on a balance of probabilities. No one will be certain of the outcome of a decision either way. In this sense, whether we enter or not, an act of faith will be required. No one can look into the future. We can only make our individual predictions, and no one will be certain of the outcome of the decision either way.
I love this country dearly—its history, traditions and customs—but it has survived and prospered only by being adventurous and bold and more concerned with the future than the past. No one

711
will deny that the greater adventure now would be for us to take the decision to enter the Common Market. I hope very much that we shall not shy away from it, if the conditions are right, simply out of fear of the unknown or from being too proud to associate with a going concern established without our support. We could at this time be parochial. We could feel that by not going into the Common Market we would retain the "great" in Great Britain and by standing alone as a mediator have a very peculiar and special rôle in the world. I do not hold that view. I think that it would be too great a risk to take. I hope that when we approach this problem we shall not be afraid of Europe. I sometimes think that the opponents of Britain's entry on any terms wish not only that the Common Market did not exist but also that Europe did not exist either. We must go beyond this and accept that Europe is there and that the Common Market is there, too. We must then decide if necessary to plunge into it, if the conditions are right, even if it may require an effort of pride and will.
Last August, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in winding up the two-day debate, said, "We wish the negotiations well. We are not hoping for failure". Whatever the problems and hesitations, I very much hope the House will echo that view.
5.32 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is a privilege and pleasure for me to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) on his very admirable maiden speech. He chose a great theme on which to make his maiden speech and matched it by the quality of his speech. His speech combined in very pleasant degree the modesty and the justified self-confidence which are the hallmarks of the best maiden speeches. I am sure that the House listened to him with great pleasure and will welcome him here in the room of his predecessor. May I be allowed to echo his kindly and appropriate references to Mr. Chetwynd? Mr. Chetwynd was a close personal friend of mine for many years. The hon. Gentleman will soon appreciate, if in-
712
deed he has not done so already, that one of the great charms of this place is that differences on public matters never inhibit private friendships. All of us will look forward not only to hearing the hon. Gentleman again on many occasions, but also to meeting him in the less formal and corporate activities of the House.
I join in the general welcome to this debate at this time. It is appropriate, in this interim but vital phase in this great decision which this country has to make, that we should assess our position and prospects in the specific context of the authority which the Government received from Parliament in August last, and also in the broader context of the long tradition and legitimate aspirations of the British people. More specifically, we must, first, recall the assurances and framework of the authority of August last; secondly, we must have regard to the general negotiations, or what the Lord Privy Seal yesterday called the preliminary negotiations, starting in October last; thirdly, we must have regard to the specific negotiations that are currently in progress; lastly, but most important of all, we must relate the purpose and progress of these negotiations to the possibility or probability, as the case may be, of our achieving the safeguards necessary to justify entry into the Common Market.
If at any time during the negotiations there were any deviation, or even any danger of deviation, from the proclaimed path, it would be our duty to seek to reinforce the will and purpose of the Government and to affirm and emphasise once again the supreme importance and abiding value of the principles and practice of sovereignty and the continuance of the Commonwealth connection.
Before coming to my brief analysis on that pattern, I want to make this preliminary observation. In so far as current negotiations are on economic matters, we are not thereby justified in viewing them in an exclusively economic context, because economic decisions raise political implications. Decisions, for example, on the level of tariffs and preferences may have inescapable and unwelcome consequences for the Commonwealth connection. Decisions on so-called economic union, social services, restrictive practices and the like, may by

713
the method and the machinery of their application have adverse consequences on the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament.
I turn now to the assurances of August last—Commonwealth, special United Kingdom interests, E.F.T.A. and sovereignty. The addition of sovereignty followed from the activity of Parliament. Sovereignty did not figure in the earlier catalogues of matters requiring attention. It was added because the matters were agitated on the back benches of the House of Commons. Private Members of Parliament are the traditional and appropriate custodians of proper constitutional principle and practice.
However that may be, in August last a path was defined, and straightly defined. With that authority, the Government started their negotiations. At the outset of their negotiations on 10th October, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made three basic concessions.
It is inevitable in discussion of these matters that many references are made to the speeches and actions of my right hon. Friend, and sometimes inevitably in a critical way. These are not criticisms directed at him personally as a Minister. He is the able and devoted agent of the collective will of government. He is doing his duty as he sees it with patient persistence. The only thing that I would add, if I may be allowed to without disrespect, is that inevitably with his work he stands very dose to the trees, and it is our duty to see the wood.
The three basic concessions were these: first, that the United Kingdom would accept the Treaty of Rome without amendment, save only as to protocols; secondly, that we would accept the common external tariff; and, thirdly, that we would accept the political implications of the Bonn Declaration of last July.
As to acceptance without amendment, some hon. Members may recall that last summer I referred to a mistranslation in the English text of the Treaty and pointed out that in fact we could expect no amendment under the Treaty, other than consequential adaptation. In the event, I think that was accepted by the Government. It certainly became clear on 10th October. I ask hon. Members who voted in favour of our application
714
to join the Community to search their hearts and memories as to whether they really thought when casting that vote that there would and could be no amendment to any of the 240 Articles of the Treaty of Rome.
As to the common external tariff, that makes it, or may make it, obligatory upon us at a time yet to be defined, because time is the subject of negotiations, to accept the principle of the reverse preference—that is, to treat our old Commonwealth partners worse than our new European associates.
In regard to the Bonn Declaration, my right hon. Friend said this on 10th October:
"We fully share the aims and objectives, political and otherwise, of those who drew up the Declaration."
It is true that we are reprieved from the consequences of this by reason of the inability of the Six for the time being to agree upon the precise form of political union. But it is not an absolute reprieve. It is only a reprieve from day to day.
With those three basic concessions— not, as I understand it, extracted so much as volunteered at the start of the negotiations—we have to draw pretty deeply on our natural reserves of optimism if we are to be confident that the negotiations will end in the requisite safeguards being achieved. Those basic concessions, made within ten weeks of the authority being given, justified the action of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends who found it necessary to reserve our position on that occasion.
I come now to the specific negotiations. They cover a wide field—manufactured goods, raw materials, temperate and tropical products, and economic union so called. The first and last of these matters are of especial interest, because in regard to them an agreement, or conditional agreement, has already been made. Therefore, we are better able to see where we stand, better able to measure their effect on sovereignty and the Commonwealth, and better able to assess their impact for future agreements on other matters and commodities. In a word, we can read the crystal by perusing the book.
In regard to manufactured products, the salient fact is clear. Preferences come to an end in three stages by 1970.

715
I do not derive much comfort from the fact that the Six changed their view on timing, nor from the fact that we are to have talks—talks without commitment, talks in an unknown context, talks without a precise agenda or clearly defined purpose. It is easy to say that manufactured goods do not matter much; that they are small in amount; that there are only £50 million to £60 million of imports from Commonwealth countries; that they affect only a few countries, and that in any event manufactures are by their nature susceptible of more transitory treatment than other goods. The importance of manufactures is in the general context and the impact on the preferential system as a whole.
This brings me to the fourth head of my analysis. How much does it matter in that context? Here the advocates of entry into the Common Market do what the lawyers call plead in the alternative. They say, first, that manufactured goods are typical because they are small in amount; but, secondly that in any event the preference system has developed weaknesses and contains within itself the seeds of its own dissolution.
As to the first of those arguments, the question of smallness, the validity of it depends on its impact on the system as a whole. Will it turn out to be a precedent which sets the pattern for other commodities, especially for temperate foodstuffs, or is it to be recognised as a concession by us to be followed by compensation by the Six hereafter? I hope that it is the latter, but I have some fears that it may be the former. If it is the former, then our preference system would be in danger of extinction by 1970. How important that is depends on the value one places on it.
That brings me to the second argument, namely, that, because there are weaknesses in the preference system, it does not matter very much if it is allowed to die. If there are weaknesses, surely the right thing to do first is to diagnose those weaknesses and ascertain their causes. The weaknesses are not due to any unilateral villainy on the part of members of the Commonwealth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out in his speech of admirable clarity
716
yesterday, preferences are the subject of bilateral agreements. If they are modified, it is by mutual consent.
The real weaknesses of the preference system are not to be found there at all. They are to be found in other respects. First, the erosion by inflation where duties are fixed in money terms; and, secondly, by the provisions of the G.A.T.T. which prohibit the making of new preferences and, in effect, prohibit change in the value of preferences save only in a downward direction. If those be the weaknesses, surely the House must ask: are they really permanent? Are they ineradicable? Are they incurable? Surely, having diagnosed weakness, a practitioner, be he doctor or be he Minister, has two courses open to him. He can fold his hands and watch the patient waste away, with suitable bedside murmurings about the inevitability of death and decay. Or he can seek to do something about it. I advocate the second course in co-operation with our Commonwealth friends.
If it be the intention or even the contemplation that the preference system should go at the end of the transitional period in 1970, then we must face the still larger question: can we be certain that our Commonwealth as a whole will survive the demise of the preference system?
Sir Edwin Leather: I entirely accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point that the provisions of G.A.T.T. are one of the major stumbling blocks. But does he suggest that there are any members of the Commonwealth who are prepared to go to the G.A.T.T. countries and ask for waivers on that ground? Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us who he thinks would do it?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is what we have to find out.
Sir E. Leather: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that they have refused to do precisely that?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not dissent from the proposition that we should seek to take the lead in securing an amendment of the G.A.T.T. which would enable the preference system to work in the context of the 1960s. If we do not do that, then

717
we and the Commonwealth Governments—this is not addressed solely to the Government here; it is addressed to the Commonwealth Governments as a whole—have to face the question about the continuance of the Commonwealth.
It is true that the economic tie is only one of our ties with the Commonwealth. There are others. There are political and constitutional ties, historic and traditional ties—and emotional and sentimental ties, and none the worse for that. But, nevertheless, it is true, as has been pointed out in the debate, that the Commonwealth is not, and cannot be, a tightly institutionalised organisation on the lines of the Common Market. It is, therefore, a fact that the formal arrangements of the Commonwealth lie almost entirely in the economic and trading spheres. If we dispense with those, we run a double risk: we cut away the formal links with the Commonwealth, and we raise also the feeling that perhaps Britain does not care as much as it did.
My feeling is that the question of the preference system is very near the heart of the matter. Here we approach the unwelcome but possibly inescapable decision: continuance of the Commonwealth or absorption in the Common Market? If the question is overtly put and seen in that way, there is no doubt of the answer. But, of course, these are complex matters, and the difficulty and danger would arise if that were the real underlying decision, but did not appear to be so on the surface. If we reach that position, then we must pray for understanding and strength that our answer be given without hesitation or qualification, firmly and promptly. We should then have to tell the Six that, much as we respect them and would wish to work with them, we can work with them only on the basis of Commonwealth co-operation; that we are, in fact, bound to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth to us by a myriad of ties, "light as air but strong as links of iron," and that, through the generations, we have, in effect, said to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth to us, in the imperishable words of the Book of Ruth:
"… whither thou goest, I will go;… thy people shall be my people, …"
718
I come to the last point that I wish to make, in regard to sovereignty. My view is that the Treaty of Rome not only derogates from our sovereignty in the ordinarily accepted idiom of that term in international law, but also threatens the distinctively and characteristically British principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, a matter which is very close to the hearts of those of us who sit in this place. It threatens the two fundamental characteristics of the sovereignty of Parliament, which are these: first, that the will of Parliament must be unfettered in its exercise; and, secondly, that Parliament must be the sole lawmaking agency.
The will of Parliament will inevitably be fettered, in fact if not in form, when we come, if come we do, to incorporate the provisions of the Treaty of Rome into our Statute law. We in this House would be faced with a long list of legislation, as yet undefined, in which the sole duty and right of Parliament will be to put its impress on legislation, predetermined not only in principle but as to its various details.
That Parliament will no longer be the sole law-making agency is clear from the terms of the Regulation which has been quoted by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Article 189 of the Treaty states that:
"Regulations shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each member State."
That means that the collective will of the Community would bind the individual life of the British citizen without the right of Parliamentary veto and amendment.
The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Huyton asked how that would be done. No doubt it would be done by the promulgation of Statutory Instruments. But they would be the merest exercise in translation. They would simply translate ipsissimis verbis the language of the Regulations. It would be no good having an affirmative Resolution, as has been suggested, because no one could dissent from it. It would be no good having a negative Resolution because Parliament could not carry it. It can be further tested by the inability to repeal it. It is a fundamental principle of Parliament that Parliament

719
cannot bind its successors. But Parliament could not repeal the Regulation because that would be contrary to Article 189 of the Treaty.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted the Treaty of Rome. If I remember the words aright, they are that the Regulations would be directly applicable. If the Regulations are to be directly applicable, is it not possible that there is no function for Parliament to perform?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. That is one school of thought, if I may so put it, in this constitutional discussion as to how it would operate. I took the more favourable case from the point of view of the advocates of the Treaty. I think that in practice it would be done by Statutory Instrument if only, as I have said, on the question of translation.
Mr. Frank Bowles Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton) rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that I like to give way, but I am very near the end of my speech. Many hon. Members wish to speak and I think that it would be quite wrong if I took up more time by giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
These are matters of importance, and no hon. Member should take comfort in the idea that these Regulations cover merely technical or trivial matters. If any hon. Member labours under that misapprehension, let him study Articles 14 and 15 of the Rules made under Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome whereby, if it became law, agents of the Commission of the Community would be able to check the books of British businessmen, to interrogate British businessmen, to have access to the sites and premises of British businessmen and, for good measure, to fine them as well.
It is not, therefore, merely a question of whether the matters in regard to restrictive practices and the like are good or bad in the Treaty. It is a question of whether their operation would violate our fundamental constitutional principles. These are matters of fundamental importance. When I raised the issue of sovereignty last year, I knew that I
720
was talking in an idiom which is not part of the everyday language of the British people. But at the same time I knew that I was talking of real things, deeply felt, instinctively understood and traditionally cherished by the British people. They are as natural to us as the air we breathe—little noticed in their presence but valued beyond price in the event of their deprivation.
There rests on this House, therefore, a very special responsibility to study and to understand these matters so that in the future it may not be said that institutions laboriously built up and jealously guarded over the generations fell at the last through ignorance or want of care. If that should come to pass, right hon. and hon. Members will have to plead in mitigation at the bar of history, and it may not satisfy succeeding generations to say we knew not what we did. There is a joint and several responsibility upon hon. and right hon. Members to do what in them lies to secure the principle of sovereignty and the continuance of our Commonwealth connection. Let us hope that the House will, in the vital weeks and months ahead, rise to the level of this responsibility and that the Government will harken to the House.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Throughout the controversy, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has made a notable reputation as one of the most determined upholders of British traditionalism in this matter. This being so, he has, quite naturally, received the frequent and vociferous support of my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and Ash-field (Mr. Warbey). Last August, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a notable contribution about sovereignty, of the success of which speech he several times reminded us today. I think that that was a more effective speech than the speech to which we have just listened. It may be that his resonant but not always very precise phrases are more suited to a discussion of constitutional doctrine than they are to the intricacies of Commonwealth trade. Nevertheless, I am glad that he devoted most of his speech today to Commonwealth trade and our relationship with the Commonwealth because it is primarily about that

721
that I shall speak now. This has become the nub of the controversy.
Nobody will deny for a moment that there are great Commonwealth issues at stake here and great Commonwealth interests which should be protected in the negotiations. I, as a determined advocate of going into Europe, do not believe in doing it at any cost, and I firmly hope that the Government are showing in the negotiations more skill and more determination to protect legitimate Commonwealth interests than they are showing in most other aspects of their policy.
But there are two propositions about the Commonwealth which are being advanced to some extent on both sides of the House and outside which I believe to be totally untenable. The first is that anything which is done in Brussels to change the pattern of Imperial Preference or to change the pattern of Commonwealth trade in any other way is a betrayal of the Commonwealth and a blow to our interests here in this country. The second proposition is that, if things go wrong in Brussels—some, of course, hope that things will go wrong in Brussels—the Commonwealth is an alternative on which we can happily and usefully fall back. I believe that both propositions are quite false, and I shall try to show why.
Why is the first proposition false? In the first place, it implies an attempt to freeze the pattern of world trade, which cannot and should not be done. The pattern of world trade for ourselves, for the Commonwealth, for Europe and for others has been changing in the past, is constantly changing and will change, in the future with or without the Common Market, and to say that nothing must be done to change it, to try to freeze it into the pattern of 1962, would be a hopeless, foolish and misguided policy.
Secondly, it cannot really be argued that to reduce Imperial Preference is a betrayal of the Commonwealth. In my view, it is extremely foolish of those on both sides of the House who claim to be leading friends of the Commonwealth to pretend that Imperial Preference is the essential foundation of the Commonwealth and the very core of the Commonwealth connection. Imperial Preference is a fairly recent development. It
722
is really a Chamberlain device, thought of by Joseph Chamberlain, propagandised by Austen Chamberlain, and introduced by Neville Chamberlain. Quite why this should make it so popular on these benches I am not sure. It is only 30 years old. During those 30 years, Imperial Preference has been almost constantly reduced at the wish of outer Commonwealth countries themselves. In 1937, the average level of preference on British goods into the white Dominions was 12½ per cent. Today it is under 5 per cent. This is not our doing. It is the wish of these countries themselves. As everyone knows, New Zealand reduced Commonwealth preferences in 1957 and Australia did so in 1958.
From any point of view, it is very foolish, I suggest, to regard Imperial Preference as the heart of the Commonwealth connection. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) rebuked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) for having spoken lightly of the Commonwealth. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to have free discussion, and then he spoke as though nobody in the debate should discuss the Commonwealth except in terms of Armistice Day parades. But even on those terms, did not the Commonwealth fight just as well and loyally in the First World War without Imperial Preference as in the Second World War with Imperial Preference? It is foolish to suggest that Imperial Preference is the centre of the Commonwealth connection. If it is, the Commonwealth connection must be something which is not as valuable as it should be outside these islands, because in the white Commonwealth Imperial Preference is being constantly reduced and in the new Commonwealth it does not really exist at all.
It seems to me that the essential basis of the Commonwealth connection must be that of mutual tolerance and self-determination for all the member countries. Supposing that, not in our own interests but because we were forced to do so by rather extreme statements issued by some Commonwealth statesmen, we felt it necessary to draw back from Europe, the Commonwealth would then, in fact, be imposing a veto upon our freedom of action which no other Commonwealth country would allow us

723
to impose upon it. If we then wanted to try to fall back on a tighter Commonwealth, I could not imagine a worse beginning for doing that than the mistrust and recrimination which would inevitably follow from having allowed such an unreasonable thing to happen.
Is the Commonwealth in any real sense a true alternative to Europe? Greatly valuable though I think the Commonwealth is, I cannot believe that it can be that. Let us consider, first, the economic aspect of the matter.
I believe that the outstanding advantage—the only criticism I should have of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday is that he did not, I thought, attach enough weight to this—which would follow from our going into Europe is that by doing so, and only by doing so, should we become part of this large mass growing home market. If we do not do it, we shall, in five or ten years, be unique among the major industrial exporting countries of the world in not having behind us a home market of 100 million or above. This is a disadvantage which we cannot afford.
It is not a question of balancing one degree of preference in Europe on so much per cent. of our exports against another degree of preference in the Commonwealth on so much per cent. of our exports there, nor is it a question of going into Europe in order to switch all our exports to Europe. It is a matter of becoming part of a large base from which we can successfully export to the rest of the world. European countries do not sell only to the countries of Europe. Goodness knows, if the Germans did only that, a great deal of our export problems of recent years would not have existed. This is the essential economic point, in my view, that, without going into Europe, we should be at a unique disadvantage.
As I think the House now appreciates, the economic advantage which we should have by going into Europe is something which the Commonwealth cannot possibly give us because there is not a single Commonwealth country which would allow British goods a free run in its home market, for the perfectly good and simple reason that almost all the Commonwealth countries want to
724
build up their industries behind the protection of tariff walls.
Even if it were willed, which it is not, by the other Commonwealth countries that we should form with them a tight exclusive autarchic economic unit, the Commonwealth would be a most unsuitable and unbalanced unit for this purpose. I will give one simple fact which indicates why it would be an unsatisfactory unit. The Commonwealth contains half of the under-developed peoples of the non-Communist world and it contains one-tenth of the developed peoples of the non-Communist world. To put that one-tenth together with the other half and to imagine that they would constitute a natural unit seems absolute nonsense. If it were done in any tight autarchic sense, two things would follow. We should cut the developing Commonwealth off from aid and markets outside the Commonwealth which they need and ought to have, and we should impose upon this country an economic strain which it could not possibly bear. To do so would be a guarantee of our continuing to stagger sluggishly along, straining under excessive economic burdens, as we have been doing recently. Therefore, from the point of view of tight economic co-operation, the Commonwealth would be a most unsuitable unit.
What about close political co-operation? In analysing the prospects here, one must inevitably look at the Commonwealth to some extent in two parts, the new Commonwealth and the old one. The new Commonwealth, as has been said, has the great advantage of being a disparate group containing countries at very different stages of development and peoples with different-coloured skins, different religions, different cultures and so on. The reverse side of this is that it is a unit which it would be extremely difficult ever to draw very closely together in a political sense. I think that hon. Members on either side deceive themselves if they think that there is a great role for Britain in the future as a leader of uncommitted, newly free developing nations. I do not believe that these nations really want to be led by anybody but themselves, certainly not by the major ex-colonial Power in the

725
world. The belief that they are longing to fall in behind our banner—a banner on which at the moment is blazoned "Economic lack of success"—and be led by us is a fallacy. If one doubts this, one has only to look around the Commonwealth.
If one is thinking of an exclusive relationship between the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth countries, one should ask oneself whether any of the Commonwealth's major members look to their relationship with us as being of exclusive and prime importance. Does Canada do it? Canada wants to preserve the balancing position, but if she had to choose she would, I think, regard her Washington links as more important than her London links. Would India do it? From a political point of view, I think that India would regard her position, perhaps more hopeful in this respect than ours, as a sort of leader of the uncommitted world as her prime political rôle for the future. Even from the economic point of view, I suspect that in Delhi it is now thought that the aid India can get from Washington is likely to be more important than anything we are likely to be able to give. Does Ghana do it? Does Ghana look exclusively to us? No. I believe that Ghana would regard her pan-African outlook as of more importance than any exclusive relationship with the United Kingdom. Therefore, any idea of an exclusive Commonwealth to which we can turn in cutting ourselves off from other associations would be extremely unwise and misguided.
Mr. William Warbey: My hon. Friend is making a passionate denouncement of certain views. Would he care to indicate whom he is attacking? I have heard no one in the House so far suggest that we are aiming at achieving an exclusive or autarchic Commonwealth.
Mr. Jenkins: I am not concerned primarily to attack anyone. I am trying to point out that it is a fallacy to think that it is right for us to say that we cannot go into Europe because that would be betraying what should be our exclusive relationship with the Commonwealth. There is no contradiction between a European and a Commonwealth relationship, rightly and sensibly interpreted, but increasingly, to some
726
extent on both sides, the Commonwealth relationship is being built up into a completely unreal myth. I am concerned to point out the false characteristics in that.
I have come to the end of what I want to say about the Commonwealth. May I say a few words, in much broader terms, naturally, than the Lord Privy Seal, who knows so much more about it, about what seems to be the present state of the negotiations and the question whether what one may call the noises off, from President de Gaulle and to a lesser extent Dr. Adenauer, lessen first the desirability, and second the possibility, of our successfully getting into Europe?
I will deal first with the desirability. Any dislike or distrust which I may have of certain aspects of the Governments of France or Germany, or any other country, does not lessen my desire to get into Europe, because my desire for Britain to be in Europe has never been based on a close support of the policies of Dr. Adenauer and General de Gaulle, nor has it been based on a blindness towards possible future political instability in France or the rather murky political past of Germany, although I do not think it useful or desirable to draw constant attention to that. Equally, one should not ignore these considerations. They should be in the back of one's mind.
What seems to me the deep fallacy of those who say that they do not like the France of de Gaulle or the Germany of Adenauer, and therefore that we must not touch Europe at all, is their belief, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) in his striking maiden speech today, that by not going into the Common Market we somehow exclude Europe from existence in the world. Europe is there, 21 miles away from us, and we do not insulate ourselves from it by not going into the Common Market. Anyone who looks back on the history of the past 50 years cannot possibly believe that, in or out of the Common Market, we can be indifferent to what happens in France and in Germany and between France and Germany. The extent to which one has doubts therefore seems an overwhelming argument for getting into Europe and seeking to influence the course of events in Europe,

727
instead of standing outside rather self-righteously clinging to our little corner of sovereignty and hoping that the Channel, which has been so ineffective in insulating us from these difficulties in the past, will somehow be miraculously effective in doing so in the future.
What about the possibility of getting into Europe? So far it seems that the noises off, as I have described them, have had little effect on the course of the negotiations in Brussels. I think that that is the Lord Privy Seal's view, and I hope that it will continue to be, but we should be foolish to exclude the possibility that the French, under instructions of their President, may at some stage in the negotiations become extremely difficult and extremely stubborn.
If that happens, what should our policy be? We should be stubborn, too, and go on negotiating, and on no account flounce out of Europe, saying, "They will not have us. Therefore we abandon the negotiations". I should not be pushed up against a deadline of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference or any other date. If necessary, I would ask the Prime Ministers to come back later, having given them an interim report. I should not be pushed up against such a deadline. Equally, on no account should I withdraw our application to join. I should keep it in and go on negotiating.
Having made an application to become full members, I believe that we are in a far stronger position than we were previously. Previously, when we put up half-way house proposals the French were easily able to show their other partners in the Six—in some cases they hardly needed to do so—that they were unreasonable proposals. It would now be much more difficult in the long term for them to carry their other partners with them in a constant policy of opposition to our membership.
Another important change in the situation is that before we tried to join the Market, the American Administration believed that it was the right thing for us to do. Now that we have applied, if we fail to get in, the American Administration on the whole will blame the French and not us. But I think that the most disastrous thing would be, if anything goes wrong, to say, "Europe does
728
not want us. We do not want Europe either. We will turn back in upon ourselves". It would not, I think, be back upon the Commonwealth; as I have tried to show, that would not happen. In effect, we should turn back in upon ourselves.
There are times in the history of all nations when to turn inward may be a necessary and even a desirable thing. The year 1940 was such a time for this country. But it is certainly not a desirable thing to do in all circumstances and at all times, and I cannot imagine a worse moment for us to do it than 1962. As a nation our great danger today is that of being inward-looking, sluggish, complacent, rather frightened of the future and suspicious of those outside us who seem to be doing rather better than we think they ought to do. At the same time, there is running through the country, partly associated with the rather quick decline in our status as a great power, a streak of latent xenophobia. If we recoil from Europe it could grow and attain extremely dangerous proportions. Nothing could be worse than a sudden recoil from Europe at this stage.
I hope that it will be possible to get good terms. It would be a mistake for anyone in the House or Europe to think that those who are ardent Europeans in this country believe in going into Europe on any terms. I do not think that anybody holds that view. But we believe and hope that terms can be achieved which will enable us to go in without betraying anybody and yet achieving and contributing a great deal in the future.
6.30 p.m.
Sir Peter Roberts: In listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) I felt that before he was interrupted he was to a certain extent tilting at windmills. There are none in the House but there may be some outside. I do not think that the alternative is the Commonwealth, on the one hand, and Europe on the other.
I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to this extent: we were right to go into these negotiations last August and to have this

729
opportunity of seeing how the discussions have continued. Having listened to the interim report yesterday and today, I cannot help feeling that much has been given away in principle and not very much gained. We seem to have given away the principle of the 20 per cent. common tariff reduction; in the discussions which we have had on manufactured goods from the Commonwealth; and as far as I could follow the Minister of Agriculture last night, we have committed ourselves in principle to some operation of price control which—the kindest thing I can say—seems quite unworkable. In any event, if it works it will involve such an enormous pile of bureaucrats that I believe that it will become extremely frustrating. Those of us who have considered the Coal and Steel Community also feel that if we enter that there will be a great increase in bureaucratic control over those industries.
We also see in the negotiations a new move to accept some form of political evolution. Those who think that we may be able to guide or to restrict the political federal aspirations in Europe are wrong; if we go into this, we must do so with a knowledge that we shall work together with our partners both economically and politically. I warn those who think that we can go in with the idea of trying to restrain a political development towards federation in Europe; but I am certain that, as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, that would lead to a state of destruction.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) made a starry-eyed speech yesterday, but it did not come down to the practical effects upon our industry and our economy. I want to look at the likely short-term effects of this union upon British industry over the next five or ten years. This has not been brought out in the debate so far, although there was a reference to the financial approach of the City of London. It is fair to say that at the moment, by and large, the feeling of the financial centre of the City of London is in favour of joining the Common Market.
If, however, one looks at industry there is a different picture. The Lord Privy Seal said that the 20 per cent. tariff
730
reduction had been accepted by industry. This must be taken with a great deal of circumspection, because we have many facets in industry. First, we have the civil service of industry, the paid directors of the associations, who are the officers of the people who employ them. By and large, they are in favour. Next, there are the leaders of the great combines in industry, and by and large they are in favour because they appreciate that if we go into the Common Market it will be a battle of the giants and will lead to cartels and building up big combines. But hon. Members in their constituencies are beginning to feel that there is a certain reservation from the smaller manufacturers. These are people who do not have a lead in the great federations and associations of industry. We must think about them, and also about the workers, who will be very much affected in the next five or ten years if we go into Europe. We have not given sufficient weight to this.
I want to talk, first, about wages and, secondly, about production. Leaving aside questions of comparable wage rates, I believe that the British workers enjoy a higher standard of living than a great many comparable workers on the Continent. I will give only one example, because I do not want to take up time. Let us compare a steel worker in Sheffield with a steel worker in Luxembourg or a coal miner in Durham with a coal miner in the Ruhr. They all receive a wage of about £17 a week, but the Continental worker has to pay £2 10s. a week more in rent and possibly a £1 a week more for food. This means that the British worker has an extra £3 10s. to spend, and by and large these workers have bought themselves two things, motor cars and television sets. Hon. Members must appreciate that if we go into the Common Market on an equal basis and find fierce competition, and if the European worker is content to go on his bicycle to work and not to have a television set in his house— hon. Members have only to go to the Ruhr or Luxembourg to see this—then either our workers must give up their motor cars and television sets or they will demand more money to keep the instalments going.
Mr. Ellis Smith: They have not cars.
Sir P. Roberts: Many of the steel-workers in Sheffield have them. One has only to look outside some steel factories to see this. I am delighted that this is so. We must appreciate that there will be this squeeze on the standard of living of the British working man. He will demand more wages and that will lead either to industrial unrest or to increased wage demands, which themselves will again make us uncompetitive.
Secondly, on the question of production, we have had here since 1933, under a protective tariff set up by the Conservative Government, a number of small industries grow up which, if we go into this union, will now have to meet competition from the Continent. This will inevitably mean a redeployment of this type of industry, and this again may lead to a certain amount of industrial difficulty and unrest. I think that we must appreciate that this will be the inevitable result.
Moreover, we have the picture a little clearer with regard to food prices. In the discussions yesterday and today on agriculture and on the Commonwealth, no hon. or right hon. Member has mentioned the effect of increased food prices at home. This will be a very serious problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture last night referred to the farmers, but no one referred, for instance, to my constituents in Sheffield who have to buy the food. I have seen some figures, and I think that they are reasonably accurate, which show that if the comparative price level on the Continent were instituted here it would mean that the average wage earner would pay about £1 a week more for food for his household; it may be higher than that. This again will lead to a certain amount of unrest.
I say to the Secretary of State and to the Government that they must also appreciate the political consequences. It is very important that we should think of what will happen in the next five or ten years to the popularity of the Government which brings about these consequences. I am not talking about the long-term effect. I believe that at the end of 10 years or 15 years, all things being equal, the position may be rectified.
732
I am interested to note that a large group of the people who tend to support it are the younger people because they can see their own futures further ahead. Some of the older people, particularly in industry, who thought that they might have another five years on an easier passage after two world wars and the slump of the 'thirties have more reservations. Nevertheless, it is a fact that must be taken into account by those of us who live in the political world.
Mr. Martin Maddan: My hon. Friend was talking about the items that are pre-empted out of the workers pay-packets. In fact, if food prices go up the taxation involved in farm support will go down, and that might be very beneficial to the country.
Sir. P. Roberts: That is rather what I had hoped. It may be so on home-grown food but, so far as I can see, the amount of money that will be brought in by import duties will not come to the taxpayer by way of benefit; it will be paid over to Brussels. What will happen to it then I do not know. It will not have the amount of advantage which I had hoped might have come back to the taxpayers.
I turn to the advantages. I have tried to express to the House what the disadvantages seem to me to be. I have gathered from the various arguments put forward yesterday and today that there are three basic arguments in favour. The first is the question of the stronger economic unity of Britain and Europe, as put so forcibly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford and many others.
The second advantage is the wider market of 180 million extra customers, and the third advantage, if it is an advantage, which has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members opposite, is the threat of cheap labour breaking the wage spiral and leading to more efficient production. We must appreciate that there are some people in favour of the Common Market for that very reason. It is no use our being ostriches about it and saying that they are not.
I take the first suggested advantage in more detail, the stronger economy of Europe and Great Britain.

733
I went with the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), the Secretary of State and others to The Hague in 1948 when there was the first talk of a Council of Europe. At that time, we believed that the greater unification of Europe would be at least a bulwark against the rising tide of Communism. When the Council of Europe was set up it was hailed as a great step forward. But within a year, Mr. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary, had produced N.A.T.O. and all that went with it. Once that had happened and bigger and wider areas had been brought in, the trips to Strasbourg become shorter and shorter in period and less and less effective. I should like to put that analogy to the House. Let us consider what is likely to happen in the future.
The economic war which I think may come—it will not be a shooting war but an economic war—between the great Communist ideal and way of life and the West will be intensified over the next ten years. We cannot look to the democratic capitalism of the West being divided into two camps. That, I believe, would be fatal, and I do not think that it will happen. We shall not see Europe plus Great Britain on the one hand, and the great American economy on the other. Already we are seeing the President of the United States making overtures about the liberalisation of trade. Twenty-five years ago it would have been quite unthinkable that America would have troops in Europe in peacetime, but she has now. As we look further ahead I believe that the problem is one of much greater liberalisation of trade between Europe and America within the Atlantic area. Within that position we have a very strong part to play. Therefore, to all those who say that if we do not go into Europe there is only a bleak prospect ahead and that we shall be an off-shore island without a market, I would say that that is not true.
I believe that we have a greater and more vital rôle to play in bridging the economies of Europe and America in a larger area, which will effectively compete with the Communist-controlled economies. If I am right, if we go into Europe now and become the seventh, or fifteenth or twenty-seventh, State of Europe, and then find that we are mov
734
ing towards this greater Atlantic community, our position will be very much weakened. We shall be one small part instead of one-third. That is an alternative which hon. Members must bear in mind.
The second point, which is made by many hon. Members, is that there are 180 million new customers waiting on the other side of the Channel. But there are also 180 million new competitors waiting on the other side of the Channel. We have to assess the economic climate of the moment. I agreed with the Lord Privy Seal when he said that Europe has had a great development in the last fifteen years. It has been a development based on availability of labour and availability of credit and on a great demand for resuscitation after the war. Everything that economics and history can teach us shows us that that does not go on for ever. There is a period of saturation. It happened after the First World War about 12 years later, in 1931, and I am not sure that we are not moving towards a period, some 17 years after the last war, when it may happen again. We are seeing what is happening in America today.
If we go into Europe in the next year, at a period of decline, we will find our economic position more difficult. It is in periods of decline of demand of this kind, 1933, for instance, that the Conservative Government put on protection in order to help our industries. We may be moving into a period when protection is necessary, and to go in to the Treaty of Rome at such a time may make our position extremely difficult.
There is another factor about customers and competitors. I have recently been to factories in Dusseldorf and Duisberg, in Milan and Genoa, in Amsterdam and elsewhere, admittedly mainly engineering factories. In almost every case I have found new shops and new machinery, up-to-date plant and men working hard. In some factories at home we have companies using German reparation machines which they obtained 17 years ago and which were 10 years' old then. This is not the fault of the British manufacturer, as has sometimes been suggested, because we have not had the tax concessions which the Europeans have had. Nor have we had

735
the money made available as the Europeans have had. Much of Italian industry has been built up with American money, and a good deal of German industry has been built up with American money, and tax concessions.
If that is the fact, as I believe it to be, this country needs at least three years of re-equipment to make itself really competitively efficient; something which we have not been able to do to the same extent as the Germans and the Italians. They have many entirely new shops built up from nothing. We, on the whole, have had new developments in old factories. Hon. Members should remember that when we start in this competitive race, we shall not have the advantage which some hon. Members seem to think. We still have to borrow money at about 6½ per cent. Yet in the past it could be borrowed much more cheaply on the Continent by Continental industrialists.
Finally, I turn to the question of whether these advantages which I have tried to outline—the suggestion of extra customers, and the suggestion of economic unity—are sufficient to make it worth accepting the hammer of our entry into Europe. If it is inflation of which we are frightened, then we should not go into Europe merely to fight inflation. We have our own methods of dealing with it, sometimes successful and sometimes not, but at least sovereign methods.
We should look a good deal further ahead. We may be able to get the best of both worlds. I still believe that we should go on negotiating, and I still hope that we shall be able to get the sort of terms we want, but I am getting extremely doubtful that we shall. Time is on our side. We have a wider horizon than Europe to consider. I see our part as once again being a bridge between Europe and the New World. Therefore, let us not hastily throw that opportunity away and saddle ourselves with a union which may well bring industrial unrest at home and loss of our political destiny abroad.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Oram: I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), not necessarily because I accept all his arguments, but because he imported into the debate some new themes which have
736
been somewhat neglected in earlier speeches. I entirely agree with him that it is not only wage levels which we need to compare as between this country and the countries of Europe, but also what those wages will buy. The two things must be taken in conjunction with one another, and it is to that theme that I wish to apply my speech.
The hon. Member was a little mixed up when he was interrupted on the subject of taxation reliefs being possible as the result of saving on subsidies. He seemed to be mixed up between levies going into the Community pool and the real saving which would arise out of a change over from the deficiency payments system. However, I shall return to that later.
Most of the speeches have been attached to the familiar pegs in this controversy. Many today have referred to Commonwealth trade and others have been about agriculture, how we can deal with agriculture and preserve the standard of living of our farming communities and so on. Those are becoming familiar themes of speeches on the Common Market and the negotiations.
However, I call attention, as the hon. Member for Heeley did, to another test, what to me is a vital test of the success or otherwise of the negotiations, the test of the effect on the British consumer, the British housewife. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to this very effectively yesterday. We had a brief reference from the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that retail prices will go up. Apart from those two references, in the rest of the speeches and in the debate in the Press over the last year, I have always felt that this vital question of how the British housewife is to fare if we go into Europe has been underplayed.
Unless something like a miracle is achieved at Brussels by the British negotiators, the British housewife, if and when Britain joins the Community, will have a very hard knock. Even if the negotiations turn out much more favourably than any of us dares to hope, she will still find week by week that the prices which She has to pay in the shops, especially for foodstuffs, will be a shock.
Perhaps all the conditions which hon. Members have been putting forward as necessary to be satisfied can be satisfied

737
to some degree, but a price will have to be paid for them and it may be that that price will be put upon the housewife. I recognise that not all the argument is on one side, just as it is not always on one side in any of the aspects of this complicated problem. For example, if we go into the Community the British consumer will get some advantage with fruit and vegetables.
Our horticultural industry will probably suffer, but the consumer of those commodities will be better off. Imports will come in from the Continent duty-free. Furthermore, if the horticultural industry has to pull up its socks and put its house in order in such matters as grading and packaging in order to compete with goods from the Continent the consumer will benefit still further. The consumer of Continental wines will also no doubt derive some benefit if we join. But I suggest that when we weigh in the balance the advantages to the consumer against the manifest and manifold disadvantages that will arise unless this miracle of negotiation is achieved at Brussels, it is clear that the British housewife will have a raw deal.
When I entered into informal conversations in Brussels a few weeks ago it was said that the agricultural system now being planned within the Common Market will ensure that within Europe commodities are grown in those areas best suited to them. Reverting to the question of horticultural imports, there is obviously sense and logic in growing things where the climate is best suited to grow them, but if that is so in relation to horticulture and Europe it must surely apply to the production and consumption of food on a world scale. Surely the British consumer is also entitled to have the benefit of imports of wheat from the prairies of Canada, if that is the place where wheat can most efficiently be produced. Surely he is entitled to have the full benefit of beef from Australia, if that is the place where cattle can best be reared.
The suggestion that the sensible thing to do is to produce things in the areas most suited for them and to let trade bring the advantage to the consumer applies on a world scale as much as or even more than it does within Europe.
I have tried to follow these discussions as closely as I can, and I have found that even the keenest advocate of
738
our joining the Common Market has to admit—as the Minister of Agriculture admitted last night—that retail prices will rise. Estimates vary. There is a good deal of guesswork, and I am in no position to make an estimate of the increase in retail prices. But the Government should be in a position to make an estimate. They ought to be able to acquaint the British people with the facts of the present situation. They have given us very little indication of the effect upon the housekeeping of the average British family which will result from these negotiations.
Even if they are not in a position, at this moment, to make any useful estimate on that point, they must be in a position to do so when they have concluded the negotiations. I suggest that in September it will not be sufficient merely to tell the visiting Commonwealth Prime Ministers what will be the effect of the external tariff on Commonwealth trade, but that they must tell the British housewife what the effect will be upon her housekeeping.
In its 1951 election campaign the Conservative Party said in its manifesto:
"A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme on rising costs and prices."
I suggest that the outcome of the present negotiations will also be judged largely by that criterion. I do not suggest that that is the only standard of judgment; many other matters must be taken into account. Nevertheless, it is right to call attention to that most important standard of judgment that we should have constantly in mind.
The Government already know that they will have to abandon the British system of agricultural price support and deficiency payments. They already know that this will mean a transfer of the burden from the taxpayer to the consumer. Calculations have been made that this will mean a rise of a least 2s. per week per head in the country's food bill. That estimate having been made, the point immediately arises—as it arose in the intervention during the speech made by the hon. Member for Heeley—whether there will be a saving to the taxpayer of, shall we say, £250 million, and whether the Chancellor will not therefore be able to cushion by taxation changes the effect of the increase in the cost of living.

739
That is a possibility, but, after the experience of the last two Budgets, are we entitled to be confident that those who will suffer most by the increase in the food bill will get proportionate compensation from tax changes? I do not think that we can be at all confident that that will be so. In the last two or three years the tendency has been to transfer the emphasis from direct to indirect taxation. The people who will have to bear most of the burden of the increased price of food will be those on retirement pensions and those with large families, in whose weekly budgets food is a most important item of expenditure. Those are the people who are also paying proportionately more in indirect taxes. Consequently, I fear that when these negotiations have been worked out the people to whom I have referred will find that they are not only paying more for their food but more in indirect taxation.
I want to develop the question of taxation a little further. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out that under Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome the Community will require to harmonise its taxation systems. He gave us some figures showing the extent to which the British direct taxes form a much bigger proportion of the total revenue than is the case with our Continental neighbours. In the United Kingdom, 48 per cent. of the revenue is raised by means of direct taxes, but among the countries of the Six the proportion is distinctly lower. Consequently, when our tax system is harmonised with those of continental countries it is likely to be made more and more regressive, because the tax systems on the Continent are more regressive than ours.
The Budget which we debated recently prepared the way for this harmonisation. In one of our debates I made the point that it was clear that the Chancellor was moving away from the traditional British pattern of Purchase Tax towards a system of a sales tax, which is prevalent on the Continent. He has extended Purchase Tax over a considerably wider field and has doubled the lower rate of Purchase Tax from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. Before long we are likely to find ourselves faced with a tax of about 15 per cent. on a wide range of commodi-
740
ties which are not at the moment subject to Purchase Tax.
Some hon. Members opposite might welcome that development, but from the point of view of the consumer, and especially the consumer with inadequate means, this is an unfair system of taxation. I would not welcome it. But that this is what is in the Chancellor's mind is clear from his Budget speech, when he said:
"I believe that we must begin to reform the structure of Purchase Tax, particularly if we are to go into Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 991.]
It is therefore more than a suggestion; it is a declared objective that we are going to reform our system of indirect taxes to bring it more into line with the system operating on the Continent. That would be a very retrograde step from the point of view of consumers.
In addition to the higher prices which consumers will pay and the adverse tax changes which they will face, there is another danger—the danger that consumer standards will fall. It is a very difficult exercise to harmonise the standards which prevail in a number of countries. It is all too tempting for the negotiators to take the easy way out of a difficult situation by agreeing to the lowest common denominator.
I want to give one illustration of this. I have here what I suppose might be described as the Belgian equivalent of Which?, with which most hon. Members are familiar. This document contains an article on the harmonisation of the regulations concerning colourants permitted to be used in the manufacture of food. The magazine is most critical of the harmonisation proposals which have been put forward within the Community. It points to the danger that the standards are distinctly lower when they are pooled than those which exist in many individual countries. I want to read one or two quotations from the magazine. The translation is my own, and therefore not to be trusted too much, but I think that I have conveyed the meaning of the criticisms. The magazine says:
As we have feared for a long time, harmonisation has allowed the rehabilitation of certain suspect food colourants not authorised in several member States … The directive of the Common Market has not given first

741
place to the necessity for protecting the public health … At no time have the authorities of the Community seen fit to seek the advice of consumers … This proves once more that the harmonisation is conducted with the prime purpose of protecting industry."
That is only one item of consumer protection, but it is sufficient to make me hesitate as to whether from the consumer point of view the linking up of Britain with the Community will be a good thing.
Some hon. Friends and I endeavour to watch political affairs distinctly from the point of view of the consumer. In the past we have had to complain when we have felt that our agricultural price support system is weighted too much in favour of the farmer as against the consumer or taxpayer, but however critical we have been of the current system in this country we are ardent supporters of it by comparison with the system into which we are likely to be plunged. For us it would seem a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
On other occasions, we have complained about the incidence of Purchase Tax and the way in which that is a regressive tax unfair to the consumer element of society, but however critical we are of Purchase Tax and all the anomalies and unfairnesses we see in it, we very much prefer it to the sales tax we see in operation on the Continent.
We do all we can to increase standards of consumer protection in this country, not with any very active support from the Government. We make occasional slow and painful progress. The danger I see is that instead of making progress if we join the Common Market we may slip back because the standards which will be applied will be those of the weakest of the member States.
For these reasons, when we look at these negotiations and when we look at the question of Britain joining the Common Market from the point of view of the consumer, I find the prospect somewhat depressing. I hope that our negotiators in Brussels will be firm in insisting that the best of our British experience in the matters to which I have called attention will be maintained in the arrangements reached as a result of the negotiations, but I rather fear that will not be the outcome. I rather fear that in taxation matters and these other matters it will be a case of our con-
742
forming with the Six rather than the Six adapting their systems to ours. For that reason I believe this country will be better out of Europe than in.
7.8 p.m.
Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) was quite right from his point of view and his knowledge through the Co-operative movement of the interests of consumers to concentrate his speech on that aspect of the matter. When I talk of agriculture, as I hope to do in the few minutes I desire to detain the House, if I can remember I shall probably refer in more detail to his speech.
Before I do so, however. I want to say one or two words about the political aspect of this proposed union with Europe. The Preamble to the Treaty of Rome says in its first words:
"Determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples."
It is clear that legally that does not involve us in a political union with Europe, but I was alarmed by the remarks both of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) yesterday and of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Six P. Roberts) today that if we join the economic union it is only a question of time before we have to go into the political union. That is something we have to watch extremely carefully. What are we to be landed into? If it is a federal structure, I am afraid I could not accept it, because the various States with a certain amount of home rule would be combining in a sort of United States of Europe. Incidentally, I think the Scottish people might well demand home rule—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— but I do not want to accept that. If it is a confederal structure, I would be prepared to accept it on certain terms. I shall watch in future as I have watched in the past the progress of this Fouchet-Cattani Committee very carefully indeed. When the crunch comes, I do not want to vote for something which I am not perfectly convinced will retain our independence and sovereignty and the independence and sovereignty of the House of Commons.
There has been a great deal of talk in this debate about the Commonwealth

743
and I do not want to labour the point very much more. I was in the House in 1932 when the late Neville Chamberlain had his great triumph and was applauded by everyone in the House when we went over to tariffs and Imperial Preference. I was in the House, too, when the Ottawa Agreements were debated later that year. It is a sentimental attachment in a way which I still retain for the ideal of Commonwealth Imperial Preference.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Member give way?
Sir J. Duncan: No, because I want to speak shortly.
Mr. Allen: The hon. Member's history is a bit wrong. Everybody approved.
Sir J. Duncan: The fact is that that agreement and that change of policy were made at a time of acute unemployment after the 1929–1931 recession. In my view, they were made too late. If it had been done by Joe Chamberlain instead of Neville Chamberlain it would have been more to the point. In the intervening years the Commonwealth has grown up. Now it consists of sovereign and independent States, some of which are under the Crown and some republican. Although I have a sentimental attachment to the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I am forced to the conclusion that the Empire as I knew it has grown up and that the conditions are entirely different now and must be looked at in a different way.
Therefore, I do not disagree with the export trade from the Dominions being thrown into the pool as a gift towards the ideal of a Common Market, but we must realise that if we are doing that Commonwealth countries are going to do the same to us. It is not only a white Commonwealth we are talking about now. India and other countries have a large trade running into hundreds of millions of pounds. I am not yet convinced that by giving in on the one side we may not be risking a great deal on the other. Commonwealth countries are concerned about manufactured goods. It seems that we have a market there which retains preferences with the sentiment, and if the preference goes the sentiment will go too. Those countries
744
more and more will tend to think that they can expand their markets in other countries, and thus we shall lose those markets.
One thing about Asian goods I must mention, because it is an important constituency problem. Most of the row has been about cotton, and I am interested in jute. Jute is a very special problem. Before I can agree, when the crunch comes, to vote, I must know exactly where we are to be in relation to the jute trade. The European Jute Trade Association has views on this matter. I shall not go into details about what they are, but I believe that if the British Government backs the European Jute trade in its proposal it has a better chance of keeping the trade of Dundee and district prosperous than it has with any proposal that any European Community or the British Government have put forward up to now. It is of very great importance, because the jute trade is so concentrated in my area.
One word about temperate foodstuffs, because those seem to be most difficult to deal with. It does not seem that we should agree to anything that would be only temporary. What we have to do is to get some agreement which would be permanent in character and would assure a market for the products of New Zealand, Australia and Canada in the long term and not merely in the short term. Is there not a great risk of the break-up of these intangible ties in the Empire which still unite us by the collapse of the tangibles? I leave it at that.
I want to concentrate now on farming. I think I am the first hon. Member on either side on the back benches to talk about farming to any great extent in this debate. As other hon. Members have read from the Treaty, I wish to read from Article 39. It says:
"The common agricultural policy shall have as its objectives:

(a) to increase agricultural productivity by developing technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, particularly labour;

(b) to ensure thereby a fair standard of living for the agricultural population, particularly by the increasing of the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

(c) to stabilise markets;

(d) to guarantee regular supplies; and

745

(e) to ensure reasonable prices in supplies to consumers."

Those objectives we can all agree with. The real point is how they are to be worked out. The Minister of Agriculture in his speech last night revealed some of the difficulties. First, there was the difficulty about the Six themselves in coming to any agreement among themselves by the due date and the dodge they had to take of stopping the clock for fourteen days when they shut themselves up in their room until they signed an agreement. It was an agreement which is extremely vague and lays down principles only. It has not been really worked out at all. The working out is still going on.
There seem to be certain things on which we must insist. Therefore, I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate, is the Annual Review accepted? I am not quite sure if it is. Is it to be an Annual Price Review or not? The two things are different. How long is the transitional period to be? How are we to achieve a balance between the various commodity arrangements which are being made?
My right hon. Friend said last night:
"The fact that such a delicate balance will have to be drawn means that it must be a total, comprehensive and pretty sophisticated agricultural policy as a whole, by means of which influence can be brought to bear both upon pricing policies and also upon levels of production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1962; Vol, 661, c. 607.]
How are we going to achieve that? At the moment there are just a series of prospective provisional commodity agreements. How are we going to get a balance overall in Europe with a sophisticated comprehensive policy, and how also are we going to retain the liberty to maintain some sort of balance for ourselves?
I think that if I refer to one or two of the commodities it will be seen what I mean. Let us consider cereals, that is to say wheat, barley and rye. Incidentally, oats must come in because although there is no international trade in oats, if we, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries come in, there will be international trade in oats and therefore we must include this cereal in our consideration. I am going to use some of the strange words used by my right hon. Friend, such as target prices, and intervention prices with a variable level.
746
As an illustration of what I mean, if the target price is fixed high, say £35 a ton for wheat, the whole of Europe will be growing it. So shall we. We will thus distort the whole pattern of production not only here but in Europe. It seems to me that in dealing with the other commodities—and I will mention them in a minute—we have to get through the Commission, through the Council of Ministers, not only a balanced production in Europe, but leave a loophole somehow so that Britain can retain her balance of production in this country.
The whole system of agriculture in this country is based on the fertility of the soil. If we are to be a wheat growing area only, or a livestock area only, without any cereal growing at all simply because of the distortion of prices, then in the end this will not be to the best advantage of British farmers or to the best advantage of our land. We therefore have to try to achieve not only a comprehensive European policy, but to leave a loophole to achieve a proper balance in our own agricultural policy.
As far as I could follow my right hon. Friend last night, he dealt with pig meat and eggs next. There would be complete free internal trade only supported by levies on imports from outside the Community. This is all right for the Six because there is no surplus among the Six of pig meat or eggs, but if we and Denmark go in, and the Scandinavian countries also come in, we shall create a surplus. We therefore must in some way ensure a properly organised market, perhaps on the cereals principle, so that there is adequate protection for the producers in this country, because I repeat that paragraph (b) of Article 39 seeks to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural population.
Next I come to milk and dairy products. We have a target price, a threshold price for dairy products, and an intervention price for butter. This is even more complicated than I have said, because New Zealand butter must come into this. I do not think it has been appreciated that in the proposals by the Six so far this threshold price would not only be damaging to New Zealand but would cut off supplies into the Six until prices rose again. How can we treat New Zealand like this? We cannot allow this to happen with a

747
threshold price. Something must be done to fit in not only Danish butter protection, Dutch butter protection, but to ensure for all time, and not just temporarily, a share of the market for New Zealand.
The difficulties in milk and milk products are extremely serious, because the price of milk in Europe is low and comparatively high here, whereas the price of milk products is comparatively low here and fairly high on the Continent. The consumption of liquid milk accounts for 75 per cent. of our output, and the consumption of milk products accounts for 25 per cent. On the Continent it is the other way round. We have a long way to go and some difficult negotiations to conduct not only to harmonise the price of liquid milk but also to ensure a fair market for New Zealand.
Dealing next with beef and veal, we have a tariff of 20 per cent. plus a guide price and a levy on imports on top of the tariff. We also have import licensing for meat products. This is a pretty stiff bill for the housewife to pay. As I say, there is a tariff of 20 per cent. plus a levy on imports if the price does not come up to the guide price. If there is too much meat about—and here we have to think of Australian beef as well as our own—farmers may be all right, but I am sorry for the British housewife who will have to pay a very high price for her beef.
Incidentally, under our existing system—and I mention this because the hon. Member for East Ham, South talked so much about food prices—we must inevitably get rid of the deficiency payment system if we go in. This will mean that the housewife will have to take up some of the price from which she is at present saved by the deficiency payment system. The taxpayers pay the money for her. It is inevitable that these deficiency payments will have to be scrapped, but I think that there must be some limit on the demand on the housewife's purse, and I think that beef is a good example of how imports from abroad will force up the price. It may well be that the guide price will be so high as to make it difficult to sell in some of the markets in Europe.
748
There is another thing which is of interest to New Zealand and for which there is no provision. I am referring to mutton and lamb. They do not rear many sheep in Europe, so they have never thought about this, but we have a lot of good lambs, and so has New Zealand. Some provision must be made not only for our lambs but for New Zealand's. If we could only induce the butchers of France to cut up lamb properly, French beef would not get a look in.
I disagree with what the hon. Member for East Ham, South said about horticulture. Horticulture has been a vulnerable industry for a long time. They have been protected by tariffs, sometimes specific and sometimes ad valorem, but they are being attacked from Europe. It is not much use having a common tariff around Europe when very little horticultural produce comes in from outside Europe. The competitors are there in Europe, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, even though he does recognise the views of the consumers, will realise that if the producers are badly off or become bankrupt, in the end it will not be good for the consumers either.
For instance, if it is found to be impossible to make a profit out of tomatoes, if we go into Europe, and the hon. Gentlemen's consumers will have to rely entirely on Dutch, French or other tomatoes, having starved the British out, they will be no better off in having to pay a higher price to the Continental producers. Therefore, I ask him to be more sympathetic to the horticultural producers of this country, particularly the glass-house ones, who are those most likely to be hard hit.
I am like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not criticise him at all for sitting on the fence. We have not reached the stage of the crunch yet. Let us watch what the Government do, let us give them constructive criticism, as I have tried to do, but, so far as things are today, I shall want a great deal more assurance than I have had up to date, on agriculture, on the Commonwealth and on the political side of these proposals, before I would vote for these proposals when the time comes.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) into the intricacies of the agricultural arrangements, but, at least, I agree with what he said earlier when talking of the need for the protection of the jute industry. As a native of the city of Dundee, which is the centre of the British jute industry, I naturally have a great interest in the prosperity of that trade.
Naturally, a good deal of the discussion has been about the Commonwealth, and, I think also fairly naturally, there have been a number of exaggerated claims made for the possibility of the Commonwealth as an alternative to the Common Market. Naturally again, when exaggerated claims are made it is not very difficult to demolish them, and I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) quite devastatingly demolished the exaggerated Commonwealth position that has been put in this debate by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Having demolished that exaggerated claim for the Commonwealth does not dispose of the Commonwealth altogether, and I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford rather dismissed the sentimental attachment to the Commonwealth, because, even if the economic advantages to Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth are not as great as are sometimes claimed, sentiment, nevertheless, is a very important thing in politics, as all of us ought to recognise.
Even if the other members of the Commonwealth are misguided about this, and even if they place too great importance on what has happened, for example, about the arrangements for manufactured goods, it is a factor we have to take into consideration. Whether we accept that their concern is fully justified or not, the fact is that they have that concern, which in itself is an important factor in the situation, but one which my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford dismissed far too lightly.
Even if we make that qualification, and even if we prove that some of the Commonwealth difficulties are not as
750
great as they are often made out to be, that is very far from proving that, on the other hand, there are economic advantages to us to a very considerable extent in joining the Common Market, because the two are entirely separate questions. To prove that the economic advantages of the present Commonwealth arrangements are often overstated is not to prove that it would be very considerably to our economic advantage to go into Europe. I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right about this in his speech yesterday, when he said that the balance of advantage, economically, is probably very slight. It has been noticeable that none of the great enthusiasts for the Common Market in this debate so far have taken up the challenge of presenting and proving the economic case in any detailed way. I think that that case cannot be proved, and I do not believe that there is an overwhelming economic case for Britain joining the Common Market. I do not believe that that case can be put, either in this debate or in any other way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford also mentioned one particular aspect of the economic advantages of British entry into the Common Market, namely, the fact that we should be operating from a very considerable home market. Obviously, that is true, but that is very easily exaggerated, because a market of 50 million people is not, after all, a small market in modern terms. It is very easy to treat the economy or industry as a whole, and to forget, when we are talking about exports or Britain's competitive position, that we are not just talking of industry but of particular firms in particular industries. Any particular firm in British industry already has a firm base in the market in this country of 50 million people.
If the anti-monopoly provisions in the Treaty of Rome work effectively—and that is something that remains to be seen—then the argument about the very large home market in the Common Market loses a considerable amount of its validity, because we must deal not with industry as a whole, but with particular firms in particular industries. Therefore, I do not think that there can be any overwhelming economic advantages, for

751
these and a number of other reasons which could be demonstrated, in our joining the Common Market.
If there are no considerable economic advantages, at least in the short-term— and no doubt the long-term may be different, though, as we have so often found in the last ten years, short-term considerations are very important to the British economy—and if we have these difficulties with the Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and so on, then the whole question of British entry becomes a question of the balance of advantages and disadvantages. There is, to my mind, no overwhelming case in the one direction or the other, and the first thing that ought to be said about this is that it is very dangerous, both from the British point of view and also from the point of view of the Six, to talk in over-dramatic terms about the consequences of British failure to get accession to the Common Market. I think that we talk in over-dramatic terms about this, to a very great extent, because although it would be very serious, quite obviously, if the negotiations broke down now, I do not think it would be an absolute disaster or the end of the world, either for Britain or for the Common Market countries.
The seriousness of the situation would depend to a considerable extent on the attitude we took towards the negotiations, and that is why I deplore the implication, which has so often been found in the speeches of the Lord Privy Seal in particular, that we really must go into the Common Market at all costs. I know that in the detailed analysis and exposition of the Government position, the Lord Privy Seal has not said so in so many words, but anyone who has read the statement which he made last October or the statement to W.E.U. in April or his speeches generally must get the impression that the right hon. Gentleman thinks in terms that it would be an extremely serious, and perhaps even a disastrous, position for Britain if we did not get into Europe.
I do not want to speak about the Commonwealth, because that position has already been exhaustively covered, but about several other aspects which are worth mentioning. Little attention has been given to the question of the
752
position of the neutrals, although we are bound to the neutral countries through the E.F.T.A. arrangements. I listened last month at the Council of Europe to M. Spaak of Belgium on the question of the neutrals' application for association with the Common Market. I was extremely depressed and rather frightened at the tone adopted by M. Spaak. He is not the complete Six but, as one of the founders of the Common Market, he is an extremely influential personality in the present negotiations. What he has to say must be carefully considered.
The tenor of his speech was that if the neutrals want not accession but association they must seriously consider giving up their neutral position. There are special circumstances—for instance, for Austria because that country has certain treaty responsibilities—why they wish to remain neutral. I am not sure that I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the position of Switzerland, although that country has managed to avoid involvement in world war, which is a considerable achievement. Naturally the people of that country do not want to give up a neutrality which has brought them considerable benefit.
There is also the special position of Sweden. It is my firm impression that Sweden will not become associated if it means giving up the kind of neutral position she has traditionally adopted. It is also my impression that it is not only the United States that is pressing that the neutrals should not be admitted to the Six but that there are strong feelings among the Six that it would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Rome Treaty if the neutrals were admitted.
If we consider the spirit of the E.F.T.A. declaration and the precise terms of it, we find that we have already committed ourselves. We should make it absolutely clear that we shall not accede to the Treaty unless proper arrangements are made for the three neutral countries, particularly Sweden, because of the implications of the Swedish position to Norway and Denmark.
The question of the future democratic control of the institutions of the Six has not been dealt with sufficiently. This is an important question about which

753
the Government should give us more information. If one reads the Treaty of Rome one is constantly struck by the fact that the initiative in so many cases rests with the Commission and not with the Council of Ministers. The Commission makes proposals which the Council can accept or reject but cannot, in most cases, amend. Thus there is tremendous power in the hands of the Commission.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hail Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) said yesterday that it was an excellent thing that the Commission was independent and was not subservient to any nation or Power and could, therefore, take an objective view. That is a rather naive view of the Commission, because it is not in any sense a completely independent body. It has a very strong vested interest in the development of the federal idea. In fact, the greatest impetus and movement towards the federal idea came from the Commission. Those in the European political parties who are most concerned with the Rome Treaty and the development of a complete federation want the Commission to be given not less powers but additional ones.
The rather ironic thing is that the European Parliamentary Assembly, which should be exerting some sort of democratic pull or influence on the Commission and should be concerned with bringing the Commission to democratic account, in fact feels the opposite. It wishes to give additional powers to the Commission because it feels that the Council of Ministers is a restraining influence in the development of the federal idea. It is important, therefore, that we should know what the British Government think of the future roles of the European Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Ministers.
The point made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers is important because the Council is the only body which is now really responsible, in the fullest sense of the word, because each of the Ministers has certain responsibilities to his national Parliament. I repeat that we need a great deal more information about this aspect of the Treaty.
It has shocked me to find the readiness with which the politicians of the Six—
754
and I speak from experience of W.E.U.— would be willing to divest themselves of democratic control of the Commission's activities. The argument they use is that it is only by giving more power to the Commission that there will be some movement. That was the argument used by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green yesterday and it is a classically anti-democratic one. After all, one of the classic arguments against democracy is that it prevents things being done too quickly and that if one really wants to get things moving one must take away these democratic controls.
The questions of the democratic control of the Commission and the Council of Ministers and the future rôle of the European Parliamentary Assembly are not only important now but they will become increasingly important as the transitional stage of the Rome Treaty continues and, eventually, when the Treaty is finally in operation. The idea of federalism is not concerned exclusively with questions of common foreign and defence policies. If that were the case and if the only points involved were those, while the arguments would be important they would not be of overwhelming importance because, whether we like it or not, Britain does not now exercise a completely independent foreign or defence policy.
Obviously Britain cannot do that, for we have obligations towards N.A.T.O. and the W.E.U. regarding defence and foreign affairs. Thus Britain cannot exercise a completely independent influence, particularly on the question of East-West relations. If the arguments concerned only foreign and defence policies they would be evenly balanced, but there is also the question of the economic union which is implied and, in some cases, specifically indicated, in the Treaty itself. There are certain aspects of the economic union about which we need a great deal more information from the Government.
Several other vital matters have been mentioned; taxation and the important question of the social services. While there is nothing specifically in the Treaty of Rome about the complete harmonisation of the social services there is an implication that the Community will move towards harmonisation. There is no other indication of what is intended,

755
but this is an important matter that must be worked out and kept in mind in the future.
I do not believe that the economic necessities of the Treaty necessarily imply that we should have harmonisation of social services. I do not say that because I believe that the social services of Great Britain are necessarily better than those on the Continent or because I believe sincerely that the way that we finance our social services is better than the way they are financed in the countries of the Six. It is simply that I do not think that uniformity for uniformity's sake is a good thing. Whatever economic advantages there may be in the economic provisions of the Treaty, I do not believe it necessarily follows that we should also accept the principle of harmonisation of social services or the harmonisation of taxation provisions and a whole number of other things which, if not specifically included in the Treaty, are implicit in some of its provisions.
We are entitled to have the Government's view on all these things, because it is not just a question of negotiations on current problems. Most of the current problems can probably be solved. I am confident that the Government will produce some sort of solution. I am not saying that it will necessarily be a solution that we on this side or I personally would be willing to accept. but I think that the Government will produce some solution arising out of the current negotiations.
That is not the end of the matter. Before we decide on the particular agreement that the Government bring forward we shall also want to know what the Government and what the Community of the Six are thinking about the further implications of the Treaty. We have had absolutely nothing about that from the Government so far. I hope that at the end of the debate this evening we will have something, at least briefly and in principle, from the Lord Privy Seal about these various aspects of the Treaty. These are many of the questions which we shall have to take into account before we finally decide whether we shall accept the agreement that the Government will eventually bring forward.
I repeat that there seems to me at the moment to be no overwhelming case
756
either for or against our going into Europe. That makes it all the more important that we get the answers to these questions, answers which unfortunately the Government have not so far even attempted to give.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Aitken: I do not sit quite so much on the fence as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan). I go quite a long way, because I am one of those people who believe that it is possible to reconcile the interests of the Commonwealth, the interests of Great Britain and the interests of the Common Market. Everything I have heard in the last two days has encouraged me in that way of thinking a good deal more than I expected it to. If the Lord Privy Seal and his staff can look after the interest of the tropical products of our Commonwealth, if he can get consideration for the low cost manufactures of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, and if he can deal satisfactorily with the more massive problem of temperate foodstuffs, I cannot but believe that the prospects for the Commonwealth, Great Britain and the Common Market must take a great leap forward.
Beside these three fundamental immediate problems, I must admit that I do not see any great hazards as regards the harmonisation of social services and our own agriculture. I do not even see anything very frightening, alarming or disturbing about the questions of sovereignty other than those we are already committed to under the Treaty of Rome, which are being so fiercely debated within the Common Market. We must by the very nature of the Treaty of Rome as it now is have a good deal of control over these matters. Who knows but that the next ten, fifteen or twenty years will produce entirely new concepts? The main thing is that we have that matter under our control.
At the outset of his speech yesterday my right hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the officials who serve under him. Anyone who has ever tried to follow these matters and get in touch with the same people in Europe who are dealing with these things must be aware of the very high regard in which Europe holds our officials. Our public servants in these great matters are often regarded

757
as cogs in the machinery, but there can be no doubt that our European friends have come to realise more and more that these cogs are made of very fine metal indeed and that they will undoubtedly play an enormous part in the success or failure of the way in which we handle the details. What seems to me to be so incredibly difficult is the constant surveillance of all the details. These men received a very well-deserved tribute from the Minister.
Most people would agree with my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday that this matter is No. 1 topic amongst the constituencies, the Press and business people today. No issue since the end of the war has aroused such a general interest throughout the community. I have been a frequent visitor to a good many parts of the Commonwealth throughout the last few years, and I can tell the House that very much the same thing is happening there. The country I know best is Canada. I am a frequent visitor there, as well as to the United States. It is remarkable how much more discussed this topic has been and how much better informed the discussion has been in Canada and America over the last two or three years. Not only that, but the idea which took such a long time to capture the imagination of forward-thinking people in this country is now very much to the fore in those countries.
I am not privy to the secrets of the Cabinet in Canada, or those of members of the Government, or those of big business men, or those of the big people concerned in the decisions on policy in these matters. But I read their newspapers; I have to. I confess an interest, financial and otherwise, in several publications in Canada. One could not help noticing over the last year or so how many of the outstanding bankers, heads of insurance companies, the people who control the great extractive industry, business men, and investors have publicly expressed their approval and good wishes for Britain's success in these negotiations.
Canada, like Great Britain, is a great exporting country, one of the biggest in the world in proportion to its population. She is perhaps the best equipped in the world today to meet the needs of the latter half of the twentieth century.
758
The one fact of which so many people are now aware of in Canada is that the European Economic Community is the biggest importer of raw materials in the world. It is the biggest exporter of manufactured goods. It has gold reserves just equal to, if not now slightly in excess of, those of the United States. It has a phenomenal rate of economic growth. Canadians clearly are very aware of this. They are also acutely aware and worried about the fact that four-fifths of Canadian foreign investment is controlled by the Americans. At the last general election in Canada this was a major issue. They are aware that the whole of their motor car industry is controlled by the Americans. Two-thirds of their oil industry is controlled by the Americans. Half their chemical and paper industries, one-third of their aircraft industry, as well as huge stakes in all their extractive industries, are controlled by the Americans.
They now see right before their noses the development of a huge new expanding industrial and capital market of possibly 250 million people. Canada, and Australia too, know full well that the gravest weakness of Britain today vis-à-vis these parts of the Commonwealth is lack of capital. We are not producing enough new capital every year to meet anything like the needs even of the older Commonwealth. They know full well that the banking machinery and the financial organisations in the City of London still have a unique expertise of their own. There is no country in the world can match them. It is still true to say that a good many of the people who are providing capital from abroad are compelled by the very nature of their problems to use the City of London machinery.
Many people in the Commonwealth are well aware that the money is simply running out of their ears in Europe and they do not know how to invest it. I believe that this will present Canada with a unique opportunity when this vast new capital market gets under way. Many people in Canada now realise that Canada's best hope of remaining Canadian may well lie in the influence which Britain can exercise on a potential capital market which in a few years time may well make the Wall Street boys look like country bankers.

759
I do not see how the obvious and almost certain creation of an evergrowing industrial and capital market, which is already the greatest importer of raw materials in the world, can in the long run be disadvantageous to our Commonwealth. This must be very evident indeed to many of those Commonwealth countries which depend for their livelihood primarily on basic industries or are concerned not only with producing but also processing raw materials. On many of these countries the common tariff will fall very lightly. I am sure that if we succeed in getting the Common Market to accept the long and impressive list of Commonwealth raw materials with which it has been presented—I see no reason why it should not accept them —it must do a great deal to compensate a good many countries for some of the discomforts they will suffer and the adjustments they will have to make. I cannot but believe that if we succeed in getting free entry for raw materials such as newsprint, pulp and paper, zinc, copper and aluminium, the moaning and the groaning and occasional screams from some directions will be considerably muted.
I was very much impressed with a point made by the Leader of the Opposition. It came at the precise point of time in his speech when he fell off his fence for a moment. It was where he said that on balance the economic argument may be favourable largely because of the attraction of foreign, particularly American, capital as a result.
A few days ago, I saw something which impressed me very much in this connection. It certainly reinforces the right hon. Gentleman's view. The publication in which this appeared was called Costs and Competition, a publication by one of the American foundations, I believe, which made some research into the costs of setting up factories in overseas countries. It took the United States as a median, the basic index, and showed the difference in costs. This is a fairly recent publication, and I do not think that the conditions and costs on which it was based have changed very much.
Taking the United States as 100, and taking into consideration the cost of materials, overheads, sales and other costs, the cost of setting up an average
760
sort of establishment in the United Kingdom is on average 16 per cent. lower than it is in the United States. The average cost of setting up a factory in the Common Market countries compared with the United States is only 3 per cent. lower. In other words, there is a 3 per cent. advantage in the Common Market countries if one wishes to set up a new American factory compared with a 16 per cent. advantage if one wants to set up a new factory in the United Kingdom. In Canada, there is a 10 per cent. disadvantage in costs compared with those in the U.S.A., in Latin America a 25 per cent. disadvantage and in Australia a 16 per cent. disadvantage.
These are quite impressive figures, especially at this time when there seems to be a good deal of moaning and grizzling about the ability of British industry to compete. They are the facts, and they are indeed relevant and heartening support for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.
My only other point in support of my perhaps quite unreasonable optimism about the Commonwealth is this. Those of us who have spent a good deal of time and energy on Commonwealth affairs in recent years cannot help but be impressed at the immense infra-structure, to use a horrible word, of functional co-operation which has been built up within the Commonwealth over the last few years. This is quite beside trade; it has nothing to do with trade. It has been patiently and carefully built up by the Commonwealth Relations Office and by all the organisations which exist to develop Commonwealth relations, Commonwealth self-help and mutual assistance. Many people here are well aware of the feeling of ever-growing interdependence which there is in many Commonwealth matters in which Members of Parliament are so often engaged.
There is the vast hidden empire of the English language, laws and tradition, which continues to grow. There are the myriad of personal contacts and family relationships. Something like 30,000 Canadian soldiers took English brides back to Canada after the war. Those of us who take part in the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association must be aware of the tremendous importance—which surely becomes more manifest year by year—of Commonwealth Parliamentary co-operation in

761
the Commonwealth. Next to the Crown itself, one of the strongest of the common bonds between us is probably the Parliamentary procedure and consultation, and the machinery for this form of consultation is something with which your Department, Sir William, has had so much to do in building up. This iceberg, like most icebergs, is only showing a tiny part of its surface. It will take much more than a few readjustments in trade to wreck this magnificent structure, which is ceaselessly being built up much faster and more strongly than anyone is likely to tear it down.
I do not feel the least bit alarmed or frightened at the prospect of Britain entering the Common Market on the terms which I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will get. They had better get them!
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: A day or two ago I took the liberty of commenting on the poor quality of recent debates on foreign affairs and on other matters in the House of Commons. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends had described a foreign affairs debate as the worst in their very long Parliamentary experience. I ventured to add that Parliament itself seemed rapidly to be becoming the most subservient since the Parliament of Lord North. I wish to retract at any rate part of that criticism, because it seems to me that the debate which we have had during the past two days has been in the highest traditions of Parliament at its best. Almost all of the speeches have been directed to real issues, have been passionately felt and clearly argued.
The interest of the debate has been maintained throughout the two days. There is good reason for that. We are discussing an important question, and the differences of opinion on it do not merely overstep party differences. They do not follow party lines. There are differences in the party on this side and in the party on the benches opposite. I do not know whether the Liberal Party is exempt from those differences. No doubt, as it grows the differences will grow, too, and its members may find themselves in time, because of their increasing numbers, in no better position with regard to unanimity and diversity
762
of opinion than the rest of us on fundamental matters.
Not merely are there differences in this party and differences in the party opposite about the Common Market and all involved in it. One of the significant things, and I think one of the things which have led to the interest in the debate, is that the differences inside the parties do not follow the traditional lines, certainly not on this side, nor, I think, on the benches opposite. The differences do not follow the recognised differences between right, left and centre. Some very good Left wingers are for the Common Market and some very good Right wingers are against it. That kind of distinction in the difference of opinion on the other side of the House holds good, too. This is one of those instances where the desire and opportunity of individual back-bench Members to make a vital contribution to an important debate has led to a great increase in the reality of our discussions and, therefore, to the usefulness of them.
Having said that, I am bound to say that I have not understood all of the discussion. I heard the Lord Privy Seal open the debate yesterday with a very lucid, patient, restrained and admirable speech. But I could not quite see from the argument which he presented exactly why he argued so patiently and with so much difficulty about conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has just said that the balance of the Lord Privy Seal's speech was in favour of going into the Common Market anyhow—fight for good conditions, do all that we can in the negotiations to get the best out of them, but always with the notion that the importance of going in was such that in the end, even if we did not succeed in winning all the concessions, modifications and qualifications for which we were pleading, nevertheless the die was cast: we were going in anyhow.
This is the impression which the Lord Privy Seal's speech made on most of us, I think, whether we were with him or against him. This was the prevailing opinion, and if I am wrong perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will correct me tonight. I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal himself would not deny that the balance of his inclination was to go in. Surely that much must be true.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): That is the object of negotiation.
Mr. Silverman: I did not understand that that was the object of the negotiation. In earlier debates the Prime Minister told us that he was going to begin by a discussion with the various nations concerned to see whether the conditions were such that an application could be made. It was only when he found that he was not going to conduct negotiations of that kind that he changed his position and decided to make an application to go in, but he was very careful to explain when he asked for the House's approval to make the application that it would be made only in order to enable him to explore the ground and to see whether suitable conditions could be negotiated.
If the hon. Gentleman now says that that was not so, that the negotiations are in pursuance of an application to go in with the balance of desire being to go in anyhow, then he is rather denying what he said a few minutes ago, namely, that that was not the purport of the Lord Privy Seal's speech. No one is saying more than that, or that the Lord Privy Seal would recommend the House to go in on very bad conditions. All that is being said is that he wants to go in and that his preference would be in the negotiation to find conditions suitable rather than unsuitable.
I rather thought that the advice to the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was not quite the advice that they wanted to give. They both said that we must wait and see what the final picture is and that we must wait until the end of the negotiations and must not yet make up our minds. They said that it is too early to make up our minds, that the picture is not yet clear and that only when it is clear should we decide to support or oppose the Government in whatever recommendation they may ultimately make.
Just as I found the balance of the Lord Privy Seal's speech strongly in favour of going in, I found the balance of the two speeches from the Opposition
764
Front Bench strongly against going in. It seemed to me, listening to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday stating with great clarity and force the risks which we should be running if we went in and the conditions which we must demand before we can agree to go in, that he was making it abundantly clear that neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton expected that the conditions which they wanted could be fulfilled. I hope to persuade my hon. Friends on this side that my view of those speeches is correct and that, in fact, the conditions which my right hon. Friends want, and rightly want, before they could agree to our going in are unobtainable, and they know they are.
A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton said that the balance of argument was a narrow one, that it was not really very important whether we went in or not. It seemed to me that he missed the point that the onus of proof must be on those who want to go in and that the risks of going in are so great that, unless an overwhelming case for going in is demonstrated, we ought not to run those risks. If the truth of the matter is that there is no such overwhelming case for going in, it seems to me that the moment has come when we ought to say so plainly.
Among all the speeches, the one which I myself found the most interesting was one with which I did not agree at all, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), one of the best Parliamentary performances I have heard for very many years. It was brilliantly lucid yet at the same time a passionately eloquent defence of the proposition that we ought to go in and that we ought rather to play down than to play up the difficulties, the dangers, the risks and the disadvantages. Because, to my hon. Friend, the case for going in is so overwhelming, the House would be well advised to disregard entirely the other side of the matter. We should, of course, do what we can to minimise the dangers, soften the disadvantages and reduce or remove the risks, but, in the belief of my hon. Friend, we should go in in any case, having done our best to get the conditions we want, because the

765
case for going in is so overwhelmingly great.
It seemed to me that my hon. Friend was making a very lucid and eloquent defence of a case which is not before the House at all. He was advocating or defending a romantic illusion. It is a romantic illusion which we all, I think, find very attractive. My own view of these matters might be substantially affected if I could think that the idea my hon. Friend was defending so passionately was a real idea in the context of these discussions. My hon. Friend has a picture of the countries of Europe, at least of Western Europe, united in one community, not too rigid but nevertheless belonging together, members of one community with a common background, a common history, a common political, social and cultural outlook, with common economic bonds which enable them easily to trade on a mutually understandable basis, able to live together as a separate group or family of nations, perhaps even ultimately speaking a common tongue.
This is not the European Economic Community. The E.E.C. is not a step towards a united Europe. It is not even a step towards a united Western Europe. It is merely an attempt to give political integration to N.A.T.O. so as to be able to play a more effective part in the cold war or, if the cold war should ease up in some way, with a relaxation of armed tension, and there should then blow up a kind of economic war, cold or hot, so as to be able to play a part in that. In any case, the idea is that the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. would not really be all that it ought to be unless it could be given a political and economic integration to reinforce and fortify the military and political functions which it now performs.
The game was rather given away by a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). Curiously enough, his was a speech on the whole, I think, against the Common Market, though one could not see why on its argument. The hon. Gentleman said that what we should have in the next ten years would be a violent economic war between the N.A.T.O. nations and the Communist bloc, a conflict between what he was pleased to call capitalist democracy and
766
the Communist States. This also is a rather over-simplified view. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that not merely in this country but in many of the nations which form the Six and which are negotiating wider associations, there are a great many people who do not see the world in that stark conflict between capitalist democracy and authoritarian or totalitarian Communism. When another hon. Member opposite said that he favoured our entry into the Common Market because, as he put it, it was good for this country, good for Europe and good for the world, he overlooked the fact that a stark division and conflict of that kind could end only in universal catastrophe.
Whatever our divisions in other ways, all of us on this side think that we have a better answer than either capitalist democracy or authoritarian Communism. We think that, if the effort is made, something better than either can be achieved. One can accept the principle of the economic ownership and control of our country's resources and the planning and direction of them in the interests of the community without sacrificing one jot or title of the political and civil liberties without which economic prosperity would hardly be worth having. That is what all of us, whatever our divisions on other matters, mean by social democracy. We mean the capacity to plan and to own, in so far as it is necessary to own in order to plan, our basic resources and services and all those things of which the successful exploitation and planning are necessary for the prosperity and happiness of our community.
This idea of planning our economy is no longer, at least as a matter of lip-service, confined to us. The Government talk now about the necessity of planning. We may differ fundamentally about whether the controls one needs for planning must be physical or whether one can do it equally well by indirect fiscal controls. There is no doubt that we on this side think that more than fiscal controls are needed, but the idea of planning our resources as a community in the interests of the community has always been the policy of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and the Government now pretend that it is their policy too.

767
How in the world, if we go into the Common Market on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, should we ever be able to do that?
Mr. Charles Curran: Why not?
Mr. Silverman: I thought that it had been demonstrated, particularly by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), that one was bound by the Treaty of Rome not to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not be convinced. He should read the Treaty of Rome again or read the speeches which have been made about it. I thought that it was perfectly clear that, whatever one did about the ownership of resources— nationalise them or not nationalise them —still one was not able to use any powers in the planning of them in conflict with the decisions of the Community. I have not heard any argument against that, and I can see none. It certainly ran through the speeches of my two right hon. Friends.
Mr. George Brown Mr. George Brown(Belper) indicated dissent.
Mr. Silverman: I see my right hon. Friend showing some signs of dissent. If he will read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, he will see, I think, that that is quite clearly accepted. If it were not accepted, at least it was accepted that there was a great danger of it. It seems clear that when we are talking about sovereignty in terms of the Treaty of Rome, we must accept the position that if we go into a European Economic Community which is regularising all of its affairs by institutions which it has set up, we cannot at the same time act in conflict with it in planning our own community.
If we cannot plan our own economic resources, or if there is a serious risk that we cannot do so, what is the case for going into the Common Market, if it is established, as most people think it is, that there is no overwhelming advantage to be gained in compensation for what we give up or risk giving up? Even if I have overstated it, even if we could in some way preserve our independence and go into a community of nations at one and the same time—which must be a difficult operation, and I do not
768
imagine that the Lord Privy Seal is negotiating in order to produce a compromise of that kind—there must be at least a very serious risk if we enter the Common Market that we are resigning all possibility of doing the things which we as a party came into existence to do and which we all still believe in doing. Of course, the Lord Privy Seal does not believe in that kind of planning and control or that kind of public ownership, and he is certainly not negotiating to enable us to do that.
Mr. Curran: I am following the hon. Member's argument with great interest. If what he says is valid in respect of the British Labour Party, is it not equally valid in respect of the Socialist parties in the countries of the Six? How does he explain their willingness to go into the Market if, as he says, it means the surrender of the power to achieve Socialist ends?
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is not looking at the matter fairly or completely. There is a great difference between the Socialist parties in Germany, Italy and France and the Socialist Party in this country. Italy, Germany and France are already in the Common Market, and it is just because they are afraid, their countries being already in, of being submerged and overwhelmed and made impotent to carry out their Socialist policies, that they are anxious that we should go in to strengthen them in their fight against their own reactionaries. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members find so amusing. I believe that if the German Social Democratic Party—and the same is true of Italy and France—saw any hope of taking their country out of the Six, they would be nothing like as anxious that we should go in as they are now. Their desire to get us in is conditioned by their feeling of impotence that their countries, being already in, are governed by forces which would not enable them to carry out what they or we should call Socialist policy.
Mr. Stratton Mills: To which party does M. Paul-Henri Spaak belong?
Mr. Silverman: I confess that I do not know. I know the party to which he used to belong, and maybe he still belongs to it, but the argument about the Belgian Socialist Party is no different

769
from that about the French, German or Italian Socialist parties, because Belgium too, is one of the Six. I am dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). The fact that the Socialist parties of those countries, which are already in, want us to be in, is not an argument for our going in if we are convinced that going in would not improve their position and would sacrifice our own. It seems to me that if there is even a strong risk of that, it would be a decisive argument against going in, unless an overwhelming case could be made for going in by way of compensation for what we should lose or risk losing. As it is part of the argument that there is no such overwhelming advantage, I say that that argument is not valid.
What else do we lose? There has been much talk about Commonwealth. I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford said— that its importance can be exaggerated. The importance of going into the Common Market can be exaggerated, too. But he thought that the importance of going in, even though it could be exaggerated, was such that his passionate desire to go in and his emotional involvement with the idea of a united Europe justified him in ignoring the risks. There are others who have a rather more emotional feeling about the Commonwealth than he has, or who have it with regard to the Commonwealth and not so much with regard to Europe.
This is not merely an empty thing. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talked about the possibility that at the end of the day we may negotiate ourselves into a position in which we are merely a small island off the coast of Europe, with no other importance in the world than that. I do not think that many of us would like to see Britain in that position. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would not. In the days When the Commonwealth was merely an empire, when there were risings, revolts, protests, tyrannies and oppressions, and when there were exploitations, and when some people were in it only for what the mother country could get out of them, many of us on this side of the House had no feeling for it at all. But is there
770
not something to be said in the changed conditions for remaining the heart of a free association of free peoples, not rigid, not bound, not so closely associated that the individual members could not pursue policies of their own, domestically or even internationally, but nevertheless regarding themselves as bound by a common past and a common tradition, something outside Europe and outside the conflict of the two organised blocs?
There has been at times a tendency to sneer at hon. Members on this side of the House who talk in this fashion. But it is perhaps worth while to remind hon. and right hon. Members opposite that we on this side were the friends and allies of Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah and others when hon. Members opposite regarded them as traitors and were imprisoning and sometimes executing them. We have a different Commonwealth now.
Mr. Turton: Who locked up Nkrumah?
Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Member is trying to persuade me that the records of all parties have specks on them, he is beating at an open door, as I think he knows. I have pointed out one or two of the defects myself from time to time. By and large, the proposition which I am advancing to him, as I am sure he will agree, is true. The record of Colonial and Commonwealth Secretaries on this side of the House and a whole half century of political propaganda all round the Commonwealth tends to be in the direction that I have described, and our opponents were those who now attempt to sneer at us for defending passionately what we achieved.
I remember an election at which I was talking about the social services and my Tory opponent told me that the Tory Party had always been fighting for the social services. It occurred to me to ask whom it was fighting. It was certainly not us. When this party was fighting for the liberation of the Commonwealth, I know whom we had to fight. We certainly did not have to fight the Dominions or the Colonies. One of the significant facts is this Commonwealth, this natural grouping of nations which has come together not necessarily for economic advantages, not necessarily for

771
advantages of any kind, but out of common loyalty, common associations, the desire to preserve a common outlook and a desire to exercise a common influence in a distracted world. No one would suggest that if we went into the European Economic Community on the unaltered basis of the Treaty of Rome, the Commonwealth could ever be the same again. It could never again fulfil that function. We could never again be the heart of it, because our loyalties would be at least divided and would be much more impelled towards our immediate associates than to those distant places scattered all over the world.
So we have the danger that we will not be able to control our own affairs no matter how large the democratic majority which we may secure for controlling them in the way that we desire. We may have our democratic elections and my right hon. and hon. Friends may be returned with an enormous majority, but inside the European Economic Community, even if they wanted to, they would be unable to carry out the peaceful social revolution to which this party is committed, and nobody saw that point more clearly or explained it to the House more eloquently than the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in a previous debate. Then there is the danger of splitting up, so as to make insignificant and ineffective in world affairs, the Commonwealth which we have spent 300 or 400 years building up.
At the end of it, we should have accepted a position in which we were not even free to make an independent intervention in international affairs. We should be tied up in a politically integrated Europe, and all those things would have been given up in order to obtain an economic advantage which is the subject of long haggling, which is doubtful in the end and where the balance of argument is summed up by almost every speaker as being: "Not the end of the world if you do not go in; the claims for going in are not so overwhelming as all that; it does not matter a great deal whether you are in or out, for if you go in you survive and if you stay out you also survive". What is the use of our sacrificing our real function and importance in
772
the world in order to achieve something so doubtful and so debatable and so ambiguous?
The balance of argument is clear. I do not believe that anyone thinks that in the end we will decide or ought to decide whether to go in or stay out according to what is the end result of these difficult and protracted negotiations. People who go in will go in whatever they are able or not able to achieve. People who do not want to go in would not be able to go in however successful the Government were in the negotiations. It is a little uncandid of my right hon. and hon. Friends to go on pretending that on this side of the House there is any real doubt about where we ought to stand in principle, that it really depends on waiting to see the final outcome of the negotiations. Those negotiations do not closely touch any of the conditions which my hon. Friends want to lay down for going in.
The real reason is to make some concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford and his hon. Friends who passionately want to go in and who might be tempted to vote against if the party decided to vote to stay out. The argument is that if we preserve some kind of artificial uniformity by saying, "Let us sit on the fence; let us hover; let us wait; let us hesitate; let us put off the decision", in the end perhaps we will all come round to it.
I do not know why my right hon. Friends should be so afraid of members of the party coming to different opinions on important matters. Why should they not? What harm does it do to the unity of a party if four or five members on the Left, or four or five members on the Right, or four or five members in the centre find themselves from time to time out of harmony with majority opinion? The party benefits by that, benefits far more than it loses in the public estimation by this constant presentation of seeming hesitation, seeming doubt, a wavering, a hovering, an inability to make up its mind and a refusal to apply any kind of leadership one way or the other to the people whose support we are seeking.
If hon. Members opposite are so anxious and think that the move is so wrong, and they have spoken very

773
eloquently, very intensely and sometimes very movingly against going into the European Economic Community, if they do not want this thing to happen, they can kill it tonight. The other day the Leader of the House reminded us that we can vote on Adjournments, and that when we do it may be a very significant vote. If, on a fateful day in June, 1940, 35 members of the Conservative Party had stayed in their seats, quiet, and had not gone with the Labour Members into the Division Lobby against Neville Chamberlain's Government, the whole history of the world might have been different. It might be that none of us would be here debating the European Common Market now.
If they are not convinced that they are right, let them stop their campaign. It is doing them a lot of harm in the country. These divisions in parties are harmful. The two Front Benches take the same view about it, and the fact that I do not share that view makes no difference. But if those hon. Members opposite really think that they are right, I ask them to come out bluntly, plainly, frankly, honestly and courageously into the Division Lobby with us tonight. A serious revolt of 30, 40, or 50 Tory Members would bring this nonsense to an end.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Howard: Unfortunately, the time left to me is so short that I cannot make the major part of my speech, which I have been sitting here waiting to make for two whole days. That being the case, I shall keep to the one part of my speech which has been touched on by only one other Member during the whole of the two days of debate, namely, the effect of our entry into the Common Market upon our horticultural industry.
It is clear that the Government have given unequivocal guarantees to the horticultural industry that they would maintain its position by tariffs. If we go into the Common Market and those tariffs are whittled away it means the end of our horticultural industry. Last night, the Minister of Agriculture referred shortly to the industry, and said that
"a separate working party in Brussels is examining our problems, which are considerable. The decision adopted by the Com-
774
munity for fruit and vegetables has three main features …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 605.]
He went on to say that although the arrangements being made in Europe might be effective for them he did not think that they would be effective for our horticulturists.
The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) said that he thought that such arrangements as our going into the Common Market might—I forget his exact words—ginger up our own horticulturists and make them efficient. What he does not remember is that they have to compete with factors like climate. In the area around Nice it is possible to grow carnations in the open air at the end of October; horticulturists there also have through travel direct from the south of France into the London market; they have many advantages, such as better rolling stock. These factors mean that our horticulturists already have to face unfair competition.
We must remember that, as horticulturists, we have a very good bargaining position with the members of the Common Market. The Trade and Navigation Returns of imports from the Common Market into this country show that the Netherlands exported to us £15½ million of horticultural produce in 1960 and £18¾ million in 1961; Italy sent us nearly £24 million in 1960 and £22½ million in 1961; whereas our total horticultural exports to the world amounted to £8 million in 1960 and £9 million in 1961 and, to the Common Market countries, £1½ million in 1960 and £2½ million in 1961. Where does this lead us? It leads us to the plain and simple fact that unless our horticulturists are properly protected they will go out of business.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) yesterday talked about our having to look elsewhere for defence. I believe that we have a great part to play in Commonwealth defence. Time does not allow me to develop that point. But those who served in the Navy in the last war will never forget that a country like ours, surrounded as it is by the sea, if it has to face enemies coming at it over the sea, cannot survive unless it has a good and thriving agriculture and horticulture. It will not be

775
any use turning to the people of Europe then and saying, "Now we want more from you," because we will not get it.
We must be clear about all these points before we go into the Common Market. Quite forgetting the Commonwealth at the moment and forgetting the question of our loss of sovereignty, I do not think it old-fashioned to believe that the traditional things on which this country has been built are things that we should keep. I do not think it old-fashioned to think about those alongside whom we fought in the war, nor do I think that this is inward-looking.
I would never countenance going into the Common Market unless we had adequate safeguards for the people I have spoken about—the farmers and the horticulturists whom we have backed all along by this system of tariffs. I do not want to see them thrown away because it happens to be expedient for some businessmen who want to go into the Common Market. Look at the motor car industry—it is there already. I speak for the people in this country, our agriculturists and horticulturists.
While at the moment we do not know enough about it to be able to say whether we should go in or should not —and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who made a very good speech yesterday—I for one will never agree to going in until I am absolutely sure that these people, plus our comrades in the Commonwealth, are adequately safeguarded and that the horticulturists of this country will not be swept out as a result of a decision made by our Government.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: Certainly this has been one of the most impressive debates to which I have listened in this House. I have heard a great deal of it and have read everything I have not heard. The standard has shown that despite what is sometimes said we can have debates without necessarily basing them on a Motion or a Division.
The debate has been notable for some striking speeches, particularly the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers). Speaking as chairman of a dif-
776
ferent body, I seem to have had quite a number of chicks coming in during the last few months. Another is to come in very soon, and two more after him. Of all those we have had, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend make that powerful speech today. The debate has been remarkable also, unlike the one last July, for some much clearer and firmer speaking by the Ministers concerned. Whether or not that is because the Prime Minister has not been down to see us these past two days, I do not know, but there has been a notable absence of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called "smooth talk". There have been very clear explanations by the Ministers, for which we are grateful.
It also must have finished another fashionable canard. It has been fashionable to talk about the Labour Party sitting on the fence. If we ever had a fence it has been shaking during these two days with everyone climbing up alongside us on it. So far as I see, we are all there now. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations told us today very firmly that he would not decide to go in until he could see what terms could be negotiated. The Leader of the Liberal Party made a very notable climb up on to the fence at one time. When one remembers what has been appearing in election addresses, especially the one in connection with Stockton-on-Tees, and the refusal of the Liberal Party Conference to pass an amendment saying that we ought not to go in until we find what the terms are, I regard making a little room on the fence for the right hon. Member as one of my more pleasurable jobs during this debate.
Mr. J. Grimond: In so far as the right hon. Member has referred to our conference, I should say that we made it absolutely clear to conference that of course we accept that entry into the Common Market must be negotiated.
Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Member for making everything clear. What the Liberals in fact did was to defeat an amendment designed to ensure that our Commonwealth partners and our agricultural interests would be safeguarded before full entry into the Common Market. That was defeated, but on the other hand I welcome what the

777
right hon. Member said yesterday. After all, we are now all on the fence together and life can be rather happy. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) said that he would not agree to go in until he knew what the terms were. That must go for everyone, so it is good.
One unfortunate feature of this debate, which was true of the last, has been due to the way in which the Government handled the whole business after last July. We were rushed into this in such a way that there was much misunderstanding—I use the kindest word I can think of—about what the intentions were. There seemed to be so many different speeches in London compared with those in Paris and Brussels. The Prime Minister was saying that it was totally economic and the Lord Privy Seal was saying that on the other hand it was a political thing which we fully accepted. There was so much misunderstanding that inevitably this debate, like the previous one, has tended to concentrate very much on the clarification of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called "sticking points" on the fears and anxieties and conditions and terms.
This in part, I think, is the answer to something which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was saying a short time ago. It was necessary that this should be done because there seemed to be so much doubt and misunderstanding about what the Government were trying to do and what their intentions were. I emphasise that it is very important to get these conditions clear, to find what the sticking points are and to clear up the anxieties, but doing that leaves a great deal less room, even in very long speeches, for real attention to be given to the vision behind the whole thing and the opportunity it would afford us. This to some extent distorts the pattern of the debate. It distorts the pattern of speeches in a way which is unintended by those concerned.
In what I think everyone will agree was a magnificent opening speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend set out very clearly both the risks if we do not go in and the opportunities if we do go in. When I hear so much talk about the risks of going in, I still feel—as I have always felt during all this contro-
778
versy—that I wish people would talk a little more about the risks of staying out, for they also are considerable. My right hon. Friend set this out. I venture only to repeat the first sentence of his final paragraph, which he also used on television. I repeat it because I do not want the end of the debate to be as distorted as some of the earlier parts. My right hon. Friend said that the best solution would be to go in on good terms. This clearly ought to be understood as our approach to this issue.
The reasons for this are pretty clear, and in dealing with this my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) made one of the greatest speeches that I have ever heard, and I add my tribute to those which have been paid to him by many hon. Members. We need what we cannot have in this small island. We need a large domestic market to back us if we are to be an exporting nation. This is an important reason for considering going in.
Everybody refers to it as the Continent of Europe. We are part of Europe. In fact we are talking about the mainland over there. The fact that the Continent exists and cannot be dissolved and that what it does will have a tremendous impact on us are other powerful reasons for considering whether we can become more closely associated with it than we are at the moment. The influence that we could exercise inside the Community, the influence that we could bring to bear for things about which we care, and the difference that we could make to the way in which it is being run, are all important reasons for considering going in.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne was talking slightingly about why the Socialist parties of the Six wanted us to go in, I think that he left out of account that one powerful reason for wanting us in is to reinforce Socialist influence inside the Community, which we certainly could do.
Mr. S. Silverman: I said so plainly.
Mr. Brown: That was not the way in which I got it, but if we, too, are in agreement, that is another one on the fence.
A fourth reason has been suggested for our going in, and I think this is important It is the very much greater

779
strength that we would derive if it were possible through being in the Community, to fulfil our function in the Commonwealth and among the under-developed territories of the world, a function which we ought to be fulfilling much better than we are at the moment.
There are two negative reasons why we ought to consider very carefully whether we can do it. One is the possibility of the wrong development taking place in the Community if we are not there, the possibility of it becoming, as my right hon. Friend said, perhaps inward-looking, perhaps nationalistic, possibly neutralist, and so on. We have to remember, too, the difficulties we will encounter in earning our living if we are cut off from the Community and become what my right hon. Friend referred to as an off-shore island of Europe with no hinterland or other great mass behind us.
Concentrating on the terms on which we might be able to go in—which is what hon. Members have been during this debate—does not cloak a lack of desire or a lack of understanding. Nor does it mean—and here I align myself with those who answered or sought to answer the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—that we accept that the Commonwealth could be an alternative idea to the European Community. I thought that that was put up last July. I thought that it was shot down last July. I think that it has now been shot down completely. The Commonwealth is not that kind of party. It is not that kind of association. It would not be in their interests to do what has been suggested, and I am sure that they would shoot it down.
Sir D. Walker-Smith Sir D. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Brown: I cannot give way. I am running short of time, and the Minister is anxious to reply.
Some people say that to keep on concentrating on the difficulties and issues involved may damage our chances of getting in. I do not believe it. The clearer we are, and the firmer we are, about what we require as the terms for getting in, the better it will be for everybody both now and in the future,
780
so long as we are not merely raising obstacles.
One of the issues that keeps on being raised—I think it is an irritant—is this constant reference to sovereignty. We have never joined with anybody or gone into any international group larger than one nation which did not involve some surrender of sovereignty. If one goes in with other people one finds oneself carrying out decisions just because they are the decisions of a body, and this applies to inter-governmental bodies, like N.A.T.O. or O.E.E.C, just as much as to a different kind of body like this. We very much exaggerate this sovereignty point and unnecessarily raise an irritant, so that it now looks as if we are trying to get at one of the foundation points when, in fact, we are not, and when we might quite easily accept what degree of loss of sovereignty is involved.
I should like to reinforce what somebody else—I do not remember who— said earlier. The time-table that has been erected becomes terribly important. If we are to negotiate and raise issues, we must get away from this idea of a deadline. This has been erected, and there is now an idea that something has to be over by July or that something else has to happen in September. This is bound to give an air of breathless urgency to everything. It is bound to prevent real negotiations, while taking away a good deal of our bargaining strength.
This means that the Prime Minister— if he ever had such an unworthy idea, and the recent by-elections will have helped him to get rid of it, if he ever had it—must get rid of any idea he ever had of using this issue as an election gimmick. He must be prepared to let the negotiations go on and solve his electoral problem in some other way. There is nothing sacrosanct about July; there is nothing sacrosanct about September. There is no reason at all why the Commonwealth Prime Ministers should not meet in September and discuss what has happened up to then and meet again later if we are not in a position at that stage to put an outline before them. This is tremendously important, and I should like to hear the Lord Privy Seal say that we are not tying ourselves to a deadline. We must

781
have time to negotiate fully and properly and see what we are taking on. Our future, that of the Commonwealth and that of Europe depends on it, and our own good faith may be questioned.
We cannot on this occasion have blank pieces of paper at the end of the day for the details to be filled in afterwards. We cannot have formulas that can mean anything or nothing. When I listened last night to the Minister of Agriculture—and I will return to him in a moment—I realised just how much many tremendously important points are still completely in the air. They cannot possibly be settled between now and July, and they are issues which we ought to know about before we sign the piece of paper. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will deal with the questions which my right hon. Friend asked him about the timetables, the decisions and the time at which they are put before the Prime Ministers' Conference and Parliament.
May I now turn to what seem to me, at the end of this two-day debate, to be the major issues still outstanding, and on which we should like to hear more from the Lord Privy Seal. First, the Commonwealth. There are still issues about which the Commonwealth Secretary spoke, on which he did not satisfy us. Again, it may be that we cannot at this stage be satisfied, but we ought to know if these issues are still in the air. On the question of the temperate foodstuffs and this business of what we really mean by equivalent access for the producers in New Zealand and the other countries, I found the Minister totally unconvincing, in the sense that I do not think he was able to tell us what he was negotiating for, and we look for something with a little more reality than the term "equivalent access". We should like to hear a little more about that. We would still like to hear much more about the form of association it will be for our African and Caribbean ex-Colonial Territories.
Are we, in fact, trying to get associate membership for them? I understood the Secretary of State to say that we would not accept second-class status for them, but I was not clear whether that means that we are going for associate status or something else. I understand
782
that some of them simply do not want to have associate status. We could not leave them unprotected, and if we negotiated something for them which they rejected we would still have obligations to them. It is important that we should be told what the Government have in mind on this issue. Equally, questions involving manufactured goods from the Asian territories and our efforts to try to cover them have not been clearly answered.
Another outstanding major issue is our E.F.TA. commitment. We must mention time and again, since an issue of good faith is involved, the absolutely surprising and staggeringly binding nature of the commitment we entered into. It is a much more binding one than we gave to the Commonwealth. There is no point now in arguing whether it should or should not have been so. We have committed ourselves to keep E.F.T.A. going and to make sure that everyone is taken care of before any of us joins a new body. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) dealt clearly with this matter, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be equally clear in his reply.
Does the Lord Privy Seal realise the tremendous importance of all this to Sweden? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton made plain, for us to join, Norway and Denmark joining becomes of immense importance, for voting and other reasons. It is quite clear—as my right hon. Friend said, having just returned from the area—that there is very little chance of Norway joining if Sweden is not in some way inside, because of the tariff barrier question. Thus if Norway did not join we would be without an important partner.
There is also the important question of home agriculture. When the Minister of Agriculture dealt with this matter he left everything completely in the air. It is always rather funny when someone makes a good joke, especially when talking about things like targets, thresholds sluice-gates and so on. I cannot help thinking what would happen if one tried to explain to a foreigner the complexities of our own price system for agriculture. He would have quite a laugh. We do not have much on them in this regard.

783
It seems that since the Conservatives changed the 1947 Act, as they did four or five years ago, they have taken away a great deal of the mechanism we were using. Since then money has been pouring though the system in ever growing amounts and changes in the arrangements were, I suppose, bound to come anyway. The amount of money involved was getting embarrassingly large and the Government could not have faced it much longer. We are not in agriculture facing something that is ideal, good and to be held, but something that would have to be changed anyway. We can, therefore, more clearly and without prejudice, consider the ways in which we would change it if we joined this body.
I am not clear about just what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he used the gallant phrase about the proposals of the Community forming a "comprehensive and sophisticated policy". Incidentally, the Minister is a great one for using the word "must". What exactly did he mean by that? What kind of agricultural policy does he expect to see France, Germany and the others adopt so that he could call it "comprehensive and sophisticated"? We ought to be told if he knows what he meant by it. We all use phrases sometimes the meaning of which we are not sure about. I would not quarrel if he said that he did not know what he meant. I have been that way myself. If he thinks he knew what he meant by it, we should be told so that we can see what it would mean for us.
Secondly, what did he mean by his reference to annual reviews in the Community, with prices based on them for the year ahead? I had, as no doubt other hon. Members had, an immediate approach from the National Farmers' Union, which wants to know what it means. I find it difficult to envisage how he saw that being carried out on a Community basis. Did he mean by these annual reviews what we mean by them, with statutory consultations with the representatives of the producers, with the economic conditions of the industry and all the rest of the things provided in the Act being taken into account, and then the prices fixed? Did he mean that there would be some national reservation so that we could protect our own people if conditions here were differ-
784
ent from those obtaining anywhere else? What did he mean by it? I think that he was using loose language which will look peculiar to Dr. Mansholt and his friends and will considerably confuse our agriculturists.
We have heard a lot about target prices. How much will these be a substitute for our guaranteed price system? As I understand it, the target price is something fixed at a wholesale level in a particular deficit area, but it is not something one undertakes to pay. Nor is it more than a notional figure. The only thing one undertakes to pay—even this is not mandatory, I understand—is a lower price which can be 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or even more lower, which is the point at which the Commission could intervene and buy the surplus stock. That is the only point at which anything becomes payable. That could be a good deal less than the target price. I do not see how one can present that to the farmers in my part of the country or anywhere else in the country as a real alternative to our present guaranteed price system. It may be the best we can do, but we must not pretend that it is a guarantee under another name. It does not seem to me to be that.
Even less do I see the arrangements for the commodities for which there is no target price being a successful replacement. These are very important commodities. This is an important section of the community. Their only protection is at the common frontier. Thus their only protection is against commodities coming in from outside. I just cannot see what one holds out to them as a successful replacement inside the Community for what they are losing inside the country.
Tonight we heard something about horticulture. We shall have to be told what the Government envisage here. Has the Lea Valley to go? Is there a problem there? If it has to go, is there replacement money available? What is the plan? It is no good dodging this. The Lea Valley is very vulnerable. For all I know, other parts of the horticultural industry may also be vulnerable. There will have to be a much more specific facing up to this so that we can see what is to be done and perhaps work it out and put it across. We cannot do it in the sort of easy way in which the Minister did it last night.

785
There were other agricultural issues left entirely open. As to the timetable, there have been reports that the Lord Privy Seal asked in the negotiations for twelve to fourteen years as the transitional period for us, instead of the six or seven years for the present members of the Community. Is this so? If the right hon. Gentleman has told them, I do not see what he can lose by telling us. At least the farmers in this country would know what he is doing.
The same is true of the levy. My right hon. Friend raised this question and the possibility of our paying the lion's share of this to subsidise agriculture elsewhere. That has now been changed by the budgetary system under which the countries are paying, for a time at any rate, out of their exchequers. I take it that we would pay something like Germany has been asked to pay. We heard nothing about this, except a statement that it all had to be taken together. We should like to know what we are taking together. We should have another statement about it.
The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary statement when he was asked about production grants. The House knows that the subsidies we pay are divided—some are grants to aid production, others are price subsidies. We all understand that the price subsidies are not continuable under this system. We have long been told that production grants are. I should have thought that the Minister would know the answer to this, because it is a vital point. When he was asked today whether they are continuable, all he could say to my right hon. Friend was that this is one of the things which the Commission in the fullness of time will have to decide. It makes a lot of difference whether we are putting the total of the subsidies on to food prices or whether we are putting only a half or two-fifths on to food prices. We should be told whether these production grants are protectable or, if they are not protectable, whether we are to try to get them made so as part of the negotiations.
This is a vital area of home agriculture. However the case for going in may be presented, this cannot be brushed aside. Something as vital to us as British agriculture and a body of people as magnificent as our food producers,
786
workers and farmers alike, should have very much better protection and stronger arguments advanced on their behalf than the Minister seemed to be advancing.
There are other things for the Lord Privy Seal to answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton raised many issues on economic planning to which I hope we shall have some answers, reassuring or otherwise. I hope that they will be reassuring. I have a feeling that some of them could be. At any rate, let us have the answers.
At the end of the day to many who report our debates, sometimes without the attention they ought to have, it may look as though the climate of opinion in the House has hardened against going in. I believe that that would be an unwarranted deduction. What has happened is that there is now more understanding of what is involved. There has been a concentration and a narrowing of the vital areas, on which we have to have answers which we have not now got. To put it shortly, the chips are now going down and we begin to know where we are. Speaking for myself and for a large body of my hon. Friends, I hope that we pull it off, but we must see how we propose to meet these conditions. We cannot go in just as a matter of desire. We shall have to see exactly what are the possibilities before we go any further.
There has been a tendency in the House to talk as though it was we who were desperately anxious to go in and that everyone else did not want us to go in. I do not believe that this is true. There are members of the Six who very much want to see us in. I will not in public go into the reasons, but they are pretty apparent. We have cards to play in this negotiation. We must play them with skill but, more important, with honesty and with consistency. We have some bargaining strength; let us use it.
We are often asked what happens to us if we do not go in. I have asked that question myself. There is also the question of what happens to the Market if we do not go in. I have had talks recently with members of the Community who are very concerned about what would happen if these negotiations broke down, so strongly do they feel about the matters involved. But we

787
must face the consequences. The consequences for this country, quite apart from the Market, are that we must be planners and not just pay lip-service to it. We must plan and the country and hon. Members opposite will have to accept a large amount of what they call Socialism, which they say they dislike so much.
If this country is to make its way inside the Market, it will need to be an altogether different economic society from the one which it is today. Certainly if we try to make our way outside it that will be at least as true and probably more true. I hope that at the end of this memorable debate we shall hear from the Lord Privy Seal answers to some of these questions which will make it easier for us to know where we are going.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Perhaps I may say to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who has now resumed his fence, so to speak, how much I agree with what he has said about the nature of this debate. It has been a very notable one. We have had some remarkable contributions to it and any apprehensions which I may, perhaps, naturally have had before it began about a debate of this kind, halfway through the negotiations, have certainly been rapidly dispelled.
I am particularly grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for not pressing either myself or my Government colleagues who have spoken in the debate on particular points of detail about which we are still negotiating. The right hon. Member for Belper has raised a considerable number of further points most of which are under detailed discussion in the negotiations at the moment. I know that he, too, will understand on those occasions when I am not able to give him information about the proposals which we have so far put to the Six.
I have already said that a considerable number of notable contributions have been made to the debate. It has been marked by the admirable maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers). The keynote of it, I think, was stated very clearly by him. He said, be adventurous, be bold.
788
I have no doubt that his leader will forgive such an advanced point of view from an obviously good recruit. The hon. Gentleman said, look to the future and not to the past; only be strong and of good courage. I think that the House realises that that, in effect, is what so many young people in this country are saying today to the House about this great issue. The hon. Gentleman expressed this admirably, and I should like to offer him my sincere congratulations on his speech.
The hon. Gentleman also put the matter very simply. He said, "I find that old friends do not mind my making new friends." I profoundly agree with him, but I should like to add that I think that he will make many friends here. He is warmly welcomed, and we shall look forward to hearing him many times in the future, particularly those who find themselves in agreement with him!
I will endeavour to answer as many of the questions which have been asked in the debate as possible, which is what the right hon. Member for Belper asked me to do. First come the questions about timing and the general nature of the negotiations. Perhaps I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Belper when I say that I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he says that we are negotiating from weakness. Nor do I think that it improves our negotiating position for the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly to say so in the House of Commons and in the country.
Also, I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) when he said that we have started these negotiations by making three concessions—by accepting the Treaty of Rome—I pointed out that we added the provision that we wished to go through this carefully with the Community and with the Commission, which we have been doing; by accepting the common tariff; and by accepting the changes concerning sovereignty which may be necessitated by it.
We did not enter these negotiations in an attempt to change the European Economic Community into another European free trade association. Therefore, it is not a concession, or three concessions, to say that, in applying to see

789
whether we can make suitable arrangements, we are prepared to accept both the Treaty as the basis and the common tariff, which is its characteristic.
On the question of timing, what we have agreed, all seven Governments together, is to endeavour to reach an outline by the end of July. I am, of course, wholeheartedly in accord with my right hon. and learned Friend. I am not prepared to negotiate against a deadline in the meaning in which he used it. On that I have always been quite clear.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we could say definitely that the Government would not make up their mind until after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations assured him of that this afternoon. Of course, the views of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be fully taken into account in the Government's final decision.
The right hon. Gentleman asked also that we should provide full information, including the views of the Commonwealth and the E.F.T.A., with time for Parliament to study it. Of course, we wish to provide the fullest information about the negotiation and about any other matters on which the right hon. Gentleman may want information. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth countries and the E.F.T.A. countries will themselves wish to offer their views, and we shall, of course, consider making everything available that we can.
The Leader of the Opposition asked that there should be no Government commitment while the House is not sitting. Here, of course, much depends on the timetable. There can be no Government commitment until Parliament has thoroughly considered the matter and given its verdict about it, but, of course, the Government must reserve their right in any future situation to decide what action they take other than the commitment of which I have spoken in which, of course, Parliament must be involved.
I come now to the position of E.F.T.A. All three right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the opposite benches somehow questioned our attitude towards E.F.T.A. I do not understand this a bit.
790
We have not dismissed it lightly, as was suggested yesterday. Our obligations are as the Leader of the Opposition gave them. I did not read them out myself because of lack of time. We fully accept them. Briefly, they are that our negotiation gave an opportunity for all the E.F.T.A. countries to go into negotiations. They have all now approached the Community. We are co-ordinating our actions and we remain united throughout the negotiations.
We have been in the closest possible touch with every E.F.T.A. country throughout. We have maintained our Ministerial meetings. As an example of acting together, we have accelerated the reductions in the internal tariffs, so keeping pace with the European Economic Community. During all the negotiations in Brussels, the E.F.T.A. representatives are seen by one particular member of our delegation, and I myself see all the E.F.T.A. ambassadors at the end of every Ministerial meeting. There is no misunderstanding between us, and I believe there is complete confidence between all the E.F.T.A. countries.
I differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on one point. He said that one year would be necessary under the Convention of Stockholm before any action could be taken. This refers to the withdrawal of a member, which is not contemplated under the particular arrangements at issue, and, if all the E.F.T.A. countries agree that they wish to bring them into effect at a particular time with the Community, they are at liberty to do so.
Mr. Gaitskell: I wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will not make their final decision until the position as regards the E.F.T.A. has been completely cleared up.
Mr. Heath: Again, it depends very much on the timetable of the negotiations. The Government will, no doubt, be able to form their views on the arrangements so far as they affect the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but, obviously, they have also to form a view about the position of the E.F.T.A. countries. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That is part of the obligation.
Our views about the position of the neutrals are fully known throughout

791
Europe and the United States. We have never hesitated to make known our view that these countries are part of the wider Europe which we are trying to create and that they should have tie opportunity of making suitable arrangements with the new enlarged Community.
I come now to our position as regards Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community. We have, of course, made an application to enter into negotiations with those. I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the Community about Euratom quite early in July. As my first statement in Paris was published by courtesy of Reuters and my second statement in London was published by courtesy of The Times, perhaps it would be advisable to publish this statement by courtesy of myself and the Stationery Office.
With regard to the Coal and Steel Community, two questions have been raised about the position of the Iron and Steel Board and nationalisation. Nationalisation is covered by Article 83 of the Treaty of Paris. As I think the House will understand, I do not wish to offer any views about these questions before we enter negotiations and discuss matters with the Coal and Steel Community.
Mr. William Blyton: Are we to understand that in the negotiations the right hon. Gentleman will face the fact that there has been a decision by the International Court of Justice in regard to these matters? How does he expect that the Iron and Steel Board will be able to control prices in the light of such decisions as that?
Mr. Heath: I fully recognise the first fact the hon. Gentleman mentions. It was for that reason that I did not wish to offer any views at this stage about the second point he raises.
I think that the House will have realised that the questions in regard to agriculture are not entirely without complication. Several hon. Members mentioned the matter of prices, the intervention price, the target price, the sluicegate price, the guide price and various other things. I think, if I understood him, that what the Leader of the Opposition omitted to mention yesterday was the montant forfaitaire.
792
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) asked about the financial arrangements. I do not entirely accept the figures which I understood him to put forward about the change in prices of agricultural foodstuffs, but I wish to make clear that, so far as there is a reduction in subsidies to domestic agriculture, this, of course, will accrue to the Treasury. From the point of view of the levies, special arrangements have been made for the next three years, as my right hon. Friend said last night, for the contribution from each country to the Community funds. I only wish to make the point that those two aspects of finance, internal subsidies and the external levy, are quite separate.
My right hon. Friend was asked about voting procedures on the financial contributions, whether by levies or other means. There will be a review of these arrangements, which have been made for the first three years, and we should in the meantime expect to negotiate an arrangement for ourselves. During the first review about contributions for the remainder of the transition stage, the decision will be by unanimous vote. Once the Common Market stage is reached, our understanding is that decisions will be subject to Article 201 which also provides for a unanimous vote. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked various other questions, similar to those asked by the right hon. Member for Belper, about reviews. He made a most thoughtful contribution, but I cannot give him further details at this stage.
Both right hon. Gentlemen asked about the future regulations. Here we are faced with a dilemma to which they would perhaps give thought. Either one waits, which may be a considerable time, until each of the regulations of the Community becomes final, in which case they will be organised to suit the existing Six members of the Community, or if one is able to conclude negotiations before that time, the final arrangements are not settled but one plays a part in settling them for an enlarged Community. That is a fundamental question in the organisation of these negotiations.
There were also a group of questions about the economic union provisions of the Treaty. Many hon. Members have discussed planning. It is not for me to

793
offer suggestions on what exactly is meant by hon. Members when they raise questions of planning, but I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Huyton say that he thought that the Community was anti-planning or certainly anti-national planning. I do not find that in the Treaty of Rome and I do not believe that the establishment of planning machinery is incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty.
There is also the question of public ownership. That, I believe, is specifically recognised by Article 90 of the Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that this cannot be used for planning purposes. I do not believe that that is the case, either. It can be used by national Governments for planning purposes, provided that there is no discrimination against other parts of the Community. Surely as members of the Community we should not want to see discrimination against us by other parts of the Community. It is therefore a question of a balance between all the members of the Community to see that there is fairness. There is, of course, a great deal of nationalisation in the other countries of the Community. In addition, under Article 77, there are special provisions for the railways. I know that these thoughts are not likely to appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I am giving them to the House in all fairness.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the distribution of industry under the Local Employment Act, for which the Government were responsible two years ago, might well become a dead letter. Again, I can reassure him; I do not believe that that need be the case in the least. These aids are permitted specifically under the Treaty of Rome. Most member States already have systems of State aid comparable with those in this country, and many of them are more extensive, and our belief is that there is no reason why restrictions should be imposed on our work in this sphere.
Fiscal questions have also been raised. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome about fiscal and economic policy, which are Articles 99 and 103, and which call for harmonisation or co-ordination, can proceed only by unanimous vote, and therefore it rests with us the extent to
794
which these matters should proceed. Similarly, there are questions about action in the case of difficulties of balance of payments. This, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, provides for immediate action, with reference then to the Commission and after that to the Council and, I believe, to the Court of Justice. The position surely is that countries which were prepared to help us in July of last year when we were not a member of the Community are even more likely to be willing to take part in Community activities when we become a member of the Community. I believe that this must be approached from a practical point of view.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the social services and what would be the position of the National Health Service. I believe that there is no cause for alarm or anxiety of any kind here.
Mr. Dan Jones: There is already cause.
Mr. Heath: There is opportunity under the Treaty for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest any measures which he thinks should be taken, but under Article 117 of the Treaty the responsibility is definitely placed on member States of improving the living and working conditions of its people. But there is nothing in the Article which requires us to bring our social services or the National Health Service, in particular, into line with those of the other members of the Community. What it is necessary to do is to make provision for the social security services for migrant workers under Articles 51 and 121. Here I will tell the House frankly that it is necessary for us to discuss the administrative changes necessary to handle this. As many hon. Members will understand, it is a question of the method of settling the accounts between the countries which are involved.
May I turn to what may be termed the institutional and consitutional questions? The right hon. Gentleman rightly laid great emphasis on the voting procedures under the Treaty of Rome. In no way do I minimise the importance of this. His right hon. Friend returned to it only just now. But I must tell him, as I have already told the House, that we have not yet reached the stage of discussing this in the negotiations, and

795
the pattern can best be worked out when it is seen which other countries will become full members. When that time comes, I realise full well the importance of the point of view which he put forward.
There is then the question of the general obligations of the Treaty, about which some of my hon. Friends have spoken. The important point is that the obligations are set out clearly in the Treaty, under Article 3, and this cannot be amended without ratification of Parliament because of the unanimous vote. The powers of the institutions are clearly set out, and every hon. Member can see them. Article 235 provides that new powers can be conferred only by unanimous vote after consultation with the Parliamentary Assembly. The regulatory powers of the Community, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East referred, are in almost all cases exercised by the Council of Ministers.
The Commission, about which some hon. Members expressed anxieties, has virtually no independent power to issue regulations having the effect of law. It may in certain circumstances, which are defined in the Treaty, issue directives, take decisions and exercise the normal administrative functions without which the Community as such could not operate, but these are subject to control and, indeed, annulment by the Court of Justice on the grounds of incompetence, violation of substantial procedural provisions, infringement of the Treaty or abuse of power. There are some who would argue that this form of juridical control is greater over the actions of the Commission than that over the actions of a Whitehall Department in this country. They are, in fact, very strict if we are using Community machinery. In the last resort, the Commission itself is liable to dismissal by the Parliamentary Assembly. The Commission will include many British nationals on its staff who will be familiar with our own problems.
Then there is the question that the regulations approved by the Council of Ministers will have the force of law in member countries. That is, of course, true. There are two points which I should like to make about it. For the
796
existing regulations, Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing them, with the Treaty itself, if a solution is reached to the problems and these are placed before Parliament at the end of successful negotiations. Concerning the future regulations, we shall participate in the making of these through our Ministerial representatives on the Council. Throughout the transitional period this will be by unanimity vote. There is also, of course, a form of democratic control in that the Parliamentary Assembly must be consulted in connection with all important regulations.
The last point is the question of the application of these regulations in this country. This matter has been under review by Her Majesty's Government, and we shall place all the information about it before the House when the appropriate time comes in the negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East referred to the specific case of Rules 14 and 15 under Articles 85 and 86 about instruction to British firms and entry into factories. I understand that this is limited to investigating practices restrictive on inter-State trade only. Before any forcible entry could be made, application would have to be to our own courts and supervised under our own courts. Again, the point surely is this. In a community one wants to see these regulations supervised and properly carried out in the other member States, and we ourselves should accept the same arrangements.
There is then the group of questions which are really constitutional and which are commonly described as federal or confederal. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) asked about these. It is much too simple an approach to ask: is this going to become confederal or federal? It is an oversimplification which, I believe, to be quite unjustified. I expressed our views in the Western European Union in my statement on 10th April. I should like to assure hon. Members that there is no misunderstanding in Europe about our position. The form of political co-operation that we favour at this moment is clearly understood and it is fully understood that we take the pragmatic approach of letting these institutions develop as the situation in Europe

797
Indeed, it was because they understood our views so clearly that the Belgian and Dutch Governments took up the position which they did during the discussions in Paris on 17th April. It was not the position of the British Government, but they made their own decisions and took up their own position that, if it was to be the form which I mentioned yesterday in the context of a political union roughly corresponding to confederation, then they wished to see the United Kingdom a member before they accepted that for themselves. I can assure the House that there is no misunderstanding in Europe about it.
How is it going to develop? It is too early at this stage to say. Many in Europe would like to see a federal system. Many others wish to see more gradual progress. The Community is a new form of organisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) said in his most interesting speech yesterday. Looking back, how many of us could have said how the institutions of our own Commonwealth would have developed over the past 15 years? They have developed in an astonishing way to meet the needs of the situation and surely we believe that the institutions in Europe will develop in the same way. But I profoundly believe that in whatever way they may grow, or be created, we here, with all our experience, can make a great contribution towards their development.
We are now drawing very near to the close of what the right hon. Member for Belper described as a memorable debate. I have to be very careful what I say at this stage. I have been accused by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) of almost going to the extent of showing some enthusiasm in an endeavour to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, on the other hand, suggested that it was difficult for me to see the wood for the trees. I sometimes felt, as I listened to his impressive speech, that many sylvan glades had heard his measured phrases in earlier preparatory stages of his admirable speech.
When we are dealing with these negotiations, we always bear in mind the
798
larger context. That was why I took the liberty in my opening speech yesterday of trying to put this before the House, as the right hon. Member for Belper did, and I do not think that there were very big differences between us. All I ask is that right hon. and hon. Members who have objections to these negotiations, specific objections, many of which may be perfectly justifiable, should set them in the larger context and then try to make a balance as to which is the right course which we should follow when we are able to bring these negotiations to the stage at which we can put the solutions before the House.
Can we agree that this is one of the greatest issues facing us? Let us argue it out on the basis of the substance of the problem. Let those who object no longer base their opposition on the grounds of lack of consultation or information. Can we recognise that everybody is doing his utmost to carry out consultation with the whole of the Commonwealth and with E.F.T.A., all the time? Let us not cover our opposition on these grounds, but argue it out frankly and fairly on the substance.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said that the difference was that he was a Commonwealth man and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) was a European. That approach is fundamentally wrong. We who are carrying on these negotiations believe in the Commonwealth. Every leading official in the delegation has had experience of Commonwealth trade, and most of them know it intimately, as I do myself.
It is true that no one knows better than a former Patronage Secretary the limits of the human mind and the human spirit! But I do not believe that it is beyond the bounds of man's mind to achieve the reconciliation of the two concepts of our Commonwealth and of Europe. Surely we make progress, mankind makes progress, only through the reconciliation of ideas. When these technical problems sometimes seem baffling and difficult for us, we do not despair. We feel that what we are dealing with is not small or big questions of tariffs or trade: we are dealing with fundamental human values, because they affect the future of millions of people here, in

799
Europe, in the Commonwealth and right across the world, and that is what gives us the inspiration to carry on.
This debate has indeed been heartening, and I am grateful to the House for what it has said.
Mr. William Hamilton: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer two questions?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear. Am I being offered a point of order?
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put: —
The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 216.

Division No. 216.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Mr. M. Foot and Mr. Emrys Hughes.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Gardner, Edward

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

Aitken, W. T.

Gibson-Watt, David

McMaster, Stanley R.

Allason, James

Glover, Sir Douglas

Macmillan.Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Arbuthnot, John

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

Balniel, Lord

Goodhew, Victor

Maddan, Martin

Barber, Anthony

Green, Alan

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Barlow, Sir John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Batsford, Brian

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Marten, Neil

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mathews, Robert (Honiton)

Berkeley, Humphry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Biffen, John

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mawby, Ray

Bingham, R. M.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Bishop, F. P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mills, Stratton

Black, Sir Cyril

Hay, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Bossom, Clive

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hiley, Joseph

Morgan, William

Box, Donald

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Morrison, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Hobson, Sir John

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hocking, Philip N.

Noble, Michael

Braine, Bernard

Holland, Philip

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Bromley-Davenport.Lt. -Col.SirWalter

Holt, Arthur

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hooson, H. E.

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Buck, Antony

Hopkins, Alan

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Bullard, Denys

Hornby, R. P.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Chataway, Christopher

Hughes-Young, Michael

Percival, Ian

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Cleaver, Leonard

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pitt, Miss Edith

Collard, Richard

Iremonger, T. L.

Pott, Percivall

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior, J. M. L.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

James, David

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Corfield, F. V.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pym, Francis

Costain, A. P.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Coulson, Michael

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ramsden, James

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Rawlinson, Peter

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Critchley, Julian

Lambton, Viscount

Rees, Hugh

Cunningham, Knox

Leather, Sir Edwin

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Curran, Charles

Leavey, J. A.

Renton, David

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Ridsdale, Julian

de Ferranti, Basil

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

Doughty, Charles

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Robson Brown, Sir William

Duncan, Sir James

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Eden, John

Litchfield, Capt. John

Roots, William

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Emery, Peter

Longbottom, Charles

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Longden, Gilbert

Sharples, Richard

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Loveys, Walter H.

Shaw, M.

Farr, John

Lubbock, Eric

Shepherd, William

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswick)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

MacArthur, Ian

Smithers, Peter

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

McLaren, Martin

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Freeth, Denzil

Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayra.)

Speir, Rupert

Gammane, Lady

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Stodart, J. A.

Storey, Sir Samuel

Thorton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

Ward, Dame Irene

Studholme, Sir Henry

Thorpe, Jeremy

Webster, David

Summers, Sir Spencer

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Tapsell, Peter

Turner, Colin

Whitelaw, William

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Teeling, Sir William

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Woodhouse, C. M.

Temple, John M.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Woodnutt, Mark

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Worsley, Marcus

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Walder, David

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Walker, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

It being after Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Neston [copy laid before the House, 29th May], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

PARKING METERS (PROSECUTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
10.11 p.m.
Sir Cyril Black: My task this evening is to turn the thoughts of the House from the great problems of the Commonwealth and of Europe and to consider for a few moments the important problem—because it is an important one—of the rights of the citizen. I am glad to have the opportunity of raising tonight with the Minister of State, Home Office, what I think I can fairly describe as the extraordinary case of my constituent, Mr. Rodney Smith, M.S., F.R.C.S.
Mr. Rodney Smith is a well-known surgeon of both national and international repute. He is consultant to St. George's Hospital, to Victoria Hospital for Children, and Wimbledon Hospital. He is a surgical tutor at the Royal College of Surgeons and an examiner in surgery at various institutions. Needless to say, he is an extremely busy professional man and his services are obviously of the highest value to the community. My constituent has outlined to me the activities of a normal
802
working day in his life. His description is as follows:
"My usual working day begins before 8 a.m. and, as I am concerned with the writing and editing of a number of surgical textbooks, usually continues until somewhere around 11.30 p.m. For a number of years now it has been my practice to take a 'breather' around 4.30 p.m. by having tea and playing one or perhaps two rubbers of bridge at my club, Crockfords in Carlton House Terrace."
On 2nd October last, after a busy morning operating at St. George's Hospital and a busy afternoon consulting in Harley Street, Mr. Rodney Smith arrived at Crockfords Club at about his usual time, parked his car at a meter, putting 1s. in the slot, and went into the club where his time of arrival was noted down by the receptionist as 4.20 p.m. At 5.15 p.m. a police officer, acting on instructions from a traffic warden, had his car towed away to a car pound. When he came out of the club and found that his car had gone, my constituent naturally thought that it must have been stolen, but after a lot of telephoning, he found that the police had taken it away and that the reason for this was that the traffic warden had stated that the car had been there since early in the afternoon and that it had been removed for the offence of meter feeding.
Mr. Smith tried to interest the police in checking at once the fact that he had been in Harley Street until shortly before his arrival at the club at 4.20 p.m., but met with a complete refusal to do anything to help him, although he explained that he was a surgeon and still had work to do and patients to see. Eventually my constituent had to take a taxi to the car pound and fetch his car, and, not unnaturally, he refused to pay the charge of £2 which was demanded. Later he received an official form stating that the police would issue a summons to recover this sum. By this time he had written fully to the police vehemently protesting at the mistake that had been

803
made, and not only that a quite unjustifiable mistake had been made but that a complete lack of interest had been shown by everyone approached in putting it right.
By this stage the legal department of the Automobile Association was concerned on Mr. Smith's behalf. The first thing done by a senior A.A. solicitor was to check for himself my constituent's account of this afternoon's work by interviewing my constituent, his secretary and the last person on his appointment book. The solicitor examined my constituent's appointment book, his secretary's notebook, and satisfied himself absolutely that there could be no mistake about the earliest time my constituent could have left the Harley Street area, which was some time after 4 p.m.
I am informed that it was the solicitor's opinion that when presented with this evidence the police would at once recognise that a serious mistake had been made and would not proceed with the summons but instead offer an unqualified apology. This, however, proved to be far from the case, for although the strongest representations were made the police flatly refused to investigate my constituent's account in any way. At no time was my constituent interviewed by a police officer, nor was his secretary, nor was his last patient who was interviewed at the consulting rooms that afternoon, nor the receptionist at Crock-ford's who recorded the time of my constituent's arrival there.
Eventually a summons was issued and my constituent, on taking legal advice, including that of counsel, came to the conclusion that as a matter of principle the case must be defended. It is hardly necessary to point out that my constituent would of course have found it much more simple, much less time-consuming, and much less expensive, to pay the £2 and to have no further trouble in the matter. As a question of public duty, however, he declined to take this course, and in my view was clearly right in doing so.
On the 16th February, the case duly came up at Bow Street magistrates' court where the traffic warden swore on oath that he could not have been mistaken and that my constituent's car was in Carlton House Terrace at 3.32 p.m. The
804
evidence was then called for my constituent to show that at this time he was in Harley Street and that his car was at the pavement outside, and in the result the magistrate dismissed the summons.
It seems to my constituent and to me that two criticisms arise in respect of the handling of this matter by the authorities. First, the action of the police surely calls for condemnation. It is recognised, of course, that it is not the duty of the police themselves, as it were, to try a case of this kind, but for them stubbornly to rely on the unsupported account of a traffic warden and persistently decline to interview my constituent, his secretary, the last patient he had interviewed that afternoon and the receptionist at Crockford's Club, cannot, in my submission to the House, possibly be justified.
If the police had taken the trouble to interview the various witnesses, whom they were repeatedly invited to interview, they could not possibly have come to the conclusion that it was right to proceed with the case against my constituent. As a result of what I can only describe as a grave error of judgment on the part of the police, my constituent wasted most of the day which could otherwise have been devoted to the care of his patients, and he and various witnesses and other people were involved in trouble and expense quite unnecessarily and quite unjustifiably. At the very least, the police officer who was responsible for this matter ought to be reprimanded.
Secondly, the conduct of the traffic warden must surely lead to the irresistible conclusion that he is a quite unsuitable and unreliable person to be retained in his present employment. The facts as to the actions and evidence of the traffic warden are, I understand, as given by the Commissioner of Police as follows, and here I am quoting:
"At 3.32 p.m. on 2nd October, 1961, a traffic warden in Carlton House Terrace made an entry in his pocket book to the effect that a green Ford Consul car, registration number 729BYH, was standing unattended at meter No. 2419, which at that time showed 70 minutes' unexpired time. The warden made a further entry noting the mileage on the speedometer of the car. At 4.45 p.m. the same warden returned to Carlton House Terrace and saw the same vehicle, registration number 729BYH, at the same meter No. 2419. He noted that the mileage on the speedometer of the car was unchanged, and

805
that the meter then showed 90 minutes' unexpired time. The warden recorded all these particulars in his pocket book at the time at which he observed them, together with particulars of other vehicles in the area. The warden concluded that additional coins had been inserted in the meter, and the police, to whom the facts were reported, removed the vehicle at 5.15 p.m."
It is quite clear from the evidence produced by my constituent that the traffic warden's account of what took place and the entries in his pocket book were completely incorrect, and the magistrate must have come to that conclusion as he dismissed the case against my constituent.
To put the matter quite bluntly, the traffic warden made a series of entries in his pocket book which were wholly incorrect, and he gave evidence in support of the proceedings against my constituent which was obviously disbelieved by the magistrates, and could not, on the facts of the case, be other than completely inaccurate. It is unthinkable, I suggest, that legal proceedings should be taken against other motorists on the evidence of this particular traffic warden, particularly as other motorists might not have the determination and spirit shown by my constituent in contesting the legal proceedings.
It is quite obviously distasteful to have to make these criticisms of men employed in branches of the public service which, deservedly, enjoy a high reputation with the public. But to overlook, condone or try to justify what happened in this case could do no good to the branches of the public service involved and could only have a disquieting effect on public confidence. I hope that the House can be given an assurance that appropriate action will be taken in respect of the individuals involved in this most deplorable case.
10.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): This is a case about which I have had a great deal of correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). He has been good enough to set before the House the facts as they appeared to his constituent, and it is right that I should now describe the sequence of events as they have been reported by the Commissioner of
806
Police of the Metropolis to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
An entry was made by a traffic warden in his pocket book to the effect that at 3.32 p.m. on 2nd October, 1961, a green Ford Consul car, registration No. 729 BYH, was standing unattended at a parking meter in Carlton House Terrace which at that time showed 70 minutes' unexpired time. The warden made a further entry noting the mileage on the speedometer of the car. Over an hour later the same warden returned to Carlton House Terrace and saw the same vehicle at the same meter. He noted that the mileage was unchanged and that the meter then showed 90 minutes' unexpired time.
The warden put these further particulars into his notebook. I would make it clear that these details were each recorded at the time the warden observed them and were not written in the notebook afterwards. They appeared in the notebook interspersed with details taken about other vehicles at other parking meters on the warden's beat. The warden formed the opinion that additional coins had been inserted in the meter; that is to say, that meter feeding had taken place—a very common occurrence and, of course, illegal.
He reported the matter to the police who removed the car at 5.15 p.m. in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1961. I should explain to the House that under Section 15 of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, and the Regulations made under that Act a fixed charge of £2 is payable to the police in respect of a vehicle removed by them in accordance with their statutory powers. The Regulations also provide that the charge may be recovered either as a simple contract debt or summarily as a civil debt.
My hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Rodney Smith, the driver of the car in question, is, I understand, a well-known surgeon. My hon. Friend has described his normal working day, and as the son of a doctor and surgeon myself I can sympathise with what my hon. Friend said. Mr. Smith collected the car but refused to pay the removal charge. On 6th October, four days later, he wrote to the police giving an account of his

807
movements on 2nd October and protesting at the action they had taken. He said that the legal department of the Automobile Association would be forwarding their comments.
The Commissioner of Police tells me that both the evidence that the police had and Mr. Smith's letter were carefully considered and it was decided that in view of the conflict of evidence—and there was undoubtedly a conflict of evidence—the right course was for a court of law to have the facts put before it. Mr. Smith was therefore told that if the removal charge was not paid proceedings would be taken for its recovery.
The legal department in the A.A. asked both by telephone and in a letter dated 22nd September that the decision to go to court should be reconsidered. What the A.A. said did not differ materially from the information given by Mr. Smith except in one important respect, that is to say, in his statement to the A.A. Mr. Smith admitted that he had been mistaken in believing that the hall porter saw him arrive at Crockford's, where he had been when the car was removed, for it then appeared that the porter did not go on duty until about 4.45 p.m.
After full consideration had been given to his letter, the Association was told that the Commissioner was unable to alter his decision that the money should be recovered in the court, and the case was heard at Bow Street Magistrate's Court in 16th February this year. The magistrate, after hearing all the evidence, did, as my hon. Friend has told the House, dismiss the summons. A strong application for costs against the police was made on behalf of Mr. Smith; however, the magistrate refused that application, saying that the case had been properly brought and that it was not one in which, in his opinion, he ought to award costs.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the police should not have taken proceedings without first making more adequate inquiries, but there was in fact no one who could give precise corroboration of Mr. Smith's time of arrival at the club. The porter had not come on duty until later and the receptionist—who was originally said by Mr. Smith to have noted this important point—had appar-
808
ently destroyed the note which he had made at the time.
May I say that these facts were to some extant elicited in pursuance of just that invitation to which my hon. Friend referred, that the police should, through the solicitors, who were the Automobile Association solicitors, make further inquiries before taking the matter to court They did, with the help of the solicitors, make such further inquiries as were possible, but these further inquiries did not eliminate in any way the conflict of evidence, and, indeed, showed that there was rather more to be cleared up than appeared at first sight.
In any event, the whole case depended on the contemporary record made by the warden whose job it was to record these details, and the details as recorded left no room for doubt that there was a prima facie case, at any rate, that an offence had been committed and it was for the court to consider that prima facie case, hear what the defence had to say about it, and form a judgment upon the evidence.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I can do no more than give the House the facts as they have been reported to me by the Commissioner of Police. While I am, of course, sorry that there should be any dispute as to these facts, it seems to me that, since there was a dispute, the Commissioner was fully entitled to take the course of submitting the matter to adjudication in the court.
I naturally accept, unreservedly, everything that my hon. Friend has said about Mr. Smith's standing and integrity, but I must emphasise that the entries in the traffic warden's notebook, which were included in chronological order among other entiries relating to other vehicles on the beat, were factual and were detailed, and I think the House ought to not that in the course of his judgment the magistrate made it clear that he was entirely satisfied as to the capacity and integrity of the traffic warden, and that he thought that perhaps a mistake might have occurred. That is presumably why he dismissed the case. There was no suggestion in the judgment that any false entries had been made by the traffic warden, and it is difficult to conceive of any reason why any traffic warden should deliberately make a false

809
entry in his notebook merely for the sake of getting a car removed toy the police.
I do not think that it would be right for me to attempt to speculate as to possible reasons for the discrepancy of evidence. The matter has been before the court and I can find nothing in what the magistrate said to indicate either that the case was not properly brought or that the traffic warden was shown to have behaved improperly in any way. No fresh evidence or matter not available to the court at the time of the hearing has come to notice since then. The traffic warden was known as a most methodical and reliable traffic officer. The Commissioner could not agree that this case showed that he was unreliable in the discharge of his duties or should never be sued again as a witness in proceedings against motorists.
1 should perhaps disclose, to the extent that it might be considered material, that the warden has since resigned, but he has done so owing to the recurrence of an old injury to his knee which prevents him from doing very much walking, and if a traffic warden cannot walk he is not able to perform his duties properly. But there was no question of his being asked to resign on disciplinary grounds or as a result of this case.
I am indeed sorry that my hon. Friend's constituent feels aggrieved. The enforcement of these very necessary traffic rules in the centre of London is a matter of great difficulty, but if individual cases are not taken up when the facts as gathered on the spot appear to make it necessary to do so, the whole object of the restrictions will be defeated.
I hope that the account which I have given of the sequence of events as they appear from police records makes it clear that proper care was taken by the Commissioner's office and that there was no evidence of improper action on the part of the traffic warden. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if, as a concluding comment, I say that there are many occasions on which the police, in pursuance of their duty to enforce the law, have to take the case to court, knowing that their duty is to lay only a prima facie case before the court and in circumstances in which the answer to it, if it has come their way—which is not always the case—does not appear
810
to upset that case. If every time the police lose a case which they have taken before the court in that way we are to expect disciplinary proceedings to be taken against somebody in the police force or some traffic warden, the whole system will break down.
I hope that I am not being in any way unduly critical but merely passing what I think is a fair comment when I say that although I am only too glad to stand at the Box in order to express the point of view of the Commissioner of Police, we should have a very large number of Adjournment debates if the matter were raised every time that the police lost a case.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Having listened to the debate, I personally am satisfied with the Minister's reply. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is equally satisfied.
I hope that we all agree that these traffic wardens have a very difficult task to perform. My experience and that of my hon. Friends is that they discharge their task admirably and with very great satisfaction in difficult circumstances. As the Minister said, if the Commissioner of Police, on evidence by a reliable traffic warden, feels that a prosecution ought to be brought, it is his duty to bring it, notwithstanding any conditions there may be and notwithstanding the fact that occasionally the police may not be able to prove their case. That is what the courts of justice exist to decide—whether a case is proved up to the hilt.
I therefore do not take the view that it is any criticism of any traffic warden or of the police if an occasional prosecution fails. That shows that justice has been done. It is a tribute to the impartiality of the courts. In the interests of the efficient administration of these difficult traffic laws, I personally applaud the fact that, after having made what seem to me to be reasonable inquiries, the Commissioner was not deterred from performing his legitimate and proper function of taking proceedings and leaving it to a court to decide.
Sir C. Black: Does the hon. Gentleman contend that a traffic warden is a

811
reliable person who writes in his notebook that a car is at a particular meter at 3.32 in the afternoon when it is clear that the car was not there at that time?
Mr. Fletcher: There seems to me from what I have heard to have been a complete dispute about that. No doubt traffic wardens, being human, occasionally make mistakes, but one is entitled to assume from their general record of integrity that what they say is right. If they occasionally make mistakes, it is for the courts to deal with that and not for the Commissioner of Police to be put off from the perform-
812
ance of what I think is his proper duty. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), having heard this explanation, is perfectly satisfied that the administrative action was properly carried out and that in the result justice was done—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Taxis (Public Control)
  London Taxis (Public Control)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Murders
  Murders
  Crimes of Violence and Sexual Offences
  Crimes of Violence and Sexual Offences
EDUCATION
  Secondary Schools (Teaching Staffs)
  Secondary Schools (Teaching Staffs)
  Building Projects, Leyton
  Building Projects, Leyton
  Secondary School Examinations
  Secondary School Examinations
  Technical Education, West Middlesex
  Technical Education, West Middlesex
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Industries, The Hartlepools
  New Industries, The Hartlepools
  Egg Imports
  Egg Imports
ROADS
  Downham West, Norfolk (Bridge)
  Downham West, Norfolk (Bridge)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Blind Persons)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Blind Persons)
SHIPPING
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
  Ship-Repairing Yards (Oil Tankers)
  Ship-Repairing Yards (Oil Tankers)
HONG KONG
  Cotton Exports
  Cotton Exports
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Old Orchards (Grubbing)
  Old Orchards (Grubbing)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Kettering (Town Map)
  Kettering (Town Map)
  Coast Protection (Works Scheme Procedure)
  Coast Protection (Works Scheme Procedure)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Committee on Broadcasting (Report)
  Committee on Broadcasting (Report)
  Local Broadcasting (Frequency Provision)
  Local Broadcasting (Frequency Provision)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity Prices, South-Eastern Region
  Electricity Prices, South-Eastern Region
SCIENCE
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Science and Technology (Postgraduate Students)
  Science and Technology (Postgraduate Students)
SCOTLAND
  Senior Secondary Courses
  Senior Secondary Courses
  Ordinary-Level Examination
  Ordinary-Level Examination
  Junior Secondary Courses
  Junior Secondary Courses
  Schools, East Kilbride
  Schools, East Kilbride
  Schools, Glenrothes
  Schools, Glenrothes
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Part-time Education
  Part-time Education
  Isle of Skye (Hospital Projects)
  Isle of Skye (Hospital Projects)
  Isle of Skye (Sligachan-Sconser Scheme)
  Isle of Skye (Sligachan-Sconser Scheme)
  South Uist (Water Scheme)
  South Uist (Water Scheme)
  Nuclear Warfare (Dispersal Plans)
  Nuclear Warfare (Dispersal Plans)
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Kyle Ferry
  Kyle Ferry
  Mallaig Harbour
  Mallaig Harbour
  Mallaig and Armadale (Ferry Service)
  Mallaig and Armadale (Ferry Service)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Goya Picture (Report)
  Goya Picture (Report)
BRITISH ARMY
  Hilden Camp (Courts Martial)
  Hilden Camp (Courts Martial)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich

BLINDNESS AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
2.6 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether further consideration can be given to the question of whether, in appointing Justices of the Peace, blindness—although taken into account along with other considerations—is not of itself a bar to appointment.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the question whether blindness should be a bar to appointment as a justice of the peace was considered by the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace which was appointed in 1946, and before which my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale gave evidence. The Royal Commission, after paying tribute to the great achievements of blind persons in many fields, came to the conclusion that in the administration of justice sight is essential, and they recommended unanimously that
"no person who is blind ought to be appointed a justice or, if he is already a justice, ought to continue to sit."
My predecessors, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, gave careful consideration to these recommendations, and both of them accepted the arguments advanced by the Royal Commission. I myself have given prolonged and anxious thought to this question, and I have found myself in complete agreement with my two predecessors. Much as we all sympathise with my noble friend's point of view, I am
714
afraid that I must tell him that I know of no fresh evidence which would lead me to alter the clear conclusion which I have reached in accepting the Royal Commission's recommendations, which I believe are in the best interests of the administration of justice as a whole.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his courteous and sympathetic reply, may I put a hypothetical case to him? Suppose there is a blind man in middle age who has been a successful mayor or chairman of a rural district council who has enjoyed a year's ex-officio office as a J.P.—he may even, perhaps, have been a solicitor; and suppose he has a great public reputation for judgment and justice and is in every respect an eligible person. Might it not be better to appoint him a justice than some local Colonel Blimp? Will my noble and learned friend consider whether blindness of itself should be an absolute bar, or whether, as my Question suggests, it should be fairly taken into consideration along with every other disability, such as deafness, stupidity, prejudice and political bias?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on one aspect of my noble friend's supplementary question I should like to tell him that I personally consider the record of everyone who is proposed as a candidate for the commission of the peace, and I try to assure myself—and, of course, I am helped by my advisory committees all over the country—that everyone whom I appoint reaches the standard which I think is necessary for this important office.
On the other part of his supplementary question, I hope your Lordships will allow me to quote the reasons that were given by the Royal Commission. After paying tribute, as I said, to the great work of those who are under this incapacity, they went on to say:
"There are however certain weighty considerations on the other side to which we are compelled to attach great importance. First, it is necessary, if a magistrate is to be deemed capable of fulfilling all the functions of his office, that he should be able to read documents and examine plans. If he has not this ability, he is necessarily debarred not only from attesting documents, but (what is much more important) from forming an independent opinion, in the course of a trial, based on the examination of plans and documents or on a comparison of handwritings. Secondly,

715
great importance is always attached in our courts to the observation of a witness's demeanour by those who act as judges of fact. In order that this observation should be wholly reliable it seems to us that it must depend on sight as well as hearing. Finally, we think that litigants, and especially defendants, whose reputation and whole future are sometimes at stake, could not be expected to feel confident that the value of the evidence for and against them would be correctly appraised by a justice who had not the advantage of seeing the witnesses. These considerations compel us to say that no person who is blind ought to be appointed a justice, or, if he is already a justice, ought to continue to sit."
My Lords, with the greatest sympathy, I feel myself bound to accept these conclusions, with which I respectfully agree.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is any statement to be made on Business by the Government to-day?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I was not aware of any statement to be made on Business, but if the noble Viscount would put any particular matter he has in mind I should be glad to assist him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There are two points I want to put. I understood through the usual channels last night that it is the intention of the Government, whatever happens, to push through the Committee stage of the Transport Bill to-night. This is the eighth day of the consideration of this enormous Bill. The strain upon an Opposition, with the limited number of members it can afford to allocate to the close examination of a technical Bill of this character, is very great. We have had two very late night Sittings, with an attendance at the end which make the proceedings almost farcical from the point of view of getting a thorough examination.
We have now, perhaps, from some points of view, slightly easier Amendments; some of them may be quite consequential, and I have thought about all that. Nevertheless, we have still to deal with Amendments from No. 154 to No. 263, and it is proposed to push those through. It may well be that it
716
will be possible to get the Business through; it depends what the treatment may be in the consideration of each Amendment as we proceed. But to say that the matter is to be pushed through at all costs is asking rather too much of a limited Opposition. I think that you should rest upon the circumstances of the Business to-day as they eventuate, and not put that burden upon us. That is the first point; I have another to put forward.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as your Lordships may know, I have not played a very large personal part in the deliberations on the Transport Bill. I had myself thought that eight days was a very ample allocation. So far as the strain upon members of the Opposition is concerned, the noble Viscount will agree that we have done our best in other ways to strengthen the numbers on the Opposition Benches and thereby relieve the strain on individuals.
LORD REA: My Lords—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord forgive me? I will, of course, give way to him when I have completed my answer to the noble Viscount. So far as continuance of Business at all costs is concerned, it is, after all, an issue for the House. I cannot prejudge what the House will think about it. The noble Viscount asked what was the Government's desire and intention. Obviously that will have to be decided in the light of the feeling of the House at the time, but our intention now is to carry the Committee stage to a conclusion to-day.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I put my note of interrogation to the noble Viscount, without amplifying it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I give my notice of reply, without emphasising it?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the usual channels will keep in consultation during the course of the debate and that the reasonable comfort of the Members of the House may be taken into consideration on this last day of this part of the Session, when many of them have made arrangements to be away elsewhere. They are not exactly high-salaried servants of the Crown; they are

717
just loyal people who attend here to do their best.
I should also like to ask the Government whether they will state to the House to-day what are their intentions with regard to the Amendment carried to the Sea Fisheries Bill, which concerned the last words of Clause 3 (1), and which was put in by the House on Committee against the wish of the Government on Tuesday last. I am informed through the usual channels that the Bill is to be taken on Report stage on the first day we return, and it is imperative, in my judgment, that we should know to-day what is the Government's intention. Is it the intention to leave the Amendment carried by your Lordships in the Bill, or is it to try either to remove the Amendment or to amend it? Because, as I see it, this is raising a pretty important constitutional issue. If I look at Clause 3 (1), under which powers are given to make orders in the future, in the last line but two I see that it says that the grants mentioned above
"shall be extended and shall have effect in accordance with, and subject to, the following provisions of this section."
The Bill was before the other place, and the Leader of my Party in the other place will again be raising it there on Business to-day. They had this Bill before them for a period of five months. This extension of the powers of the previous Act means that any order made under this Bill could really, with honesty, carry only the same provisions for grants, except as amended in this Bill, as were provided in the Act of 1953. This is a financial matter. There is a new proposal to make grants for the building of trawlers by British owners in foreign ports. It was never mentioned on the Second Reading of this Bill. I consider it to be a constitutional issue of great importance that, before the Bill finally receives Royal Assent, this matter should be before the House controlling finance. Therefore, I want to know to-day what are the intentions of the Government, so that I can make what reasonable arrangements I can to consider the matter between now and the day on which we come back, which at present is to be devoted to this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is nothing whatever in the constitutional
718
point. Any scheme which gives effect to the subsidies proposed will have to come before both Houses of Parliament by way of Affirmative Resolution, and that is the way the Act provides, and has always provided. As regards the question which the noble Viscount has asked, I do not propose to debate its merits now, and I do not suppose that the House would wish me to; but it is the intention of the Government to put down an Amendment in due course, and to try to persuade the House on Report to accept an Amendment which will restore the Bill to the condition in which we received it from the other place. In answer to the debate on the Adjournment to-morrow, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a more general reply upon the nature of the Government's policy, Which I would ask the noble Viscount to await.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it does not follow at all that I am bound to accept the statement of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that no constitutional point arises. I myself have read this pretty carefully and what he has just suggested would be a matter for great debate. It seems to me that no order can be made under this Bill, which is out of line with the financial provisions of 1953. All it says here is that it will extend the powers. What powers? What powers were mentioned in the financial House? What powers were there to make this new proposal that you now say you will introduce, introduce almost surreptitiously, when the Bill is well advanced, and finished in the other House, without the proposal coming before the House that is responsible for ultimate financial control? To my mind it is an absolutely constitutional point, and we should pursue it as such.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is absolutely no reason why the noble Viscount should not make his speech, with all the eloquence at his command, when we come to discuss the Government Amendment. I can only repeat to the House now that I think there is absolutely nothing in what the noble Viscount has said.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I support what my noble Leader has said? Surely, this is the position. A new principle is involved in that the other place was not told about the Government's intention of paying money into foreign countries for the building of fishing vessels for our country. It was not told, so the House of Commons had no knowledge when the Bill was before it that this was the intention. The Bill came here, and we were not told on Second Reading. Then, after that, the Minister announced it in another place, I understand in answer to a Written Question, so that there could be no supplementary questions about it, nor could the Adjournment of the House be moved on the subject. The Bill came here and it was after that that this Answer to a Written Question was made.
If the Government—and I would urge this upon the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—would leave the Bill as amended, it would then go back to another place. I would not recommend the Government to seek a change, but if they wanted to seek a change, surely the proper place to seek it would be not in this House, which has no jurisdiction on financial matters, but in another place; they should take the will of the popularly elected House in this matter, which intimately concerns finance.
I submit to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that this is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and to the spirit of Parliamentary practice. It is sharp practice. It is a wicked thing to have done. I would beg the noble and learned Viscount, for the sake not only of the Government but of fair play towards Parliament as a whole, not to press this Amendment here, but to take it to another place, to the House which has rights over finance, the House of Commons. Why should the Government be afraid of it, unless they are afraid that the House of Commons will not pass it? Why should they be afraid of it unless, in tie light of yesterday's by-election and to-day's too, they realise they are in such a position that they have forfeited altogether their moral authority in Parliament?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is himself, I think, violating the practice of the House in seeking to debate the merits of the Amendment, when all his noble Leader did was to ask me what was the Government's intention as to whether or not we should put it down. The noble Lord will later be able to make his speech, and it will be just as inaccurate then as it was just now, but then I shall be able to answer it and remain in order. I will only say this to the noble Viscount and his noble friend: it is a remarkable thing, coming from the Party which immediately prior to that Amendment sought to introduce a new subsidy by way of Amendment in the House of Lords. That, indeed, was a grave violation of the spirit of our Constitution.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he is aware that, when for five and a half months this Bill was discussed in another place, the situation was that all shipping vessels or engines for which a grant or loan could be obtained were exclusively to be produced in the United Kingdom? During the whole of those five and a half months those honourable Members who were discussing this Bill were never made aware of any likely change on the lines indicated in the Minister's reply to a question on May 18. Is the noble and learned Viscount also aware that this House was also in ignorance of any change when it gave the Bill a Second Reading? But more important still than either of those questions, I think, is the point that noble Lords on this side of the House were as anxious as any member of the Government to see the Bill on the Statute Book, so there was nothing fractious, synthetic or political about the approach. Does the noble and learned Viscount not think, in those circumstances, that it is going slightly outside the normal constitutional procedure to introduce this Latter-day saint after the Bill has come from another place and had a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I read the point that the noble Lord has made, when he made it in his speech on the Amendment, and no doubt he will make it again (and be in order) when he replies to the Amendment which we

721
shall be proposing on Report. I may say that, on the occasion when I read it in Hansard, I thought it was in fact a bad point, and I shall be giving my reasons in due course. All I was seeking to do this afternoon was to reply to a question by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition as to what we intended to do, and that question we have answered. We really cannot discuss the merits of what we are going to do, until we try to do it.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: No, my Lords. But is the noble Viscount not aware—I am sure he is—that if the Government put down the Amendment indicated, and the large number of noble Lords who sit opposite carry the Government's Amendment, what they will be doing in effect is to deprive all those Members in another place who were keenly interested in the Bill, and spent five and a half months upon it in ignorance of this change, of an opportunity of ever discussing this new principle?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not agree even with that. But the Government's Amendment will not succeed in your Lordships' House unless this House so decrees by its vote in the ordinary way, and we shall appeal to it to do so. As regards the other place, I have never found them unable to safeguard their own privileges, and I hope the time will never come when they are.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has referred to an Amendment to another Bill, which was moved from this side and involved money.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is the same Bill.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: All right, my Lords, the same Bill. But there is nothing wrong about that. If it went to another place with that Amendment in, it would be treated as a privilege Amendment; the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees would so announce, and it would be printed in italics. It would then be open to another place either to affirm this privilege or to let it go, just as they like. It is well within their power. What the Government are seeking now is to sidestep another place, the popularly elected House. On the noble and learned
722
Viscount's point about orders, he will be aware that when an order comes here or goes to another place, Amendments cannot be moved. It is either, "Yes" or "No"—
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Take it or leave it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —or, as my noble friend says, "take it or leave it". We have a tradition here, which I think on balance is sensible, that we do not interfere with orders; we leave it to another place. Therefore, is that an adequate substitute for the rights of Parliament and particularly of the House that deals with money matters? Is that a good reason why we should not safeguard the rights of both Houses and, on a money matter, particularly of another place?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I still do not think we should do right to debate the merits of this Amendment, when all I was doing was to reply to the question as to what we were going to do. But I must say I think it is extremely strange for the noble Lord to speak about the privilege of another place, when all the Government's Amendment is proposing to do is to put back the Bill in the condition in which the other place sent it to us.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They did not know about it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have never in my life heard such evasions. That last answer takes no account of the fact that the House of Commons was absolutely sidestepped by the Government in their action. It was never mentioned there at all. So the noble Viscount's case on that has gone by default. However, I do not propose to continue it here. I suppose we should not have known for a long enough time if I had not asked a question to-day what the Government's attitude was going to be. I tried to find out yesterday through the usual channels, but I got no firm answer. I now have an answer; I know the Government's intention. I hope it will be circulated in a very early Blue Paper, so that Members of the House may know when to be here and will not make arrangements to be away that day. I am sure the Government Chief Whip would like that, and I certainly would.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has no right to say the Government would not have stated their intention but for the question. I answered the question because it was put. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that there is to be a debate in another place to-morrow and that the Government would have stated their intention then if they had not done so here to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The action taken by this House had a right to be dealt with in this House. I took the precaution of asking the Minister first whether he proposed to make a statement on this.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is true; the noble Viscount gave me notice that he was going to put this particular point to me, and for that reason I came armed with the answer. What he has no right to do is to suggest that the answer would have been suppressed had he not asked his question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I, at least, find the noble and learned Viscount guilty on that point.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as it is the last day before the Recess, and as I moved the original Motion on increase of pensions for former Colonial Service officers, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House what action the Government propose to take as a result of the Resolution passed by this House last night?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, unfortunately, unlike the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord did not take the precaution of giving me notice that he was going to ask a question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I apologise for not doing so; I have only just returned from the country. But may I nevertheless ask him whether it is within his knowledge as Leader of the House whether the Government propose to take action on something the House decided last night?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I cannot say anything beyond what my noble friend said last night.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
2.34 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

MARRIAGE (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the first Amendment is called may I ask the noble Lord whether, if business is slow and we do not make quite the progress some of us are hoping to make, which naturally we shall try to do, it is intended to adjourn for dinner.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): I think that it has already been announced that the House will adjourn for dinner.
Clause 61 [Amendment of enactments relating to inland waterways]:
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from "shall" to the end of the subsection and to insert instead:
"apply to the Board as it applies to the Commission."

725
The noble Viscount said: I very much enjoy in many ways entering into debate with the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the subject of this Bill, because I think they are very nice people, and I like them. But the more I see of this Bill, and the more I hear from every single person who has anything to do with the waterways, the more they seem to me to be babes unborn in the matter of their innocence in what is going on.
The Amendment which I am moving performs a very simple function. It seeks to put the new Waterways Board in exactly the same position as the former Commission in regard to powers for the upkeep of waterways. The noble Lords have given us many assurances; they have said that these waterways will be kept up in all their former condition, according to Acts of Parliament concerning the matter; and that even where the statutory right of navigation is removed in certain cases these waterways are still to be kept navigable. That is what they say. I should be happy to believe them, and I should believe them all the more readily if I did not know that, entirely contrary to the wishes of Parliament, these waterways are even now being neglected and are going out of navigable state. All the ministerial assurances which have been made in the last few years are being violated, left and right; and, of course, there is no protection for the waterways except the protection of Statute.
As it reads to-day, Clause 61 is not very easy to understand, since it is a matter of legislation by reference to the Regulation of Railways Act. I will tell your Lordships exactly what the result of this clause is. The Regulation of Railways Act requires the British Transport Commission to maintain certain inland waterways. One might think that "certain inland waterways" were just one or two odd canals scattered throughout the country, and rather unimportant ones, but in fact they are every single waterway in the country, whether owned by the Commission or anybody else, with the exception of those which used to be railway-owned navigations. And when we come to the railway-owned navigations, we find that every single one of them has been closed down, with
726
the exception of the Wytham Navigation and the Fossway. These are the only two which are now in active use and in good condition.
In other words, we are being asked in this clause to allow the new Board to jettison their duty of keeping in good condition every navigation in the country, except the Wytham Navigation and the Fossway. It is simply amazing. Why do the Government want the clause in this way? I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer. He has always said that the Bill is solely for the purpose of transferring certain assets from organisation A to organisation B. This change is about as big a change as one could possibly make; I cannot imagine a larger one. The Government may say that I am completely wrong in my reading of this and that the words do not carry this meaning. If they do not carry this meaning, what meaning do they carry? And if there is no intention of ceasing to keep these waterways in good order, what are these words doing in the Bill at all? Before we go any further with this, I think that we should have a Government answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 38 and insert ("apply to the Board as it applies to the Commission.").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): The noble Viscount has been occupying himself, like some others, in seeking for a deep, dark plot.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No, only a meaning.
LORD CHESHAM: I still think the noble Viscount is seeking a deep and dark plot in this matter. From what he has said so far—I understand that he is going to say more—I do not know whether we are intended to consider this Amendment seriously or not. It is customary, in moving an Amendment, to adduce reasons for doing so. So far the noble Viscount has sought a meaning, but has not suggested why we should accept his Amendment. This is a slightly unusual procedure, but I will respond to his invitation and tell him what this clause is about.
Before I do so, I would say a word about his arrogation to himself and his friends of the only knowledge and

727
understanding of the waterways in this country. My noble friend Lord Mills and I may well be "innocent babes"—we have been trying to behave like that a good deal of the time—but I do not know whether, in calling us that, he is not once more taking up the attitude which led the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on Second Reading to describe his attitude as "sheer effrontery". I am not using that kind of expression, but I think that the noble Viscount might care to bear that remark in mind. For myself, I do not accept what he says in this regard in the very least.
To understand the significance of Clause 61, it is necessary to go back to Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, which was brought in to prevent the railway companies at that time from buying up canals and closing them down in order to get rid of competition. The provisions of that section continued to apply to the successor to the railway companies, the British Transport Commission. It is quite logical that they should, because the Commission can be said to be a railway undertaking, and the same provisions should apply to them for the same reasons. I gather that there is a modest argument about whether the provisions of Section 17 apply to the non-railway-owned canals, the independent canals, but this argument has never been actually resolved by being put to the test, because there was no reason why it should be. I do not think that for our purposes it matters very much either way. If, as is now the case, the canals are to be transferred to a separate British Waterways Board, which is not a railway undertaking, it could be argued that there was no necessity to apply the provisions of Section 17 to the Board at all; but, as a matter of clarity and with a certain degree of logic, the protection of the provisions of Section 17 will continue to apply to the railway owned canals, so that there shall be no doubt on the matter. In this way these canals will be protected, but not the others, which are safeguarded by their own special enactments.
I think the noble Viscount should agree that the extension of this safeguard to the railway canals, when there is not a thoroughly justifiable case for doing so, represents quite a far-reaching
728
concession. That is what is embodied in the clause. I hope that I have made it clearer to the noble Viscount and that he will feel happier about it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I do not think it has made it clear at all; in fact, I think it has confused the matter even more. I really do not see why the words are necessary, because, according to the noble Lord, they will have no effect in the matter of the upkeep of the canals. According to him, the canals will continue to be kept up regardless of these words in the Bill. If they mean nothing, there is no reason why they should not be struck out by this Amendment. However, I do not see that we can go much further to-day, and the only thing I can do is to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: The next five Amendments are all Waterways Amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I will move them together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 65, line 30, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 65, line 33, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("that Board")
Page 65, line 35, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
Page 65, line 46, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 3, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after Clause 61 to insert the following new clause:
Other bodies operating waterways
".—(1) (a) Any body of persons corporate or incorporate or any statutory or local or public authority owning or managing any inland waterway to which this Act applies, or which hereafter acquires or proposes to acquire or undertake the management of any inland waterway to which this Act applies, may by resolution of its governing body or members or by declaration of its trustees or in any other appropriate manner exclude any provison of this Act as to charges conditions or facilities or the disposal or development of its property or any other like provision which would, if not expressly excluded, preclude such body or authority from being registered as a charity under the provisions of the Charities

729
Act, 1960, or from claiming the status of a public or public charitable undertaking eligible for relief upon taxable income or grants in aid out of and the expenditure upon such inland waterway of public funds.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prejudice the public or charitable status of any such body as aforesaid or, save as herein expressly provided, prejudice or preclude the public from the exercise of any right to which, upon payment or otherwise, they are entitled in or upon any inland waterway dedicated as a public navigable waterway.
(2) (a) Any local authority, river board, Board of Conservators exercising the functions of a river board, statutory water undertaker or other statutory authority exercising public functions under powers conferred by any enactment local or public may, subject as hereinafter provided and in addition to any other powers vested in them, out of their general funds make grants of or advance money to or guarantee the indebtedness of any authority company or person upon such terms or conditions as may be thought fit for any of the purposes specified in the next following paragraph.
(b) The purposes to which these provisions apply are the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, other than the purpose of constructing, improving or maintaining railways, light railways or tramways.
(c) Any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above may borrow money for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by this subsection.
(d) A local authority shall not in respect of any sum exceeding one thousand pounds in any one year exercise any power conferred by this subsection without the prior sanction of the Minister of Housing and Local Government; and a local authority or river board or Board of Conservators exercising the functions of a river board shall only exercise its powers in respect of works which are to be carried out, or some part of which are to be carried out, within, or which will in its opinion benefit, the area for which it is responsible.
(e) Loans guaranteed by any local authority under the provisions of this subsection shall be Trustee investments for the purposes of the Trustee Investment Act, 1961, and Part II of the First Schedule thereto."
The noble Viscount said: This clause is for the protection of the many trusts and other charitable bodies (charitable in the income tax sense) which at present own or control waterways or which we hope will in the near future take over the ownership or control of waterways. Its purpose is to exempt them from certain powers which have been loaded on to their shoulders by the Bill as it now stands. The joint effect of Clause 11 and Clause 43 in the Bill is that any waterway has the power (I am sure the noble Lord will tell me that many of them have not the intention; but that is
730
beside the point) to drive all waterway traffic away and, indeed, all other business, if they so wish, by raising their charges to any height they see fit—and the words "they see fit", are in the Bill. They have also power to dispose of their property as if it were their absolute property. If there were no navigation, much of that property would become redundant and they would be able to dispose of it.
I am not dealing with the question of whether any of these waterways intend to do those things, but merely with the fact that they have the power to do them. Intention may be of interest to this Committee, but the power is what interests the Inland Revenue and the taxation authorities. When the Inland Revenue look into whether an organisation is a charity, they do not ask the organisation, "What are your intentions?" They get hold of the articles under which the organisation was formed and they investigate its powers. The decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners and of the courts in this matter has always depended on what those powers are. There have been innumerable cases, including the well-known case of the Oxford Group, where the Commissioners, working on what, on the face of it, seemed unlikely or farfetched cases, have obtained decisions that various bodies were not charitable bodies because, whatever their intentions and their actions were, their powers gave them much wider scope.
As the Bill now stands, any body, however charitable its intentions may be, which takes over a waterway is not a charitable body and will be liable to income tax unless this Amendment is put in to give the body the right to reject the powers which Parliament is now giving it, and, by that rejection, to bring itself within the charmed circle of untaxed organisations. Without this Amendment we shall see some very odd things happen. The National Trust, of course, will be considerably affected; and a number of other trusts, like the Lower Avon Navigation Trust, will also be affected. There is some question whether even such bodies as the Thames Conservancy and other waterways bodies may not come under this, although that is a much wider question and will need to be gone into further. However, in

731
the Bill as it now stands we have left these organisations in a position where, unless we put this clause in the Bill, many of them will have to come to Parliament with Private Bills for the right to reject these powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 61, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am at least in agreement with the noble Viscount in that I consider this question of charities to be a very important one. That must be so, if I meant what I said to him the other day, when I said it was hoped that there would be various bodies who would take over various stretches of canal; and perhaps of their nature some of them, if not all, may be bodies which could be loosely described as charities. Therefore I agree with the noble Viscount that this is a most important matter. But it is also, I am sorry to say (and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the simple way in which he put this forward), an extremely complicated subject, as I think he will agree. It is also extremely legalistic, and in order to consider it properly it would be necessary to go into Case Law in considerable detail. I think it would be quite wrong either for the noble Viscount (and I am glad he did not do so) or for me to attempt to go into all those aspects of it in this Committee to-day or, indeed. I should think, on any other day.
I have listened to what the noble Viscount has had to say, and there have been considerable consultations between the legal adviser of the noble Viscount and his friends in this matter and those advising the Ministry and the Commission. A great deal of work has been done about this. It remains very much a matter of opinion whether what the noble Viscount has told us is definitely so, or whether it is not. My advice in this matter is that the noble Viscount is not correct, that it is not so, and that we should not do what he asks us to do by means of another acre and a half of Amendment. I am advised that the status of charitable bodies is definitely controlled by the constitution of the charity, and the effect, if any, of the provisions in the Bill will depend on the constitution of the charity and not upon the Bill.
732
In any case, even if that were not so, it would not be right to enable a charitable trust to alter their own relationship vis-à-vis the Bill by passing a resolution themselves. I do not think it would be a desirable state of affairs to give an unspecified number of bodies the right to override what is in the Statute by a resolution of their own in a matter of this kind. I do not think that would be the way to do it, even if it needed doing.
I might add to that a point of detail which I am sure the noble Viscount knows. The latest occurrence in the consultations between two sets of legal advisers took place recently when, if I may call them for convenience, his legal advisers were invited to put forward more information and views and, in particular, details of one or more particular cases of bodies whose charitable status might be so affected. What they put forward as further evidence was a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Again I am advised that, on the information and views that were made available in that connection, there is nothing in Clause 43, or anywhere else in the Bill, which would have the effect, as has been suggested, of causing any charitable body to which it applied to cease to be a charity. Therefore, I think this Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD STONHAM: I am not altogether happy about this matter myself. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that it is an extraordinarily complicated Amendment, and I am not suprised to hear him say that two sets of lawyers have had a nice day out together. This new clause seems typical of the legal profession, in that one understands each subsection very much better if one reads just the first six words and the last six words of each paragraph, and leaves out all the words in between.
The one point about which I am not clear, and which the noble Lord did not make clear, is this. I appreciate that it would not be desirable to give a charitable body or a corporation who were going to acquire, make use of or manage one of these waterways special dispensation in the Bill to shed some of their powers and still remain a charitable undertaking. But is the noble Lord in a position to say that without my noble friend's new clause, it would not

733
be possible for a charitable undertaking to acquire a waterway, or that there are known cases where organisations which have always been regarded as charities would be unable to acquire ground or manage a waterway in this way? If any desirable organisation or undertaking could be precluded in that way, I should have thought it would be desirable to try to find a way so that they could still be, as it were, within the Bill and use the waterway.
LORD CHESHAM: I am advised that that is so, and that the noble Lord need not have fears in this regard. I am not trying to argue that black is white in this matter, because I agree—and I am happy to repeat it—that it would be a great pity if the effect was that any body should lose their charitable status by this means. There is no intention that they should do so, and I should regard it as almost contrary to the intention of the Bill that they should lose their status in this matter. But I am definitely informed that it depends on the status of the charity. If I thought—and I mean this very seriously—that there was a real risk in this matter, I would be prepared to look further at it. If definite evidence could be adduced that something would happen to this body if it did so and so, our intention of keeping the thing fair and square is such that I would certainly look at that again. But, quite frankly, to our satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of the expert legal advice which we seek, the evidence does not indicate that that is the state of affairs.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It seems to me that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, there is a considerable doubt. Here are two legal experts, one set behind me and one set behind him, who cannot agree. That being the case, there is absolute certainty that the Inland Revenue will pick on some case and will take it to court. Some unfortunate trust will have to pay out vast sums of money, for purposes quite apart from those for which it is constituted, to settle a matter which we could settle to-day in the course of a minute or two by inserting this clause in the Bill. Surely, since there is this major dispute between expert legal advisers, it is a sign that there is considerable doubt. If the legal advisers were not in dispute,
734
there would be no doubt, I agree. It is not a fight which will be fought between myself and the noble Lord, or which will take place on the Floor of this House; it will take place in the courts between some unfortunate trust and the Inland Revenue. Surely, it is our duty in this House to stop that sort of thing from happening. Our very purpose in this House is to pass clear legislation so that everybody knows where he is, and so that he does not have to spend large sums of money defending himself. I think we should carry this matter further.
LORD CHESHAM: Before the noble Lord makes up his mind about that—and your Lordships may wish to express some view on the matter—I should say this. The noble Viscount's Amendment is a long one and divides itself into three major parts.
The two other major points on which we have not touched have really nothing to do with this question of charitable bodies but are major and overriding reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. I do not know whether it is going to be necessary to debate them—I rather hope not because the really important part is what we have been talking about so far. I can only say that if the noble Viscount wishes to take this matter into the Division Lobby I must appeal to your Lordships in the strongest terms I can muster, to reject the Amendment because of the effects it would have apart from the question of charities.
I cannot quite subscribe to the noble Viscount's view that because there is dissension there must be some middle way and everybody is wrong. The Government's advisers are not in any doubt on this matter, and the fact that the noble Viscount's advisers are arguing something different does not alter that, because, so far, no argument has been put forward to the satisfaction of the Government's advisers—and, after all, this is a Government Bill—that any doubt is justified. Therefore I think I must stand on this point. I say again that if further evidence should be produced at any time and we should prove to be wrong, then we certainly would look at the matter again. I do not think I can say fairer than that. So far we do not think we are wrong and we think

735
that for this, as well as other reasons, this Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord has made it clear that the Government's legal advisers are sure that this Amendment in respect of the charitable undertaking point is unnecessary. But he has made it clear that apparently other distinguished lawyers who have discussed it with the Government's advisers take a contrary view. Therefore, my noble friend is quite right that there is a difference of opinion between people who imagine that they are qualified to pass judgment. The noble Lord is quite right to depend on his legal advisers and my noble friend on his, but the point which I think he made quite clear is that we cannot settle this matter in this way. We certainly shall not settle anything in the Division Lobby, and charitable undertakings would be no better off whatever. I should have thought that the best course would be for the noble Lord to implement his promise to look at this particular clause again and have my noble friend, between now and Report stage, bring forward his evidence. If I might, in a most friendly way, give some advice, I would say that if we have to consider this question again on Report we should have before us a much shorter Amendment dealing with this precise point, because it is very difficult at any time for your Lordships to accept any Amendment which runs to more than a page unless it is an Amendment moved by the Government.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not anxious to do other than what the Committee wishes me to do, and I am quite ready to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that if the noble Viscount would withdraw his Amendment now and further and stronger evidence could be produced between now and Report, we should certainly look at it, because I did say, and still say, that the matter is important and it is necessary to get it right.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think all the evidence for the necessity of this Amendment has in fact been given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself. He says that his legal advisers have no doubt whatever. I say that my legal advisers have no doubt whatever. It is because these two groups of eminent
736
legal advisers both have no doubt that so much doubt arises. It is the certainty in which these two groups of legal gentlemen oppose one another which causes the uncertainty with which we are now faced. That is the whole trouble. What will happen now will be that the noble Lord will go back to his legal advisers who will tell him the same; I shall go back to my legal advisers and mine will say the same; and mine will put before him the large range of cases which they have already put before him. Where do we go from there?
LORD STONHAM: Swop legal advisers.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think we should do something about this. I do not clearly see the way out of it. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw the present Amendment and present a shorter one, but if such an Amendment is going to be necessary I do not see how you can possibly run two railway expresses at the same time on the same line in opposite directions and not have a collision. Something must be done; and between now and the next stage we must try to set the signals one way or another, or do something, otherwise we are going to have a very odd position indeed. Since the House wants a shorter Amendment, I will withdraw the present one and hope we can do better on the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 [Local enactments relating to the supply of water for canals]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next five Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 66, line 4, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 7, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 10, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 13, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 19, leave out ("Authority's") and insert ("Board's")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Abstraction of water by Inland Waterways Authority]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 66, line 22, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 66, line 35, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is a change, although still about water. Subsection (3) of Clause 63 provides that the procedures in the clause shall not apply to the abstraction of water from the River Lee in exercise of the express statutory power which the Board will inherit to sell water for industrial purposes. This comes under the River Lee Water Act, 1855. The whole of the water contained in the River Lee is already dealt with by one means or another and therefore there is no point in including it here. This Amendment puts the matter straight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 45, at end insert ("or under section thirty-five of the Lee Conservancy Act, 1900 (under which the abstraction of water may be regulated by byelaw)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 67, line 1, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 67, line 8, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
"( ) The British Waterways Board shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the point of abstraction is situated a notice of any application made by them for the consent of the Minister, giving sufficient particulars of their proposals and of the terms of consent applied for, and stating that any person wishing to submit an objection to the Minister should submit any such objection within twenty-eight days of the publication of the notice, and should within that time send a copy of any such objection to the Board."
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple Amendment. As your Lordships know, under Clause 10(3) the Inland Waterways Authority have powers to abstract and sell untreated water. When the Bill was first presented that power was governed only by Clause 14(6), but I understand that on Report stage in another place the present Clause 63 was inserted, which greatly limits their powers, and in most cases makes them subject to the approval of the Minister. Before any scheme is put forward certain people have to be notified. These are, principally, the borough councils, river boards and statutory undertakers. So far as I can see, there is no provision in this Bill that anybody else who might be affected should even know that the abstraction of water is contemplated. I know that the riparian owners of these canals have not the rights that riparian owners of ordinary natural waterways have; but they can acquire certain rights, and they certainly have an interest in the level of the water in these canals. Therefore, it seems to be only fair that some notice should be given when abstraction of the water is contemplated, so that they can object if they so desire.
I am not asking in this Amendment that notice should be served on each person. All I am asking is that, before going to the Minister for his consent, the Inland Waterways Board should publish in the local Press what they intend to do, so that everybody who may be affected—and a number of people other than the riparian owners may be affected by any proposal to abstract quantities of water from a canal—shall have the right of letting his objection be known, so that it can be taken into consideration by the Minister before he gives his consent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. Its exact value will vary from waterway to waterway, because the rights of riparian owners, or of any other owners or persons concerned with a waterway, depend on the Act under which that waterway was originally built; and these Acts are extremely varied. In some the resultant rights are considerable, and in others

739
there are none at all; so that it is impossible to say what the rights of any riparian owner or any other person are in regard to any waterway without consulting the individual Act. But in many cases this Amendment might be valuable.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): As my noble friend says, the intention of the Government is to leave the position in regard to rights of extracting water exactly the same as they are now, pending possibly a more comprehensive water legislation in future. As my noble friend said, at present the Transport Commission have this power without any obligation to inform anybody at all. But Clause 63 was introduced into the Bill making it obligatory on the Waterways Authority to inform certain public bodies. The bodies who have to be informed are, in England and Wales, river boards, statutory water undertakers and borough, urban and rural district councils; and in Scotland, river purification authorities, salmon fishery district boards, local water authorities and the county and burgh councils concerned. These public water authorities are given a statutory right to receive notices and lodge objections under Clause 63. They have been carefully selected to cover all the relevant local public interests involved in proposals to extract water for sale. We are doing this only in regard to public bodies which have definite statutory duties in relation to the protection of rivers and watercourses, fisheries and local amenity, requirements of public health and santitation, and the provision of public water supplies, which make it desirable that they should have notice of proposed abstractions and the right to lodge objections with the Minister.
I think it is important that this procedure under the clause should embrace only public authorities with relevant statutory duties; and the Minister should not be in a position of having to intervene, or even of appearing to intervene, in the settlement of disputes over any private legal rights. These are protected either by Common Law or, may be, by Statute. But any riparian owner or farmer, or anyone adversely affected by the abstraction of water, either from a canal or from any
740
other kind of waterway, has his immediate remedy at law. Naturally, of course, one of the duties of any public authority would be to consider any possible effects upon private rights. But I think it is most important that the Minister should not appear to be intervening, to entertain objections and giving decisions which ought to be given by the courts.
I am myself a farmer. One often feels irritable if one is not given plenty of notice of anything which is being done—perhaps something that might take away water, or affect the water supply for one's cattle, or the supply to a house, or anything of that kind. I do not think that this clause is relevant to that sort of situation. Its purpose is to enable these public authorities, if they think right, to lodge objections, and I do not think it would be to the advantage of private owners to make it appear that they were being encouraged to lodge objections to the Minister; because, as I have said, if there is any likelihood of damage to their interests they have their legal remedy, and it would not be right that the Minister should seem to be interfering with the course of the law.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply, but I confess that I feel completely unconvinced by it. I think it absolutely right that all these bodies should be warned, and given a chance to object, but I cannot see why the ordinary person should be presented by a fait accompli. These people object; the Minister considers it, and approves the scheme, and then it is up to the other people, who have never heard about it before, to start going to law about it. Surely it is much more sensible that these people should put in their objections before the scheme is approved by the Minister, so that he can consider them in the way objections to any other proposals are considered. I must say that I feel completely unconvinced.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sorry my noble friend is unconvinced. I quite see his point about a fait accompli, but it is not a fait accompli. If any scheme is approved and started, and, in spite of its being reviewed by all the public authorities concerned it is likely to cause loss, let us say, to a farmer, he has his immediate legal remedy. If, in advance

741
of approval of the scheme, all the individuals were entitled to put objections to the Minister, the Minister would not be in a position to consider the merits of private objections of that kind. It would have to be a matter for the courts, and in most cases the private owner would not be doing himself any good, in fact he might be prejudicing his rights, by making it plain that it was a matter for the Minister and not for the law. I think in private rights of this kind the law is a very much better protection than a political Minister.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My noble friend says he would have the immediate protection of the law. But the remedy of the law is by no means immediate. It generally takes about five years. Cases may take a very long time and go from court to court. I do not say that there should be any special rights here. After all, all that the Amendment is suggesting is that there should be a notice in the local paper saying that something is going to be done. This does not commit the Minister to anything. Surely it would be much easier if people knew that something was going to be done. If somebody says, "I am going to be seriously damnified by this business", he can go to the Waterways Board or to the Minister and say, "Have a look at this". Everything sensible is done by consent, and in that way it is done quickly. If there is nothing in the case, the authority will ignore it. If it is a sensible case, they will be glad to have it brought to notice then and there rather than be involved in any litigation, so that the whole thing could be settled out of court in about two minutes. I should have thought that the Minister could say "Let us have this published in the local paper", without any commitment to do anything more.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I just remind my noble friend what the Amendment says? It is that the statement in the newspapers shall state
"… that any person wishing to submit an objection to the Minister should submit any such objection within twenty-eight days of the publication of the notice, and should within that time send a copy of any such objection to the Board".
I do not think that it would be in the interests of justice to encourage the idea that individual people should appeal
742
upon private rights to the political Minister concerning matters which ought to be settled, if at all, by the courts. And I do not think that cases of possible losses by removal of water would be likely to take five years. I would remind your Lordships that this power has been with the Transport Commissioners ever since they were set up, and I do not think that under the existing practice there have been any cases of delay or damage to private individuals.
We want at first to continue the existing practice, pending perhaps more general water legislation. We introduced Clause 63 in order to make it obligatory that these public water authorities should be individually informed of what was proposed, and we felt it would be undesirable in the general interests that the impression should be given that the Minister intended to consider not only objections from statutory authorities with regard to their statutory duties, which is one thing, but also objections concerning individuals' private rights—legal rights, for which they have proper protection in the courts.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: If this thing is not a fait accompli, as was properly suggested, is it not very important that it should not appear to be a fait accompli?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it is much more important that a Minister of Transport should not appear to be making himself a judge of matters which ought to be settled by the courts.
LORD SPENS: May I add a word or two in defence of our legal system? The Chancery Division deals with dozens of cases every year in which someone has extracted water from a neighbour's property, and there is no difficulty whatever in getting an interim injunction within a matter of three or four days, or at any rate a week. It is perfectly true it may take a couple of years to decide what the ultimate legal rights are, but there is no difficulty at all under our system to-day for a private individual to protect his water rights through the courts with the utmost speed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble Earl said that the protection for the individual who was troubled in this way

743
was through the courts. But he ought to consider Clause 43 of this Bill. Take, for example, the right of navigation. Supposing anybody went to the court on the grounds that the level had been dropped to a point at which the navigation of a loaded cargo craft could not be carried out, a very possible position. It would presumably be a question what damages the man would receive. At what value would his rights be held when the Waterways Board were allowed to charge him what they saw fit for his navigation? The value of his rights in that particular situation is infinitely small, and no lawyer would advise him to go to the courts. Surely it is a far better position for a notice to be put in a public newspaper. I do not say that the individual would then go to the Minister. I should have thought that here was a far more democratic way of doing things. All these public bodies are being given notice because of the fact they are public bodies, but they are democratic public bodies and surely the way in which a democratic body acts depends on what its electors do. The individual would approach his borough council and the borough council, warned of what would occur, would then put in its objection.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Clause 43, which deals with transport charges and facilities, is really not at all relevant in this matter of abstracting water. I think your Lordships know that I have always been particularly concerned about private rights, particularly those of agriculturists. All I am trying to persuade your Lordships—and I believe this to be the fact—is that the rights of private agriculturists in this matter would not be advantaged in any way if they were given a prior right of objecting to the Minister of Transport.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am afraid that I am still not entirely satisfied with what the noble Earl has said, but I do not intend to pursue the point any further at this stage. Perhaps I may consult with my advisers and reserve my right, if I am still not satisfied, to return to it at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 36, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE moved, after subsection (8) to insert:
"( ) If an application relates to an inland waterway which has been designated as main river and objection is received by the Minister from the River Board concerned and the objection is not withdrawn, the Minister, before giving his consent under this section, shall cause a local inquiry to be held before a person appointed by him."
The noble Earl said: These three Amendments, Nos. 171 A, 171B, and 174A, concern matters which the River Boards' Central Association, of which I am happy to say I am Vice-President, feel touch their interests, and they have asked me to put certain sentences before your Lordships to explain them. If your Lordships will allow me, therefore, to preface Amendment No. 171A by a few remarks, I will do so.
This Association has a particular interest in the powers for the abstraction and sale of water by the proposed Inland Waterways Authority which are envisaged by Clause 10 (3) (d) and Clause 62 of the Bill. Upon the introduction of the Bill in another place, the Association, as well as representatives of the water supply industry and other interested bodies, expressed particular concern at the wide power proposed to be given under these two clauses, and it was as a result of the representations made in this connection that the limitations on the use of these powers were agreed with the Ministry of Transport following a meeting with representatives of that Department. And the Government added Clause 63 to the Bill during the Report stage in that House, with a view to the implementation of the agreement which had been reached.
In general, therefore, the clause is welcomed by the Association as a genuine attempt to meet the apprehensions which had been expressed at the powers proposed to be conferred on Clause 10 (3) (d) and Clause 62, in the the Inland Waterways Authority by

745
form in which these were first introduced. As a (result of the addition to the Bill of Clause 63, river hoards will now have a real opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Ministry objections to proposed abstractions from inland waterways which are of significance to river boards, and the Association hope that proper weight will foe given to any representations in this connection which may be made. The Association are, however, concerned at the increasing demands being made on the country's surface water sources by abstractions for agricultural, industrial and other purposes, and it is clear from the recent White Paper, Water Conservation, England and Wales, that their apprehensions in the matter are shared by the Government. The Association fully support the view expressed in the White Paper that it is imperative that a new approach be adopted, and they consider it is urgent, in particular, that all surface water abstractions should be placed under the control of the proposed river authorities.
During the discussions which resulted in the presentation of Clause 63 the Ministry agreed that their proposals should be designedly of a temporary character, pending the passage of the anticipated general legislation on water conservation, so that the powers proposed to be conferred on the Inland Waterways Authority (now the British Waterways Board) in this connection would represent mo exception to the general legislation on the subject which is expected at an early date. Whilst this aspect of the agreement on the matter is on record in the correspondence which passed between the Association and the Ministry, no statement on behalf of the Government has been made to this effect; indeed, owing to the imposition of the "guillotine" on the later proceedings on the Bill in the other place, the clause was added to the Bill without discussion. In view of the importance attached by the Association to this aspect of the agreement, they wish that I should press the Minister to give the required assurance, so that the temporary character of these powers may be left in no doubt.
To proceed now to deal specifically with Amendment No. 171A, in relation to the first Amendment the Association attach particular importance to ensur-
746
ing that abstractions from main river do not reduce the flow below that required in the interest of all river users. The Association therefore urge that in every case where objections to a proposed abstraction from a main river are lodged by the river board the Minister should be required to hold a public inquiry. The Association understand that in practice this will be so, but they would like an Amendment to the Bill or an assurance from the Minister to that effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 42 at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Albemarle.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Under Clause 88 of this Bill the Minister already has power to hold local inquiries. My noble friend will see that Clause 88 refers to the provisions of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. Under those powers the Minister can appoint inspectors who would have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of relevant documents, so the Minister has all the powers he needs to hold inquiries into water abstraction applications if he thinks that such inquiries are necessary or useful. The noble Earl's Amendment would make it obligatory to hold an inquiry if any objection was put forward by a river board, which would mean that the discretion as to whether or not an inquiry should be held would in effect be transferred from the Minister to the river board concerned.
The Minister has the final responsibility in these matters, and I think it would not be justifiable to take away from him the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether or not an inquiry is necessary, because that would entail the risk of having to hold inquiries into applications relating to small quantities of water, in which cases there may be fairly strong reasons for assenting to the application quickly and without all the delay and expense of a public inquiry. I think the responsibility ought to be left with the Minister, but I should like to assure my noble friend that the Minister will give every consideration to objections lodged by river boards, and that he will hold inquiries arising out of those objections wherever he thinks this seems to be desirable.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but it is, of course, the Minister of Transport, whereas the words "main river" are sacrosanct to the river boards and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I have not had enough experience, perhaps, to know whether I ought to let that go, because "main river" is really our "show"—and when I say "our", I mean the Housing Ministry and the Central Association of River Boards. I am not sure whether I ought to let that go and withdraw the Amendment. If there is any doubt in the noble Earl's mind, perhaps I had better raise it again on another occasion.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to my noble friend for being so accommodating. In my noble friend's Amendment, "the Minister" would be the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Housing, who, as he rightly points out, is the authority mainly responsible for water. As I have already told your Lordships, in this Bill we are trying to hold the present position as it is, in view of possible future legislation on national water supplies as a whole, which would be a matter for the Minister of Housing and not for the Minister of Transport.
With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not think it would be justifiable to compel the Minister of Transport to hold an inquiry whenever an objection is brought up by a river board. It might be that it was a small matter which really did not justify the expense of an inquiry, and which it was desirable to settle very quickly. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept the Government's assurance that the Minister intends to give the greatest consideration to the representations of river boards, and will hold an inquiry if it seems to him that there is any justification for it.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Earl very much. But will he utter the words I want to hear: that it is a temporary thing; this is stop-gap legislation, and it is not necessarily a permanent thing that the Minister of Transport would insist upon. That is what I want to hear: that you recognise that this is forced on the public because it is of a temporary nature, until
748
this promised legislation is brought forward.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have already said that we are holding the present position as it is and as it has existed all these years. Under the Transport Commission there was none of this power to hold inquiries. Although temporary, this is a new thing under Clause 63.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: In relation to subsection (9) (b) of the clause and the last Amendment, it is noted that while the Minister, in considering any application and the terms upon which any consent ought to be given, is to have regard to the effect which the proposals may have on, inter alia, fisheries and land drainage, no mention is made of the other main function of river boards relating to pollution. As at present drawn, this subsection could be construed as not requiring the Minister to take into account the prevention of pollution, and the River Boards' Central Association therefore consider that a specific reference to this equally important aspect should be included. It is appreciated that it may be argued that the concluding words of the paragraph, referring to the effect on the inland waterway concerned or any other inland waterway or stream, cover the point. But the Association consider that a specific reference to pollution is necessary in order to remove any doubt; and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 4, after ("drainage") insert ("stream pollution").—(The Earl of Albemarle.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that in fact under subsection (9) of Clause 63 the Minister has to take into account the effect which an application for abstraction of water might have on the prior factors which could lead to stream pollution; because, as the noble Earl will see, the Minister is to take account of the effect which the proposal may have on fisheries or public health. He has also to take account of the effect on the inland waterway directly affected, or any other inland waterway or stream. These considerations are in very wide

749
terms, and I think they would certainly embrace all relevant factors in relation to possible pollution.
My noble friend referred on the previous Amendment to the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I think that offences against the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts are under the authority of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Transport. Therefore, it is perhaps better not to mention the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts specifically, but I think in Clause 63 the Minister has power to take account of all the factors which could affect pollution. I would again assure my noble friend that the Minister of Transport will take very fully into account any objections relating to the possibility of pollution when he is considering applications under the terms of subsection (9) of this clause.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Earl, but I really do not think that is satisfactory. We consider that it is really important to push the word "pollution" in. Pollution has given us so much trouble, and in order to dilute bad cases of pollution, we have to have an extra quantity of water, and we really cannot prevent pollution without that one of the three main functions with which we are charged. I hope the Minister will acquiesce in my Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I just remind my noble friend again that the only possible effect of putting the specific word "pollution" into the Bill would be, in my submission, to appear that we were taking away responsibilities which properly belong to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and giving them to the Minister of Transport, in advance of general legislation to which we have referred and which is contemplated. I would certainly consider, my noble friend's suggestion, and I would also ask my noble friend to be good enough to study subsection (9) of Clause 63 again. I think he will see that all factors that might lead to pollution are included in the considerations which the Minister will take into account when he entertains an application of this kind.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: When my noble friend talks of the Minister (who
750
in this case is the Minister of Transport) taking these various matters into full consideration, he surely means that he will consult with the Minister who is responsible in other respects, be it in respect of pollution, water, or any other matter. The consideration to which my noble friend refers means consultation with these Ministers.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that consultation of that kind is always normal, and, indeed, automatic, between Departments if there is any need for it.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I should like to ask why we should leave in the words "land drainage and fisheries" but leave out the other equally important words. I do not understand that. It would be giving up so little to put in those two words "stream pollution".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will look at that point again. I do not want to repeat what I have said already, which seems to me convincing; but I do want to improve the Bill, and if my noble friend is not satisfied, I will gladly reconsider the point that he has made.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: With that assurance I am satisfied; and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 68, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 68, line 21, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 68, line 29, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: The third point I want to make is that the Inland Waterways Authority should be required to install gauges for measuring the quantity of water taken (whether the abstraction is an existing or a new abstraction) and that river boards should have the right to inspect the records of the guages. As will be appreciated, unless the abstractions are metered the river board can have no assurance that

751
the quantity authorised to be abstracted is not exceeded. It is understood that these matters will be dealt with in conditions to be attached to the Minister's consent, but the Association would wish for an assurance that this aspect will be covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) (a) In relation to any abstraction of water in respect of which the British Waterways Board are under an obligation such as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section or in respect of which the Minister has given his consent under subsection (10) of this section, the British Waterways Board shall on or before the prescribed date provide and maintain with respect thereto a gauge (with suitable automatic recording instruments and other apparatus) for the purpose of measuring and recording the quantity of water from time to time abstracted from the inland waterway in question and the British Waterways Board shall at all times afford to the representatives of the authorities described in subsection (5) and (6) of this section who are concerned, facilities for the purpose of inspecting such gauge and taking records therefrom.
(b) In this subsection 'the prescribed date' means:

(i) in relation to an abstraction such as is referred to in subsection (2) of this Section, the vesting date;

(ii) in relation to an abstraction in respect of which the Minister has given his consent a date not later than the date on which the abstraction is commenced.") —(The Earl of Albemarle.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Clause 63 does already provide an adequate and, indeed, a fairly elaborate procedure to control the abstraction of water for sale by the British Waterways Board. The Government's White Paper on Water Conservation stated that comprehensive action to preserve water resources is urgently needed, and that legislation would be introduced in due course. As we have already agreed, and as the noble Earl has agreed, Clause 63 is only an interim measure without prejudice to what may be provided in general legislation when it is brought forward. I think it would not be justifiable to place an absolute obligation on the British Waterways Board to provide gauges to measure all the water they abstract for sale. Detailed measuring of this kind may be very expensive and it may not always be justified, particularly when the amounts of water being abstracted are comparatively small. Therefore, I
752
do not think we ought to make it obligatory in all cases.
However, I will assure my noble friend that, in considering applications from the British Waterways Board to abstract water for sale, and in giving consent to such applications, the Minister will have regard to the need for appropriate arrangements to measure that water. If necessary, he would require, as a condition of his consent, that automatic metering devices should be used in any cases where, having regard to the size and importance of the abstraction, this would seem to be justifiable.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not know whether the Minister realises the way we have been harried all over the country for not getting on with the question of gauges. It is laid down absolutely by those in authority that, before you can really assess where the water is and how much passes certain points, in order to allocate and distribute water that falls in England, you must have gauges. In addition, the longer the period for which gauges have been installed, the more reliable are your records of the amounts of water entailed. We feel very concerned about this, and I do not know whether the noble Earl can explain how you are going to record abstractions of water without gauges. I fail to understand how this is going to be measured.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have already given my noble friend an assurance that the Minister will have regard to the need for appropriate arrangements to measure water, and if necessary he will require as a condition of his consent that automatic metering devices shall be used wherever they would seem to be necessary. He does not want to make it automatic in all cases, because in cases where only a very small amount of water is to be abstracted the expense would be quite unjustifiable. There are other ways of measuring the abstraction of water, and I feel I have gone as far as is possible in giving my noble friend an assurance that the Government wish to meet his point in this respect.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I shall have to be content with that, but it will not satisfy the Ministry of Housing. I must reserve to myself, on instructions

753
from those who sent me here, the right to bring this matter up again because gauging is extremely important. I regret to say that I did not turn over the page, and I find there is a second part to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think it adds anything to what has been said.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Is not (b) part of—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I try to assist my noble friend? It is the same Amendment. There are two subparagraphs, (a) and (b). Paragraph (b), as I read it, is consequential on paragraph (a). I do not think it introduces any new point of substance.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 10, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
Page 69, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [The railway savings banks]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move five Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 25, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 69, line 30, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 69, line 43, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 70, line 36, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 71, line 5, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Liability of Boards to rates]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move four Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 73, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 73, line 33, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 73, line 41, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 74, line 10, column 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert "British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (11) to insert:
"( ) During any review which may be made of either the standard amounts referred to in subsection (2) of this section, or of any other rating arrangements relating to any of the Boards the Minister shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any other local authority with whom consultations appear to him to be desirable."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and I do so with some trepidation, because, frankly, until a few days ago I should never have thought I should have to speak on a question of rates. I suspect that the Ministerial team are of that opinion, as I now see on the Bench opposite that they have enlisted a new recruit from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. The Local Government Act, 1948, provided for the exemption from direct rating of the nationalised railways and canals and that payments in lieu of rates should be distributed to the rating authorities in proportion to the rateable value. I understand that in 1948–49 the standard amount was in the region of £1,800,000 and that in the years 1957 and 1958 that was adjusted to approximately £2,600,000. I understand that there is to be a review, a revaluation of property for rateable value, in 1963. The various councils are anxious that when this review takes place they or their associations should be consulted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): As the noble Lord has said, I am rather new to this Bill and I hope your Lordships will therefore allow this transport virgin to tiptoe very briefly on to the stage to try to fend off the noble Lord's Amendment, with designs on the rating provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I should say a word in explanation of Clause 66. The clause is essentially a holding operation, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, designed to enable the 1948 formula for the rating of the British Transport Commission's railway and canal hereditaments to be grafted on to the new set-up. This is an important point, I think. There will be an opportunity to consider the underlying principles of the formula next year, when my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government intends to hold a review into the methods of assessing not only transport but also the gas and electricity undertakings. This is in fulfilment of a quite definite undertaking given by his predecessor, the present Chief Secretary, at the recommittal stage of last year's rating revaluation Bill.
Meantime the effect of subsection (6) of the clause, the second limb of it as now drafted (and that second limb was grafted on to the Bill, as it were, under the shadow of the guillotine in another place) requires the Minister making an order under Section 109 (1) of the 1948 Act to consult the Boards and local authority associations concerned and any other local authority with whom consultation appears desirable. That, I think, is the hallowed formula, and that would include the London County Council. I wish to suggest to your Lordships that you should resist the noble Lord's Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, I hope I have made it clear from what I have just said that the second limb of subsection (6) already provides adequately for consultation with local authority associations and with the L.C.C. Incidentally, it also provides for consultation with the Boards. Quite clearly, therefore, the Government have no objection whatsoever to a provision for consultation before the standard amounts are changed. They
756
have in fact already included one in the Bill.
Apart from this, there is a technical objection. This Amendment would call for consultation during any review—and then I use the words of the Amendment—which may be made
"of any other rating arrangements relating to any of the Boards".
I think this language is pretty wide and rather imprecise, because "any review" could cover a whole multitude of discusions. If, therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment is designed to deal with consultations on the matters dealt with by Section 109 of the Local Government Act, 1948, I think it is unnecessary, and in view of the slight imprecision of the language not necessarily particularly desirable. The noble Lord, from what he said, I believe is thinking of something a little wider than that. He may wish by his Amendment to prescribe mandatory consultations with the local authority associations and the L.C.C. at the time next year when the whole working of the assessment formula is under review. If that is what he is after, I would again suggest that his Amendment, whatever its theoretical justification may be, is in fact unnecessary.
In practice, whenever there is occasion for a formal review of the rating formula with legislation in prospect the Ministers concerned invariably consult the local authority associations and anyone, such as the L.C.C., also affected. Such consultations took place in 1956 when the existing gas, electricity and transport formulae were worked out. Furthermore, as I said at the beginning, a specific undertaking was given last year to the effect that this formula will be examined next year; and I think the noble Lord may take it as axiomatic that in any such review there will be full consultation with all concerned. I hope, therefore, I have given him part satisfaction and that he will consider not pressing this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl has shot my Amendment to ribbons, but I think it has served its purpose, because I will not say he has exactly exposed his position but he has really explained what is the Government's attitude towards these rating assessments. I think it will

757
be satisfactory to my friends, and therefore at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move this Amendment, again on rating. As I understand it, at present the rates of the London Passenger Transport area are added to the rates that are brought forward from the properties of all the railways and canals, and those rates are shared out in a set proportion to the various authorities throughout England and Wales. But, as we know, in this Bill we are now setting up a special separate Board, the London Board, for operation in the London area. I am suggesting—here I am not pressing, because personally I think there may be some doubt, but the point has been put to me—that now that the London Board is being set up the London County Council and some of the local authorities on the fringe area of the London County Council, the area in which the new London Board will be operating, should receive in full the rates that will be raised on the properties of the London Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) As from the beginning of the first rating year in which the vesting date falls, subsection (2) of section 100 of the said Act of 1948 shall have effect as if there were added at the end thereof the following proviso, that is to say:
'Provided that the sums falling to be paid by the London Transport Board shall be allocated only among those rating authorities within or partly within that Board's area.'").—(Lord Shepherd.)
EARL JELLICOE: I rather fear I shall not be able to give the noble Lord very much satisfaction on this point, at least at this stage. His Amendment is open, in the first place, to a technical objection. If he looks at it carefully, I am sure that he will realise that it would alter the basis for rating distribution for nine months before the new Boards are set up, and I am sure he does not intend this. However, I do not wish to argue the case against the noble Lord's Amendment on possibly a rather technical ground. This obection could obviously be put right by juggling with the noble Lord's drafting.
758
I would suggest there is a more substantial objection to the Amendment. The effect of his proposal would be pretty significant. The division of the standard amount provided for in Clause 66 (2) allocates 25 per cent. to the London Transport Board. This means that the sum which would be reserved to the London area rating authorities, if effect were given to the noble Lord's Amendment, would be of the order of £750,000. Of course, a large part of this sum already finds its way into the coffers of the authorities in the London Board's area. However, there would be a loss of several hundreds of thousands of pounds to other authorities in the country, since the Amendment would leave authorities with their present share of the payments made by other Boards unchanged. This, incidentally, strikes me as possibly inequitable.
The real point is that the Government do not wish at this stage to pre-judge this question. It may be that local authorities in the London area may have some sort of case for a prior claim on these payments. On the other hand, authorities elsewhere in the country may feel that in their turn they should have a prior claim on certain payments of these Boards. Take, for example, railway centres like Crewe and Swindon, which could make out a case in that respect, and local authorities in certain canals areas, which might make possibly justifiable claims on payments by the Waterways Board.
At this stage I am disinclined to say what the right final solution is, and certainly I should be very unwilling to accept such a big diversion of rate income as would be brought about by the noble Lord's Amendment without proper inquiry into all the implications for all throughout the country, both inside and outside London. Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord that the intention behind Clause 66 is to make no more than the necessary modifications which will enable the present formula to be applied to the new set-up. It deals solely with the mechanics of collecting payment and is not concerned with the principles with which it is distributed.
I would also remind the noble Lord of what I said in answer to his immediately preceding Amendment: that

759
there will be an opportunity to look at this principle carefully and fully next year. I would suggest that such a review is clearly the right place for discussion about the precise allocation of the Board's rate payments. All the local authority associations and the London County Council would be represented in such discussions and therefore the Government would have the advantage of hearing all sides before deciding whether there should be fresh legislation to cover a point of this sort. In the meantime, I would suggest that piecemeal modifications in the distribution formula are not likely to do justice to all those who have a stake in the rate contributions from the various Boards. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will set the noble Earl completely at rest by begging leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Bylaws for railways and railway shipping Services]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 34, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Water-ways Board")
Page 78, line 39, leave out ("Inland Water ways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Transport police]:
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved to leave out Clause 69 and to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) This section adapts and modifies section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949, which relates to the Commission's Police Force.
(2) Any premises transferred or leased to the Hotel Company before the vesting date shall until the vesting date be regarded for the purposes of that section as belonging to the Commission.
760
(3) (i) There shall be on and after the vesting date a Police Authority.
(ii) The Police Authority shall consist of a chairman and eight members, two from each Board; the chairman shall be a person who has had wide eperience of, and shown capacity in, police administration and police matters in general and shall be appointed by the Minister: each member shall be a member of his respective Board and shall be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the respective Board, provided that when the Minister considers, for any reason, any recommendation unsuitable he shall refer such recommendation back to the respective Board.
(iii) There shall be, on and after the vesting date, a joint Police Force with an executive head responsible only to the Police Authority and consisting of Constables appointed under section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949, for the purpose of providing a unified Police Service for the Boards.
(iv) On and after the vesting date the Police Authority may apply under the section for the appointment of a Constable and accordingly for the first two references in subsection (i) of the section to the Commission there shall be substituted references to the Police Authority.
(4) On and after the vesting date, for references in the section to premises belonging to, leased to or worked by the Commission, there shall be substituted references to premises belonging to, leased to or worked by any of the Boards or the Hotel Company, and in the provio to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the section, for the reference to matters in connection with or affecting the Commission or their undertaking there shall be substituted a reference to matters in connection with or affecting any of the Boards or their undertakings.
(5) On and after the vesting date the Police Authority may dismiss a Constable who is employed by them (whether or not appointed after the vesting date) and, accordingly, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the section for references to the Commission there shall, as regards such a Constable employed by the Police Authority be substituted a reference to that Authority and for the reference at the end of the said paragraph (c) to the Authority by whom a Constable was dismissed or by whom a Constable's resignation is accepted there shall, in the case of a Constable dismissed by the Commission or whose resignation was accepted by the Commission be substituted a reference to the Authority.
(6) On and after the vesting date references in any statutory provision or other document to a Constable appointed or employed by the Commission shall be taken as a reference to a Constable employed by the Authority and acting under the said section fifty-three."
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Merrivale, who at the moment is visiting Greece with the Inter-Parliamentary Union party, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. With your Lordships' permission, I would speak to Amendments No. 191 and 192 together,

761
as they follow on one from the other. These Amendments, which deal with a new subject in this Bill—that is, the police—are extremely important. As can be seen from the Marshalled List, they have support from both sides of the House. Clause 69 makes no specific provision for continuing the existence of the British Transport Commission police force, but empowers the several Boards either to appoint their own police forces or agree together to appoint one or more. I realise that it only gives them power to do so, but it has the effect of creating doubt in the minds of the police and makes the whole thing more difficult. Since 1949, the Commission's police force has been a united one and has been responsible for police functions on the railways, docks and inland waterways, and the system has worked very well.
There are two main questions that we must consider seriously. The first is how to provide the best possible police service for the public and for the protection of the Boards' property. The second, which is equally important, is the best possible method of administering the police to carry out these duties. In the matter of the first, I think it is obvious that a unified police force can carry out these duties far more efficiently than several smaller police forces. There is always the question of inquiries which do not contain themselves to one area and which would have to be handed over from one force to another, if there were separate forces, creating delay and difficulties. In a unified force, there is only one chain of command and that makes it much easier to run it efficiently. Again, with a unified force there would be no question of jealousy between various forces. Finally, a unified force is far less expensive to run.
As to administration, there are several disadvantages in splitting up the present Transport Commission's police force. Since 1949 the force has been built up with great trouble and people throughout the country realise that it has done a good job of work. I think it would be a pity if the tradition which the force now enjoys was to be ended and the force split up. That would go; a great reputation would be lost with it, and the new police forces would have to start again. Another point is that there would
762
be no guarantee that the conditions of service and pay would be the same for the various new forces. The present system of promotion in the unified force would be upset. It is much more difficult to carry out promotion fairly in a smaller unit. It having reached a certain stage, to split it up would mean that the promotion within these forces would be probably unfair.
Our Amendments seek to continue in existence after vesting day the transport police as an integrated police force, to be placed not under the management of any Board but under a British Transport Police Authority, which would be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Board. We consider that the principle of these Amendments is vital to the running of the police and the transport of this country. It may be that the wording of the Amendments is not quite correct, but on the principle we are most anxious to see that we get a good answer. If this is given, a further Amendment would have to be made to Clause 34; but I am sure that would be looked into, not by me, but by others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 69, and insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD STONHAM: On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the Committee I should like to support strongly the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, which is one we hope the Government will accept in principle, even if they do not accept the wording in its present form. The Amendment seeks to make sure that the British Transport Commission police or, as I hope they will eventually be called, the British Transport police, cannot be split up into the components of the four Railway Boards, the docks and so on. There is no question that since the police were unified under the 1949 Act there has been progressively greater efficiency, and, due to the reasons put forward by the noble Viscount, have given more satisfaction all round. It is important that the morale of this force should not be lowered, and there is no doubt that they are very much alarmed at the possibility that they might be split up. I feel that considerable importance should be attached to this, but that what we

763
should stress is the far greater efficiency. It would be an absurdity to have six different forces of transport police, all chasing, as it were, the same incident of stolen goods all over the place. There would be different officers looking into the same incident, and a great deal of overlapping. There would be the same kind of situation as there is between the Railway Board and the docks. I do not want to go into instances, but there are many within my knowledge where at the present time there is the possibility of unified action with regard to undesirables who frequent railway stations and the docks. If we have separate forces it will be an absurdity.
Another point that I think is important is that the British Transport police now have their own conference on the same lines as other police forces, and they settle pay, conditions of service and so on in a first-class and civilised way. If that is broken up it is certain that agitation will start immediately, and will eventually become irresistible, to bring them together again in one conference. If you break them up, after six, seven or eight years of trouble, abuse and undesirable incidents, you will have to bring them together again. That, I think would be quite absurd.
I think the case stands up on its merits and there is no need to say more about it. I hope the Government will give an assurance that this very satisfactory force of men and women, who do a first-class job, will be allowed to go on as one force, the British Transport police of 3,000 men and women working together as one unified body, with their own C.I.D. and their own headquarters for all these things, and that there will be no possibility when this Bill becomes law of their being broken up.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to draw attention to another aspect of this Amendment. Since the clauses in the Bill were drafted, the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Police has appeared, and although I know that this Royal Commission did not cover the British Transport police, nevertheless, I think the principles ought to be the same with these police forces as with the ordinary borough and county police. In paragraphs 278 and 280 of the Report a strong case is made for having police
764
forces larger rather than smaller. I will not go into this in detail, but as this Report has appeared since the clauses were drafted I think there is a case for my noble friend to look at the matter again, with a view to seeing that what is sauce for the ordinary police's goose shall be sauce for the British Transport police's gander.
4.38 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend Lord Goschen asked whether he might get a good answer from me on this Amendment. I do not know what he considers to be a good answer. If I say that I agree with him, I am not sure whether he would say that was good enough. But, broadly speaking, I do agree with the case that has been made by my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite; sympathetic consideration should be given to that for which they ask. I wish to associate myself with the remarks made about the efficiency of this force and the good work they have done, and we certainly should not wish to see that spoilt. I think there is every justification on the grounds of efficiency that this matter should be carefully considered; and what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said is an added case in point. It may be said that I am going against my previous argument that decentralisation increases efficiency, but in the case of the police I feel that the police aspect of it overrides any argument of that kind.
There is only one reservation that I have to make—namely, that I think each management should have some element of "say so" in the matter, because only they can have the detailed knowledge of exactly what the needs of their particular undertaking are; and they are not yet in a position to know them.
Therefore, what I should like to do is this. I should like noble Lords to withdraw their Amendments to-day, so that we can give this further consideration on the basis of preparing an Amendment to put down at a later stage which would secure that a separate police force shall not be set up unless there appears to the Minister to be some extremely good reason to the contrary. That is what I think we should do. I do not see why such an Amendment should be beyond the wit of man to produce. It will secure the unification of this force

765
and will have the effect, which is important, of removing the doubts which are at present in the minds of members serving in this force. I do not want to make anything of this. This Amendment itself would not do; it is deficient in certain ways. Even if we were 100 per cent. in agreement on this matter, instead of nearly so, I should have had to ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. I hope he can accept what I have suggested, and if he withdraws his Amendment I shall be very pleased to do what I have said.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for what he has said. I thought he was going splendidly until he used some such words as, "unless the Minister saw any exceptional circumstances". Then, a minute later, the noble Lord said that what he was going to do would remove the doubt from the police force. Surely the doubt will still remain, because the doubt will be whether the Minister will find any "exceptional circumstances". It rather alters the complexion of what the noble Lord said. If he can tell us that he will be able to put down an Amendment which will keep the unification of the police force, and leave out any question of the Minister's finding "exceptional circumstances"—because I cannot see any exceptional circumstances which any Minister could find—that will be satisfactory. If we are all agreed that it makes for the efficiency of the police to have one force, I cannot see why any Minister should think, or be allowed to think, to the contrary.
LORD BOOTHBY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that there was one passage in his speech which left me in a state of some mental confusion? That was his reference to the possible desirability or necessity of the various Transport Boards—the separate ones—exercising control over their own police. That seems to me to run counter to the whole of the rest of his argument. Did the noble Lord actually use the phrase (that is the impression I got) that it may be necessary in certain circumstances for the different Transport Boards to have operational control?
LORD CHESHAM: I did not say that. I said that it seemed desirable that they should have some element of choice in the matter, which left me in a slight
766
difficulty, in that they do not yet exist. Perhaps I may go on and answer the point my noble friend made about "exceptional circumstances". Actually I did not say that either. I said "extremely good reasons". Perhaps, to avoid any confusion in my noble friend's mind, I should repeat what I said. I said that an Amendment should be put down which would secure that separate police forces shall not be set up—and I selected those words with some care—unless the Minister is satisfied that there are extremely good reasons for doing so. If we are agreed on the principle that the forces should remain unified, and an Amendment of that kind is put down, I think that would do what noble Lords are seeking. I do not think noble Lords or, probably, members of the force themselves, would wish this unification to be achieved, so to speak, at the cost of complete rigidity if there should be extremely good reason for doing it in some other way. I should have thought that would be reasonable, and I should not have thought, having regard to the words I have used, that the doubt would remain unresolved as it was before. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not I will gladly try to answer any further question, or make it clearer.
LORD STONHAM: Whether or not it is clear, it certainly is not satisfactory to my noble friends on this side of the House. I appreciate the point about consulting the Boards, but we have allowed for that in this Amendment. Subsection (3) (ii) says:
"The Police Authority shall consist of a chairman and eight members, two from each board. …"
That implies the participation of the employers. But the important thing about the police is that they should have what they call their conference and committee. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that until last week or the week before that when I introduced the last Police Federations Bill, not a single thing could be done affecting the police without a new Act of Parliament. Neither the Home Secretary nor the police could do anything to change their conditions unless there was a separate Act of Parliament. That was why the last Police Federations Bill was brought forward, in order to make it possible for changes to be made by

767
regulation. That position has been built up over a period of years ever since 1919. Conditions in the Transport Commission police are not absolutely identical, but in many respects they are similar.
I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is here, because if in this respect I say anything with which he disagrees from his own considerable experience, I hope he will correct me. It is inconceivable that in a police federation matter the Home Secretary should intervene on the kind of grounds the noble Lord suggested, or that he should move an Amendment to suggest that the Minister of Transport could intervene if he is satisfied that there are extremely good reasons. What are extremely good reasons to one Minister or one Government are no reasons at all to another. This would be a most unsatisfactory position from the viewpoint of the Transport police, and entirely unacceptable. I cannot understand why the Government have been advised to deal with it in this way. We suggest—I think in the most generous terms—that the Chairman of the Police Authority shall be appointed by the Minister and that each member shall be a member of his respective Board and appointed by the Minister on his recommendation. Indeed, if the Minister is not satisfied he can refer it back. How much more authority does the Minister want in this matter? It is not good enough.
I very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. This answer will not dispel doubts in the police; it will create them, and there will be continuing doubts. They will always be uneasy and if they are of a strong Conservative turn of mind they will say, "We are all right while we have a Tory Minister". If they are Labour or Liberal inclined, they will have a different point of view. I do not think this is the way to deal with the matter at all. I do not consider this is an Amendment upon which to divide the Committee at this stage, but I think we should make it clear from this side of the House that if, after further deliberation, the noble Lord comes back at the Report stage with an Amendment which leaves it virtually at the discretion of the Minister of Transport whether or not he should leave the
768
police as one unified body or break them up into six components, then the Government, in my submission, will not have met us at all. The position would be exactly the same, in effect, as it is now. I thought, much as I am anxious to reach accommodation, that I ought to make that position perfectly clear.
LORD CHESHAM: Frankly, I am disappointed in the line that the noble Lord opposite has taken. Anxious as he may be to reach accommodation on this matter, it seemed to me that some of his objections were made for objection's sake; and from his speech it would be a little difficult to detect anxiety to reach accommodation on this matter. I am not going to take him up in detailed argument at the moment, but he will see this if he will examine his words later on. It seemed to me that he went to some length to ignore completely what I had put forward before and, in fact, to say it was less than absolutely nothing at all. I think this is, at least, a disappointing reception, considering the distance that I have tried to go to meet noble Lords. Particularly, his criticism of leaving it in the hands of the Minister is really unreasonable, in view of what I said.
I am not going to argue any longer. As I said when I started, I regard the argument which was put forward for this Amendment as an important one in the interests of the police and therefore I am going to ask noble Lords behind this Amendment to withdraw it. I am going to stick to the offer I made; and in that consideration I will certainly bear in mind what noble Lords have said, even if it was disappointing, and do my utmost to come back with the best Amendment I can. I think we should take the matter on from there. I am now aware of the thoughts of noble Lords in the matter and the Committee is aware of my own, and I think we could perhaps quite progressively adopt that course.
VISCOUNT TENBY: Might I ask the noble Lord one thing? He said in the course of his remarks that he accepted the principle of the Amendment, which was in fact that there should be a unified force. This unified force has been in existence since 1949. It is a valued aspect of the British Transport Commission, of the railways, waterways,

769
docks, and hotels. They now have a wonderfully good force of 3,000, with a Chief Constable and all the ancillaries which you want for crime detection, and they are in very close touch with Scotland Yard. The noble Lord accepts the principle, which I welcome, but I am very worried indeed about the possibility that the Minister could depart from it at his discretion. That is what gives me the greatest worry, because we have now had unified pay and conditions for the police of this country since 1919, and I think it would be a grave departure from a principle that everybody has accepted if a Minister who is not the Home Secretary may at his discretion, if he thinks it necessary, depart from it.
The position is that there are six regions, and if we take a place like Birmingham where two regions are involved, it would be absolute folly if a separate force were dealing with crime there. There are other places where two regions serve. I hope very much that the Minister can now and at the next stage of the Bill give a much firmer assurance, if I may respectfully say so, because everybody has admitted that this unified force has done exceptionally good work. It has been built up over a period of years, and the Maxwell Committee, which reported in 1957, affirmed that the proper thing was that this force should remain a unified force. It has done very well and I do most sincerely hope that between now and the next stage my noble friend will by able to ensure that our fears are set at rest and that it will remain a unified force.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Tenby has said. If the Minister were able, in the Amendment that is to be produced on Report stage, to make an order constituting a separate police force in, say, the docks or the waterways without coming to Parliament, I should be very disturbed indeed. If the order had to be laid before Parliament, I should feel slightly happier.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes. May I just add one more word, in view of what my noble friend Lord Tenby has said? It is the Government's intention that the force should remain unified. As a long-stop, if you like, there might be some good reason, which might well be acceptable
770
to all concerned, for a division or a split-up of the force; but it is intended that it should remain unified. It is merely to keep the matter somewhat less rigid than it would be if it had to be a unified force, no matter what the circumstances. That is the way we thought about it. I repeat that I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Tenby and other noble Lords have said, and I assure the Committee that I will take that very carefully into consideration between now and the next stage; and the result your Lordships will be able to judge in due course.
LORD STONHAM: What the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has said, with very considerable authority and much better than I could say it myself exactly expresses the fears I had in my mind. I am not accustomed to looking a gift horse in the mouth: I just did not see that this was a gift. That is why I tried to make the position quite clear, I was not satisfied with the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the change could be made by making a regulation which would be subject either to the Affirmative or the Negative Resolution procedure of the House. I feel that if, in two, three, five or ten years' time, some change is needed, the Government of the day will be perfectly competent to bring in a Bill to make the necessary change.
The kind of amendment that I want to see coming from the Government is one which will make it quite clear that there is not to be any change in this unified police force, unless a new Act of Parliament is brought in, perhaps dealing with this, or with that and other matters, which, of course, would happen only if a very clear need had arisen. That is the kind of position that we take up, and I think it is the only one that would satisfy the police themselves and satisfy the circumstances. But at this stage, before Report, I am quite willing to accept what the noble Lord might give with regard to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I should like to thank the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and I think the best thing I can do at this moment is for me to withdraw it and for us to look very carefully at the Government Amendment when it comes out, reserving

771
the right to come back to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
General provisions as to terms and conditions of employment of staff
71.—(1) It shall be the duty of each Board, except as far as they are satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this subsection, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Board to be appropriate, with a view to the conclusion between the Board and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—
(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Board, with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements, and
5.0 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), after "Board" (where that first occurs) to insert "and Company". The noble Lord said: When I looked down the list of Amendments to this clause I almost followed the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and said, "I move 9." But I cannot get away with it in this case, because I want to say something about this Amendment that I am now moving. This Amendment is tied up with No. 211, which seeks to define what "Company" means in this respect. We do not intend that our Amendment shall apply only to the few people who will be employed by the Holding Company, but rather shall apply to all those who are to be employed by the Holding Company's subsidiaries.
Clause 71, as at present drafted, carries on an obligation originally laid upon the four groups of railway companies by the Act of 1921. This was an obligation to ensure that there should be in existence machinery of negotiation for the settlement of disputes on wages and conditions. This obligation was again continued by the Act of 1947, but it was extended by that Act to apply to the whole of the Commission's employees. Clause 71, which we are here considering, substantially reproduces Clause 95
772
of the 1947 Act, substituting the words "each Board" for the word "Commission". This is a matter of tremendous importance to the railway trade unions, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for my little bit of history in this connection. The Act of 1921 effectively broke through the railway companies' resistance to any form of machinery of negotiation between the railwaymen of that day and the railway companies. It was, in fact, regarded by the railwaymen as a railwaymen's charter, and reference to it was frequently made in the years following 1921 and up to 1947. Here was something, legislation, a statutory requirement, to which trade unions and local branch officials and everyone must from time to time have made reference. I remember that my own copy of the 1921 Act became considerably dog-eared before I managed to get a new one.
But the Act of 1947 also made provision for something else. It added to the machinery of negotiation terms and conditions of service. It also for the first time added the matters which are set out here, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this clause, by the words
"and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Commission and such persons, including efficiency in the operation of the Commission's services."
The employees, through their representatives, had the right to question management on their decisions of management. Before 1947, those of us who were charged with negotiating with the railway companies, no matter at what level, if we dared to question an act of management, even if it affected the company's ability to pay higher wages or to improve conditions of service, were told quite firmly, "That is the management's prerogative; you keep out. "I had it said to me, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lindgren had it said to him during that period when he was entering into negotiation with the railway companies.
After 1947, the employee, no matter at what level, could refer to the 1947 Act as containing words which gave him a statutory right to discuss the efficiency of the undertaking. In our opinion that was a most valuable extension of the 1921 charter. I am sorry to say that this right was not quite so fully operated as was originally intended. It was never

773
fully (understood away from the union headquarters. Indeed, many local grouses met with at depôt and station level could have been dealt with if someone had been knowledgeable enough firmly to say at that point, "Do not just grouse about it. Get our representative to ask why, and then we will consider the answer." Despite the fact that, as I say, this new right was never fully understood, it was valuable to have it in the form of legislation.
I happen to be a firm believer in joint consultation. We are seeking to establish for one section of the nation's employees the right to have the same sort of machinery as is set out in this Bill for another section of the nation's employees. (If the statutory right is good for the railwayman, and for the employees of the Dock and other Boards, surely it is equally good for the employees of the nation who are the direct employees of the subsidiaries to the Holding Company. I think this establishes that there is some justice in this case, where we have related companies and where these companies are all being dealt with to some extent in the Bill that we have before us to-day.
The Government which in 1921 gave us the original charter was a Government composed of "hard-faced businessmen" who looked as though they had done well out of the war, according to an expression of Mr. J. M. Keynes (later Lord Keynes), in connection with the Government of the day. But despite that description, the Government did impose upon four privately owned companies the obligation to establish a machinery of negotiation. They were talking not to a nationally owned body but to privately owned companies, though, it is true, they had been merged as the result of the passing of the Railways Act, 1921. The last thing I would say about the noble Lords, Lord Mills and Lord Chesham, is that they look like hard-faced business men who have done too well out of anything. Indeed, they look most kindly occasionally, when they are saying the right things from that side. Despite that fact, I think that they ought here not to fall behind the good deed done in 1921 by the then Government of the day, composed, as it was, of these people mentioned by the late Lord Keynes.
I believe that to-day our thoughts for employees should exceed the thoughts that were in the minds of the people in 1921. If it is good for the employees of Boards, why not for subsidiaries of Holding Companies? If I rightly understood the Conservative industrial charter which came out after the last world war, we were to enter into a new era of industrial relations in which the two sides of the table, management on the one side and employees on the other, would go. We were asked to work towards co-operation and away from the old antagonisms of management and men. I accept that conception: I believe that in this Bill we ought to be working towards it. I believe that the Government accept this principle. Indeed, so far as I can see they have set up the organisation, N.E.D.C., specifically in order to ensure that from the point of view of the economy of the country there should not be two separate sides. That is my understanding of it; and I wish that organisation well, and I hope that it achieves its purpose.
I am rather afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is going to tell us that most of the bus and road service companies already have agreed machinery of negotiation. If he does say that, my reply is bound to be: So have the Boards; but the difference is that the subsidiaries have not got it as a statutory right. The Boards, Yes; but the Holding Company's subsidiaries, No. Yet they are equally employees of the nation. I feel that this is the sort of occasion when a gesture might be made. I believe that it is merely asking for a simple act of justice to write into this clause the requirement that the Holding Company and its subsidiaries should have to follow a principle which was established in 1921, which was carried on in 1947 and which now should be extended to cover all the companies covered by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 5, after ("Board") insert ("and Company").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD LINDGREN: Before the Minister replies, I should like to amplify one or two things my noble friend Lord Champion has said. He quite rightly says that, so far as direct negotiations are concerned with the various sections

775
of the Commission, we as railway trade unions have had very happy relationships with them, and quite satisfactory agreements, so far as they go. The Committee may not be aware, but I think your Lordships should know, that one of the problems of negotiations in a large organisation has been that you start one set of negotiations going—shall we say, concerning main line railways?—and then have to follow through on a whole series of negotiations with the London Transport Executive, the docks, the B.R.S., the hotels, Thomas Cook and a whole range of them. We have generally come to very satisfactory agreements with those I have mentioned, based on the settlement we have secured through the main line companies. I must say that, in spite of the statutory rights we had under the 1947 Act, we have had serious trouble in reaching agreement with some of the smaller subsidiary companies, which I will not mention here because it would be unfair if I mentioned one or two and missed others. On many occasions we have actually had to go to the Chairman of the Commission, and it has been only through his very kindly, gentle persuasion, or through hints he has given via his manpower adviser, that some of these other undertakings have come to a settlement.
What we really fear is this. If in fact a statutory right which we have had since 1947 now goes, it is going to be very difficult indeed. I would ask your Lordships to think seriously about this because, to put it quite bluntly, we have now reached the stage in regard to certain sections of the Commission that we do not mind whether there is statutory obligation or whether there is not. There is full authority and power to stop the job, although we do not like to do it. But where there is that power to stop the job and where it constitutes a threat to the national economy, even Governments have to talk to employers if they are not being reasonable. But while many of these subsidiaries are important in their way, they have no real fundamental strength in the economy of the country, and their employees have not the power and authority of the main line railway company employees, the drivers, the signalmen and the rest, who can stop the job.
776
I think this House has a duty to see that those who have not the power, shall we say, of stopping the job should equally have the right of negotiating a satisfactory settlement as those who can use the "big stick". Those of us who are associated with the trade union movement have always been in favour of having negotiations right up to the very last minute, and satisfactory negotiations if we can get them. But, of course, it has been easier where in fact you have a power to withdraw labour which is likely to be effective behind your argument. In regard to these firms we are hinting at which are associated with the Holding Company—or, at least, some of them—we feel there ought to be the same statutory right—the same obligation and power—to bring employees to an agreement as exists for the trade unions and larger companies. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to give us this very reasonable Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I listened with very great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had to say on this subject. To-day is 1962, not 1921. We are not only glad of what happened in 1921 but we are all convinced that the question of proper consultation is of the utmost importance in human relations. In the case of the transport industries we are dealing very largely with human relations. We are setting up four statutory Boards to replace the existing Transport Commission. The Transport Commission under the 1947 Act is under an obligation to have the kind of machinery we are now discussing. I have seen it working. I have been intimately concerned with it and can testify that it works well. And under Clause 71 of this Bill we have placed the same obligations on the four statutory Boards as the 1947 Act placed upon the Transport Commission.
We now come to the question of the Holding Company and its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries are of two types. There are those over which the Holding Company have complete control and there are those where there is minority shareholding and the Holding Company is not directly concerned with the labour relations of their subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are all organised as commercial companies, running the same

777
kind of business in many cases, as private competitors and negotiating their wages and conditions alongside these private competitors. Where I think noble Lords have probably mistaken the position is in regard to the fact that the position of the Transport Commission under the 1947 Act obliged it to consult on staff matters in respect of its own employees; but its subsidiaries never came under that same requirement.
These subsidiaries have proper arrangements—as, indeed, private industry has—with the trade unions, to deal with their problems and to settle them. What noble Lords are seeking to do here is to extend a duty, an obligation, which is quite proper to the statutory Boards, but which is not practical or possible in relation to the subsidiaries. If there were not proper labour relations, it might be another matter; but proper labour relations do exist. They exist alongside those in private industry, with whom they are in step. In my view, it would not be practical to try to put a statutory obligation on these companies, organised under the Companies Act.
So, while I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, would like to see, I can say only that I do not think it is practical. I sympathise with their desire to have the best machinery possible to make certain that labour relations are the finest possible, but I would just ask them to consider what I have said: that everything that the British Transport Commission had is here provided. I suggest that it would not be possible for us to impose this upon these subsidiary companies. The Holding Company do not matter; they have—or will have—only a few professional staff. I think that the noble Lords opposite should be satisfied with what I have said on this matter.
LORD STONHAM: We are, of course, very disappointed with that reply, but I should like to deal first of all with something that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said at the very end of his speech. He said that we were proposing something in this Amendment which is proper to a statutory Board but not to organisations registered under the Companies Act. Then, just when I was going to get up and say, "Well, the
778
Holding Company is a statutory Board; therefore, why not apply it to the staff of the Holding Company?", he answered me in advance by saying, "The Holding Company would employ only a few professional people, and it therefore does not matter very much." To deal with that point first of all, I would say that it does matter to us, and I believe it will matter to the staff of the Holding Company. We are getting instance after instance of professional people of various kinds who, through lack of adequate representation, lack of proper negotiating machinery, are, in the view of most of the people of this country, I think, very badly treated in relation to other sections of the community.
Therefore, the first point that I would put quite strongly to the noble Lord is that, whatever the Government's decision about the Amendment as a whole which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Champion, they should in any case concede the point about the Holding Company. That cannot be met by any of the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has adduced to all the remainder. The noble Lord will be aware that there are a number of Amendments on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Burden, and it had been my intention to move the first one on my noble friend's behalf, but I thought that the greater would include the less and that it would save a separate discussion. But I hope, both in order to save time and for reasons of equity, that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will agree that words should be inserted to provide that at least the staff of the Holding Company should have the same advantages in this matter as had previously been enjoyed by the staff of the British Transport Commission. This the Government are anxious to continue, and, therefore, they must apply these advantages to the Holding Company's staff, which Lord Mills indicated would be proper, since the Holding Company are a statutory Board. That is the first point.
The second point is with regard to the noble Lord's reference to subsidiary companies. I see the difficulties here, although we on this side of the Committee, as my noble friend made clear, are anxious to enlarge these facilities or to extend the field of employees to

779
which these facilities are available. But I think the use of the word "subsidiaries" as applied to some of the firms involved is a misnomer, because the Holding Company will hold less than 50 per cent. of the shares of some of them and they will not control the board of directors. Therefore, they do not satisfy either of the provisions laid down in the Companies Act, 1948, which decide whether a company is a subsidiary. So quite a number of the firms mentioned in the Bill are not, indeed, subsidiaries. As I say, we are extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept the whole of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Champion, which I thought were very well put, extremely attractive and almost unanswerable; but I hope that, in any case, they will concede the point about the staff of the Holding Company.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I compliment my noble friend Lord Champion on the manner in which he has moved this Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Mills, made his case: that what he called the subsidiaries were facing competition in a commercial world, and that perhaps it would be unwise to place upon them these statutory requirements. We are considering in the region of, I believe, 60,000-odd men, whether they are in the bus services or the British Road Services. Now British Road Services are, I suppose, a subsidiary of the Holding Company, but I should have thought that, in the mind of any noble Lord in this Committee this afternoon, we should look upon British Road Services in the same way as we should regard the railways. The only difference is that they are transporting merchandise by road, and not by rail.
Now what is being asked? It is that there should be negotiating machinery to cover this very large number of men. We should have machinery, for what purpose?—to provide reasonable terms and conditions of employment. We are not asking for a great deal. I should think that the Government could well accept this Amendment. It is not far-reaching. It may well involve some difficulty with the minority position in subsidiaries, but we well know (and I
780
am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows) the influence that even a minority shareholding can have upon the manner in which a business is conducted. If we are taking part in this business, then it should be the aim of us all, as the shareholders, to see that there are proper terms and conditions of employment for the employees of those companies, and that, within our ability to provide it, we should see that they have this proper machinery. I think we are entitled to say, "Let us put it in".
Many times when we were in Government the Opposition (the Conservative Party) said: "If that is what you mean, then put it in the Bill". I am quite sure that if every noble Lord in this Committee wishes to see decent terms and conditions for employees, whether they are employees of the Board, of British Road Services, or of the main bus companies which are wholly-owned, we should, so far as possible, also use our influence to see that the same standards apply even to the employees of minority shareholding companies. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable; indeed, I think that what we are asking is reasonable, and I feel that, for the men with whom we are now dealing, it is a matter of justice.
5.31 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: Before the noble Lord replies, or before my noble friend Lord Champion says something, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that this clause gives us everything we had under the 1947 Act and everything we had under the British Transport Commission. He was not quite correct about that. May I mention just two organisations where the labour relations generally have been excellent, and where I have every reason to believe, irrespective of whether it is made a statutory obligation or not, they will continue to be excellent? The firms are B.R.S. and Pickfords. They are not included. They were included under the 1947 Act and under the British Transport Commission prior to the Act, and they are at the moment. I want only to repeat what I said when speaking a little while ago: that whilst in certain of these subsidiaries the labour relationship has been happy and the negotiations have been conducted in the spirit in which negotiations should take

781
place, there have been some concerns under the umbrella of the Commission whose boards, because they were separate and stuck to their right of independent negotiation, were, to put it mildly, difficult and were really only (in trade union language) brought to heel by our working through the Chairman of and the manpower adviser to the Commission. In future we shall not be able to do that, and that is what really worries us. B.R.S. and Pickfords are good employers and have good relationships, but we are worried about some of the others, whom I will not name unless the noble Lord, Lord Mills, asks me to—I do not think he will. The conditions we have now under the British Transport Commission should not be worsened as the result of this Bill.
LORD MILLS: Noble Lords opposite, I am sure, see the difficulties of this situation. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the distinction that I made between wholly-owned subsidiaries and those in which the Holding Company would have an interest. That is just one of the difficulties. I do not see how in this context you could easily separate the wholly-owned subsidiaries from those which may be doing precisely the same work but in which the financial holding is different. Nor do I see that you could, or should, very easily separate the consideration of these matters from the consideration which has to be given by other private concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, posed the questions as he understood them—and he understood them very well. But what he appeared to be not very willing to understand was that there are such difficulties in dealing with this situation as preclude us from accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren—and I do not want to dodge the question—referred to one exception. There was one exception which came about by the passing of the 1953 Act, when it was proposed to return road haulage to private hands. I am quite aware of that particular case, but it is the only case; and apart from that the position will remain just as it was under the Transport Commission, as I have said before. I am afraid that the practical difficulties of dealing with this are the real considerations. We all want better human
782
relations. We all want better manpower relations and staff relations, because these are two of the things which make for better efficiency. As I said the other day, I think we all ought to keep on repeating the word "efficiency", because that is the keynote for everything we want to do for our own happiness and comfort.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he deal with the separate point of the Holding Company—whether or not the Government would be prepared to accept the Holding Company into these provisions?
LORD MILLS: I should like to consider that. Again, I do not think it is a very practical suggestion, because of the nature of the staff which it is expected will be in the Holding Company; but I will certainly consider it.
LORD CHAMPION: I was very disappointed with the reply of Lord Mills, with his long background of understanding of all the problems between management and men. I rather thought he might jump at the opportunity of accepting a very good Amendment. I say "a very good Amendment" because I moved it, and therefore it must be. But he agreed that the matters about which we are talking were of the greatest importance. He said that the Government have continued to place upon the Boards the obligation put on the Commission by the 1947 Act. In the circumstances they could hardly do less. In view of the economic climate and the industrial conditions of the day, it would seem to me that no Government could do less than was done in this matter in 1947.
The noble Lord having told us how good this all was, then went on to decline the Amendment, and I am disappointed. He declined it, it seemed to me, on two grounds. The first was that in 1947 the subsidiaries were not bought under the "umbrella" of the 1947 Act. We knew that, of course, but we said we thought this was an opportunity of extending to those subsidiaries the protection given by the 1947 Act, which, as I said before, carried on the tradition established in 1921. I do not think his argument on that point is one which we can accept.

783
His second argument, it seemed to me, was that it would not be proper to place this obligation upon the subsidiaries, because they had to be in open competition with other privately-owned companies of a similar nature.
LORD MILLS: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but he must couple with that the other statement I made; that they already have adequate arrangements for dealing with these matters.
LORD CHAMPION: They might have adequate arrangements, but they have no statutory right to which they could refer from time to time in the event of difficulty. That is what we have always had in the railway industry since 1921, and it has been so valuable to us that
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Commission's power to develop land]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The next five Amendments to Clause 76 are all connected with Clause 11, which your Lordships agreed to omit from the Bill. Therefore, I think that the most sensible course would be to leave Clause 76 as it is for the time being and not to move these Amendments.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 79 agreed to.
we want to see it extended to others. It seemed to me that, in connection with the bus companies, the noble Lord was suggesting that if we placed this obligation upon those subsidiaries we should be preventing them from standing on equal terms with our competitors. Frankly, I do not believe that is true. I do not believe that it would lessen their competitive ability one iota. I can see by the demeanour of the noble Lord that he is not going to give way; his mouth is set a little tight, which seems to indicate something. I fear that I shall have to ask my noble friends to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Amwell, L.

Peddie, L.

Swanborough, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Champion, L.

Silkin, L.

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Sinha, L.

Williams, L.

Colwyn, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kenswood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Devonshire, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brecon, L.

Hereford, V.

Somers, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Inchyra, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Chesham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Tenby, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Teynham, L.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Waleran, L.

Davidson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 80:
Compensation to officers and servants of the Commission
80.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations contained in a statutory instrument require the appropriate body as defined in this section to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to persons who are at the passing of this Act officers or servants of the Commission and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act.
5.51 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in consequence of the reorganisation effected by" and insert "after the passage of". The noble

785
Lord said: I hope that the brevity with which I move this Amendment will be taken merely as showing a desire to facilitate the progress of the Bill and not as an indication that we do not consider the Amendment to be extremely important. I am fairly certain that the main reply will be that these words have appeared in previous Acts of Parliament. They appear in the 1921 Act, and it is really because of the difficulties we had after the 1921 Act and some of the consequences which arose from it that we consider this Amendment to be most important. The clause now reads:
"… officers or servants of the Commission … who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act."
It will be within your Lordships' knowlege that the reorganisation which is being effected by this Bill is not the only reorganisation, and disorganisation, which is being perpetrated with railways, in particular, and with other sections of the Commission's undertaking. If I may mention them, there are the activities of Dr. Beeching at the moment in regard to the closing of branch lines, the reducing of facilities on main-lines and internal reorganisation. They are not as a consequence of this Bill, which has not yet become an Act. The general outline of activity being pursued by Dr. Beeching is undoubtedly that which was agreed between himself and the Minister prior to publication of this Bill.
These reorganisations—with loss of opportunities, emoluments, income and the rest—which are likely to arise are just as important from the staff point of view as is anything likely to arise from this Bill when it becomes an Act. I would submit that to prove to an employer that a redundancy, a demotion or transfer of an individual from one grade to another is arising from the Bill and not from general circumstances of trade or a change of other circumstances in the area is very difficult indeed. Though we are quite pleased with the protection that we get in Clause 80, we do not by any means think it is sufficient.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment, which would mean that the worsening of conditions after the passing of the
786
Bill would give entitlement to compensation, should it arise. There is one further point. Whether or not the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I am not clear (and I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government would make it clear) whether this affects all sections of the Commission, as the Commission is now constituted. I can understand that this applies to all the new Railway Boards. But will it apply to B.R.S., to Thomas Cook's, or to any of those undertakings which are at the moment under the control of the British Transport Commision? If it does, that might go a considerable distance towards alleviating some of the feeling of disquiet which some sections of the Commission's staff have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 11, leave out ("in consequence of the reorganisation effected by") and insert ("after the passing of").—(Lord Lindgren.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I know it is a little difficult, at first sight, to understand the distinction between loss of employment or diminution of status in consequence of statutory reorganisation and similar loss as a result of a managerial process of rationalisation, or any other word you like to use, which may cause redundancy of staff. Redundancy due to rationalisation is entirely outside the scope of this clause, and, of course, it has been going on for a very long time. It is in pursuance of their duties that the Transport Commission have been endeavouring to economise in railway services, to make them more efficient and give a better service, very often with smaller staffs, and the fact that they will continue to do so after the passage of the Bill is not a consequence of the Bill itself.
The Commission, of course, have to negotiate with the unions, as all employers ought to do, about the resulting employment position. There is no statutory compensation, and it would be an entirely new principle if we were to introduce statutory compensation for loss or diminution of employment as a result of managerial policy. But people who lose their employment as a result of rationalisation in one field or another are all covered by agreements reached with the unions for dealing with normal redundancy. Those agreements provide, in certain circumstances, for financial

787
compensation for loss of employment. I think that most of your Lordships, and possibly even the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, would agree that it would be a bad principle in the industrial affairs of this nation if the Government were to take it upon themselves to intervene and interfere with industrial agreements worked out between the employers and the unions concerning redundancy which might arise from reorganisation or rationalisation of any kind, and which, of course, is happening in many industries to-day.
This clause covers a completely different point, and it is one which has always been dealt with in every Statute dealing with nationalised industries. It has always been thought right to provide that if as a result of reorganisation due to a Statute people are adversely affected they should be compensated. It may be that the people adversely affected would be very few.
In regard to the particular question asked by the noble Lord as to who, according to the terms of the clause, this would cover, I think it could cover anybody; but it would be extremely unlikely that the provisions of this clause could apply to anybody except the people who are actually on the staff of the Board. They would be the most obvious examples of people who might be affected directly and inevitably in consequence of the statutory reorganisation brought about by this Bill. One might think it likely that if one Commission is being split up into three or four, the tendency would be to have more rather than fewer jobs. I do not know. But that does not necessarily mean that some people might not fit into the new arrangements, or that some people would have to accept a new post at a lower salary as a direct result of the reorganisation.
It has always been considered a just principle to provide that statutory reorganisation causing loss of employment should be accompanied by statutory compensation. Correspondingly, I think it would be a very bad principle that there should be statutory compensation on account of any redundancy caused by (managerial policy, as distinct from legal enactments. Under subsection (4) of this clause regulations are to be
788
prescribed about the procedure to be followed and about the board of referees to be appointed by the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, or, where proceedings are held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State. It would be for them to decide the answer to any particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wanted to know whether any particular number of individuals came within the terms of this clause. It may be there would be very few; it may be 30 or 40; or it may be not more than a dozen. But if it were only one, it is still regarded as a right principle that provision should be made for that one person.
While I entirely agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment about the desirability of taking care of railway-men and others who may be displaced or affected by rationalisation schemes: that is a thing which is going on all the time. It is not really within the scope of this clause, which is designed, like similar clauses in other Statutes affecting nationalised industries, to affect comparatively few people, mostly, I should think, on the Boards or the Commissions themselves, who are directly affected by the reorganisation.
LORD LINDGREN: This is really very strange. May I read the clause again? It says
"… officers or servants of the Commission who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation …"
An officer and a servant are the same, except that one gets a salary and the other a wage. That is the only difference. If an officer gets the sack it is generally called incompatibility of temperament, and he receives twelve months salary; in the case of a servant, he gets his cards.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was not suggesting that they were not covered by this clause as they ought to be. I was only pointing out that there were very few individuals who would be likely to be affected by the wording of this clause in consequence of the reorganisation under the Act, as is the case in all other Acts affecting nationalised industries.
LORD LINDGREN: I agree, but surely a member of the Board is not an officer or a servant. Unless he was a full-time officer of a Board, I should not have thought he would be affected. This is the difficulty. This is unlike any circumstances that we have met before. The 1947 Act was an expansion of other Acts. Here we have a managerial policy which has been progressing for some time. But this managerial policy (I want to use the right word) has really been running parallel to this legislation, and not in anticipation of it. But it has still been at ministerial direction. After all, the Chairman of the Board is appointed by the Minister. There are discussions as to the line of activity likely to be taken by the Minister within the time of his appointment, and as to the general direction in which the Minister wants to move. After all, the Minister has continually reminded us—and has emphasised the fact—that he has a right to interfere because he is the banker. That may be a justification for it. But if the Minister is interfering as the banker as a preliminary to this legislation, then what arises in consequence of the actions taken between the time the decision is taken and the effects of this Act are felt? I feel that there ought to be some extension of the provision for compensation.
I was not quite sure from the reply—and I put a specific question—whether this affects the staff if they become entitled under the interpretation which the noble Earl is putting upon it. I am thinking of British Road Services, Thomas Cook, or Pickford's. I agree that the activities of the new Holding Company, or the separate companies under the Holding Company, are perhaps less likely to cause loss of office, reduction in status or loss of emoluments than in the case of the main-line railway companies. I should like to be clear whether or not it directly affects those members of B.R.S. and Pickford's staff if they become entitled under the regulations, when they are issued. If the noble Earl cannot give me the answer "off the cuff", perhaps he would be good enough to write to me in regard to it. I feel we ought to have another word from the noble Earl, particularly on the latter part.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am always very glad to send any information, in addition to what can be given across the Floor of the House, to the noble Lord, and any other of your Lordships who want it. From what the noble Lord said just now, it seemed that I had perhaps given the impression unintentionally that members of the Boards were included. That might have been so if my noble friend had not been about to move Amendment No. 217A, which makes it clear that "officer" in relation to the Commission or any other body does not include a member of that body. What I intended to say was that the most obvious people who would be included would be the staff employed by the Boards. As for the other people, such as employees of Thomas Cook, whom the noble Lord specifically mentioned, their position would depend on whether their loss of employment or diminution of emoluments was or was not in consequence of reorganisation effected by this Act. If there was any dispute about it, the only people who could decide that question would be the board of referees which is to be set up under subsection (4) of the clause. When I said that probably very few would be affected, that was only conjecture. It is impossible to say in advance how many there are likely to be.
LORD LINDGREN: I join with the noble Earl in hoping that it will be none, because the fewer people who lose their jobs and become entitled to compensation the better we shall like it. But it would be better if we could have it made clear as possible. I am most grateful for the reply of the noble Earl. I am not satisfied, but in view of the statement I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 22, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 90, line 32, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Disqualification for membership of House of Commons]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 93, leave out lines 14 to 16 in column 1.
Page 93, line 14, column 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
Clause 87:
Duty to give effect to Minister's directions
87.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Boards or of any other person to whom the Minister or any other authority gives directions under this Act to give effect to those directions.
(2) Any direction given by the Minister under this Act shall be in writing.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved to leave out Clause 87. The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. Clearly, what we want here is some answer from the Government as to what they had in mind when they drafted this clause. I am somewhat puzzled by it. When looking at this Amendment and considering the Bill as a whole I had by me five separate Acts of Parliament, and in no single one of them did a clause of this sort appear—a wide blanket clause covering the Minister's powers. It may well be that in other Acts of Parliament such a clause is to be found, but in the five Acts relating to transport that I had by me I could not find anything similar to this clause.
I do not pretend to be well versed in these matters, but I think we ought to be careful before blanketing our powers in quite this way. So the first question that I am going to ask is, why this blanket clause at all? Why is it included, what does it cover, and how? The second question I should like to ask is about the words, "or of any other person". The Boards have a specific mention, but the Holding Company is not mentioned at all, although under Clause 29 the Holding Company is told that it "may receive directions". Do the words "any other person" embrace the Holding Company? If the words "any other person" embrace the Holding Company, why is there a specific
792
mention of the Boards at all? Why not use the simple term, "any person receiving directions"? Does "any person" in this connection include the subsidiaries of the Holding Company? Is that the intention here? Because I believe that the Minister has taken powers somewhere in the Bill to direct not only the Holding Company but the subsidiaries of the Holding Company. If it is not the Holding Company and its subsidiaries that come under this term "or any other person", who are these any other persons and in what circumstances will the Minister give them directions?
My third question is about the few words "any other authority". When it says that the Minister gives directions under this Act, it refers to someone who is easily identifiable. Indeed, the present Minister of Transport is very identifiable, because he never shuns the photographers; but what is identifiable under this Bill? The words may be quite clear to a lawyer, which I am not, but I am in this difficulty: that when I was considering this Amendment I did what I normally do when I do not know what words mean—I turned to the interpretation clause. There is nothing at all in the interpretation clause of this Bill which tells me what is an "authority" under this Act. I wonder whether the referee under Clause 57 is an "authority". Is a local authority under the Town and Country Planning Act an "authority" for the purpose of this clause? I can well imagine that there is a simple explanation to all this. I have sufficient confidence in those who draft these Bills to know they do not just put these words in for fun and they do not as a rule add words for fun, but I think it is right that we should know what these words actually mean in this context.
The last point is perhaps a slightly wider one. I should certainly like some information about the Minister's powers to give information. We know he has considerable powers to direct. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lindgren said yesterday that in the Bill there were 100 instances of the Minister's power to direct, which is pretty considerable. These powers of direction may range from the comparatively trivial to the very important. I want to know, and I think the House ought to know, in what

793
sort of cases the Minister of Transport, having given such direction, will come to Parliament and say, "I have given this direction and I give Parliament the chance to discuss it". Your Lordships will see that there is a possibility under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that a very important directive may be given and Parliament may not know about it until the Board publish their annual report. That is a possibility.
There might be a dispute between the Board and the Minister as to what is important in this connection. There are occassions when, clearly, it would be politically inconvenient for the Minister to make known what direction he had given. He might not like it to be known, but if he did not publish the information immediately it might be contrary to the interests of the Board. I am of the opinion that important decisions should be reported to Parliament immediately, and, in view of the possibility of a dispute as between Board and Minister, I believe the Boards should themselves have the power—the right in fact—to publish the direction given to them by the Minister. I consider that this has some importance, and I look forward to the reply I shall now get from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 87.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, dealt with a number of points here and I will do my best to answer him. The first point was a natural one: why is the clause necessary? The purpose of the clause is twofold. It sets out explicity a duty which might otherwise be implicit but which is of sufficient importance to make a clear and express statement desirable. It follows, in a way, the 1947 Act, except that in that case the provision was repeated for each direction. As a matter of drafting, the provision in this Bill is in a general form. The clause also provides that directions by the Minister must be in writing, which is considered to be necessary.
Then the noble Lord asked what was meant by "any other person". This expression is used because, apart from the Boards, directions may be given to the Commission (for example Clause 33 (3) as to property to go to the Hotel Company; Clause 76 (3) as to expendi-
794
ture on property development), to the Holding Company (Clause 29 (4)) or to undertakers of independent railways in connection with abandonment proceedings (Clause 82 (2) and (4)). The expression "any other person" was inserted to include these. The word "person" would include the Holding Company and its subsidiaries, though in fact there is no provision for the Minister to give any direction to a subsidiary. Control of a subsidiary would be secured by direction to the Board, under Clause 35 (2); and control of a subsidiary of the Holding Company by a direction to the Holding Company under Clause 29 (4). The words "any other authority" have been introduced into the Bill and would include the Treasury—see Clauses 21 (4) and 29 (13). Off hand, I cannot say what other authorities are concerned, but I think those are sufficient to illustrate the need for these references.
It will be for the Minister to judge those cases where Parliament should be informed immediately of a direction, and in a matter likely to be considered by Parliament as important the Minister obviously would do so. In my experience a direction is a very rare thing indeed. There is nothing, generally speaking, to prevent a Board from making public the fact that a direction has been given to it, but the special considerations would apply where the directions were concerned with national security. That, I think, is understandable. I think it is desirable that there should be an express statutory sanction for the carrying out of directions given by the Minister.
The Minister has power under the Bill, as I have just mentioned, to give directions to the Board and to the Holding Company in various circumstances. It is true that the Minister would be able to take administrative action against a Board which disregarded a direction, but it is clearly better that a legal duty should be laid on the potential recipients to obey the Minister's direction, in order to avoid the delays and doubts to which the lack of express duty to obey could conceivably give rise. This principle was also recognised in the Transport Act, 1947, but in that case there was no general provision corresponding to Clause 87. Indeed, as I have said, that Bill dealt with the matter piecemeal, because the duty was repeated in each relevant section. I think

795
that the present method is an improvement. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have dealt adequately with his questions and with his proposal to delete the clause. I think the clause is a necessary one.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord help me? In the case of a subsidiary company, this is a company constituted as would be a private company, with a board of directors appointed according to the articles of association. Normally in that type of company directors are appointed for three years or two years, or whatever may be the case, but for a fixed period, unless of course they commit a serious misdemeanour. But suppose there is a dispute between the subsidiary and the Minister as to what should be done; the Minister has given a direction and the board of directors of the subsidiary refuse to carry it out because it would not be in the interests of the company of which they are directors.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that then, of course, the Minister could take administrative action. I wonder how the Minister would deal with the board which had refused. I doubt whether he could remove the directors. It would mean going to the considerable difficulty which we know is involved when it is decided to remove a director from office in a private company. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any help in this matter.
LORD MILLS: I think I said that the Minister would not give directions to the subsidiary companies of the Holding Company or the Railways Board. He would give directions to the Holding Company or to the Railways Board, as the case may be, and it would be for them to act on those directions, to carry out the Minister's directions by instructing their own companies, which they control—they own them—to do this, that or the other. If the boards refuse to carry that out the position is no different from that of any other holding company. They would obviously take effective steps to deal with the situation with which they were involved over the control of their own property. I hope that that answer is satisfactory.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has completely anticipated the questions
796
I wanted to ask on this. He has answered them to at any rate my satisfaction, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Interpretation]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is the Amendment that my noble friend Lord Dundee mentioned a moment ago, to clear up any ambiguity that "officer" includes a member of the Board. Of course it should not do so because there are other provisions for members of the Boards in Clause 78. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 20, at end insert:
("'officer', in relation to the Commission or any other body does not include a member of that body;").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 31, at end insert—
("'wholly-owned subsidiary' means a subsidiary all the securities of which are owned by the body of which it is a subsidiary, or by one or more other wholly-owned subsidiaries of that body, or partly by that body and partly by any wholly-owned subsidiary of that body") .—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
6.29 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment, with Amendment No. 218B and Amendment 260AA, provides for the detailed application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. This is the first Amendment, which actually does the work, because at present the Bill provides that it shall be applied to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. This does not seem to be quite the best way. It seems better and more in line with precedent to do it by application in detail in the Bill. The detail is rather long and complicated. This Amendment does nothing more than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 100, and insert—

797
("(1) The provisions of this Act set out in Part I of the Schedule (Application to Northern Ireland) to this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications set out in Part II of that Schedule, and save as aforesaid this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
(2)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 10, leave out from ("Ireland") to end of line 15 and insert ("this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Part II: The Regional Railway Boards]:
LORD MILLS: I think this Amendment will be quite clear to your Lordships. It merely requires the Minister, when he appoints a person as a member of a Regional Railway Board, to lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and allowances payable. And if any subsequent determination is made by him involving a departure from the terms of that statement, then that also should be laid before Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the first appointment of any person as a member of a Regonal Railway Board, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and of the allowances that are or will be payable under this paragraph; and, if any subsequent determination by him under this paragraph involves a departure from the terms of that statement, or if a determination by him under this paragraph relates to the payment of, or of payment towards the provision of, a pension to or in respect of a member of a Regional Railway Board, the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the determination, lay a statement thereof before each House of Parliament.")—(Lord Mills.)
6.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: We do not disagree with this Amendment. It does, in fact, reproduce a similar provision applicable to the four Boards. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, will remember that at an earlier stage in this Committee we discussed the question of whether members of the Board should be full-time or part-time, and what in
798
fact "part-time" would mean. I read the Report of the Select Committee on this matter, and it would appear that there were one or two members who admitted that they were serving one or possibly two days a week on the Board. It may be other members served longer, though still part-time; possibly there may be some who did less. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would go along with us in thinking that these Boards face a very formidable task, and must be strong if they are to do their duty properly, and I think he would agree that these Boards should, in the main, consist of full-time executive directors. The noble Lord could not accept our Amendment at an earlier stage, because we were stipulating numbers, and I quite appreciate that the noble Lord wanted to have some flexibility for his Minister. We certainly shall wish to come back on Report stage to see whether we can find some words which would mean that when the Minister was appointing these Boards he should provide that at least the greater part of their membership should be full-time.
The reason I am speaking on this Amendment is to ask whether the noble Lord would consider that when the Minister lays before the Houses of Parliament the details of the salary fees or allowances of these directors he should also state the terms on which these persons will be serving, so that the manner in which they will serve will be clearly indicated—in other words, whether full-time or part-time. I doubt if we could find words to describe whether the person should work two days a week or sixty days in a year, but I think that Parliament should have some idea, when approving the salaries of these people, as to duties and the sort of time these ladies and gentlemen (and it may be that we shall have ladies) will be spending on these Boards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will appreciate our concern to see that these Boards shall be strong and shall work to the maximum extent to make them a success. I think that when Parliament is asked to approve salaries and fees it should take into account the period of service these people will be rendering.
LORD MILLS: I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that my objection

799
to the proposals earlier put forward is that I do not think it appropriate to lay down by Statute exactly what shall be the qualifications of any particular member. I cannot but agree with him that there should be a large element of full-time service, because these Boards have a great deal to do. What they are doing is of the highest importance, and therefore I do not disagree with the general statement that has been made. But it is a different thing from laying down in a Statute that the members should serve all the time. As regards the request that Parliament should be informed of the terms under which a man is appointed, the time he will serve, and so on, I do not think I can go any further than to say that I will make known to the Minister—and to the Treasury, of course—the noble Lord's views, because, again, I think that Parliament should be as fully informed as is reasonably possible.
LORD SHEPHERD: When the Chairman of B.O.A.C. was appointed he was described as being part-time—and, let us face it, a few eyebrows were raised when one considers the importance of B.O.A.C. For all I know, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. may still be part-time, but that means he is involved in B.O.A.C. matters for a very considerable part of the week. Therefore, I should have thought it would be of interest, and only fair to the Board, that Parliament should have some idea of the terms under which the members will serve.
LORD MILLS: I think I am right in saying that the present Chairman of B.O.A.C. is full-time, but I quite appreciate the point put forward by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transfer of Commissioner's Statutory Functions]:
LORD CHESHAM: Amendments Nos. 224 to 229 all go together; all are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 107, line 16, leave out ("and")
Page 107, line 16, at end insert ("and in paragraphs 1 and 8 of the First Schedule")
Page 107, line 19, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 107, line 26, leave out ("Inland Walter-ways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 107, line 29, leave out from ("five") to first ("to") and insert ("and in paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (4) of section eight (which relate")
Page 107, line 31, leave out from ("Boards") to end of line 32.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This in another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 47, at end insert—

("Section 157 … (Financial and statistical returns)

In subsection (3), for the reference to the Commission or an Executive there shall be substituted a reference to the Railways Board and the London Board.")

—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 8, at end insert—
("Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland), 1953

1953 c. 14

Section 12 (3) … (Evidence in criminal proceedings regarding goods and mail in transit)

For the reference to the Commission or any Executive there shall be substituted a reference to any of the Boards.")

—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 111, line 12, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 111, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 111, line 31, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Distribution of Commission's securities]:
6.42 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment goes with the next, and it refers to the Penarth Dock Engineering Company. This company moves from Part II of the Schedules to Part IV for this reason. Originally, it was allocated to the Docks Board because it used to be an undertaker in a docks—it had a pontoon, and that sort of thing. It has subsequently given up all those activities and now confines its activities to ordinary engineering, and therefore is more appropriately with the Holding Company than with the Docks Board. It is a dock in name only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, leave out line 17.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 7, at end insert ("The Penarth Dock Engineering Company Limited").—(Lord Chesham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 115, line 12, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 115, line 17, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 115, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Miscellaneous Items in the Distribution of the Commissions Assets]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 116, line 24, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board'")
Page 116, line 28, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("that Board")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) In the application of this paragraph to a pension scheme the benefits under which are or will be receivable as of right, persons who have obtained pension rights under the scheme without having contributed under the scheme shall be regarded as participants in the scheme; and references to being eligible to participate in a pension scheme shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. This sub-paragraph already makes provision for the Minister's discretion, and this Amendment is intended to ensure that, if he is satisfied, as mentioned in line 32, he ought to approve the scheme. I believe that this Amendment will commend itself to the noble Lords opposite, and I am looking hopefully for their acceptance of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD CHESHAM: I would regard it in some ways, perhaps, as a little more than "little more than drafting", but none the less it commends itself, and I accept this, and the next three Amendments, with pleasure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move the next three Amendments together. These Amendments having had such a kindly reception from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I think I ought to thank him for accepting the last Amendment that I shall move on the first Bill I have dealt with in this House.
Amendments moved—
Page 129, line 45, after ("Minister") insert (", upon representations made to him by, or on behalf of, any person, or class of persons, affected,")
Page 130, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 130, line 7, at end insert ("as if those payments were payments which the Commission were making in the period before the vesting date.")—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 46, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Port Charges]:
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, line 7, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
Page 135, line 35, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 136, leave out lines 1 to 3.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Constitution, Powers and Proceedings of the Transport Tribunal]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment and the next four—that is, Nos. 252 to 255—relate to the age limits of the members of the Transport Tribunal and members of the special panel. These are in accordance with the first Report of the Council on Tribunals. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 136, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) A person shall not be appointed under the last foregoing sub-paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that, where the Lord Chancellor and the Minister concur in considering it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor and the Minister thing fit.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 137, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) A person shall not be appointed to act under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subparagraph after he attains the age of seventy-two years, or under paragraph (b) of that subparagraph after he attains the age of seventy years, except where the Lord Chancellor or the Minister, as the case may be, think it desirable in the public interest, but no person shall be appointed to act after he attains the age of seventy-five years.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD STONHAM: Could the noble Earl tell us why the age here is seventy-two years, when it is seventy years in the previous Amendment? This Amendment says:
"A person shall not be appointed to act under paragraph (a) … after he attains the age of seventy-two years …",
whereas in the previous one it is "seventy".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps it takes two years to get from the beginning of the sentence to the end of it. I am afraid I do not know.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl does not know, and as his first thought was not very convincing, I wonder whether an error has been made in the drafting, and whether, perhaps, he would look at it again.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will of course look at it again, and I will write to the noble Lord, when I shall be able to explain it. I think there is a difference between the functions or the status of the person who is seventy-two and that of the person who is only seventy.
LORD STONHAM: I do not want to be awkward about this, but it is the case—and we are always being made aware of it—that on all sorts of boards, voluntary or otherwise, people approaching these ages get a bit tender about it, and there should be some real reason why in one paragraph the age is seventy and in the other it is apparently seventy-two. Although it may seem a small point, it might lead to questions and difficulties in other directions. That is my only reason for raising it. If there is a simple answer which the noble Earl is now in a position to give, perhaps he would give it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I now have the explanation. Seventy-two is the age for the President, and seventy for the other members.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 137, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert—
"(3) A person shall not be appointed under this paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that where the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, consider it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, thinks fit.
(4)".—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 137, line 27, leave out ("such a person") and insert ("a person appointed under this paragraph").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment, and No. 257, which is consequential, provides for the deletion of the provisions in the Tenth Schedule which limit the discretion of the Transport Tribunal, in respect of the first one about the awarding of costs, and in respect of the second one with regard to the rights of audience before them.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 8, leave out from ("tribunal") to end of line 12.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 24, leave out from ("tribunal") to end of line 27.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is also a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(2) The Minister").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 36, leave out from ("he") to ("shall") in line 33 and insert ("considers will be of assistance to the tribunal in connection with any matter before them, and").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is a drafting Amendment to leave out some unnecessary words.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 8, leave out from ("law") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After the Tenth Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—

APPLICATON TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  >PART I

    PROVISIONS EXTENDING TO NORTHERN IRELAND
    Part I except sections twelve, fifteen and twenty-six.
    Part II except section forty-one.
    In Part III, section forty-three, section fifty-three and section fifty-four.
    In Part IV, sections fifty-five and fifty-six; section sixty-seven, so far as it relates to bylaws in relation to passengers and goods conveyed in or on ships operated by the Railways Board and as to their embarkation and disembarkation; sections seventy-one to seventy-six; sections seventy-eight to eighty; section eighty-four; sections eighty-six to eighty-eight; section ninety-one; sections ninety and ninety-two to ninety-four, so far as they relate to provisions of this Act extending to Northern Ireland.
    The First to the Eighth Schedules.
    This Schedule.
    The Eleventh Schedule so far as it relates to the Transport Act, 1947, sections sixteen, seventeen and twenty-five of the Transport Act, 1953, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957.

  PART II

    MODIFICATIONS
    1. In subsection (5) of section two and in paragraph 15 of the Seventh Schedule, the references to the London and Edinburgh

    807
    Gazettes shall include a reference to the Belfast Gazette.
    2. In section seventeen, references to Bills in Parliament shall include references to Bills in the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
    3. In subsection (8) of section thirty-four, for references to the Minister of Labour and the industrial court there shall be substituted, in relation to service in Northern Ireland, references to the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance for Northern Ireland and to an industrial court established in Northern Ireland under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919.
    4. In subsection (2) of section seventy-one, the reference to the Minister of Labour shall, in relation to agreements affecting persons employed by the Board in Northern Ireland, include a reference to the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance for Northern Ireland.
    5. In subsection (5) of section seventy-three, the reference to the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940, and the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, shall include a reference to any corresponding enactments for the time being in force in Northern Ireland.
    6. A referee or board of referees for the purposes of section seventy-three, section eighty or paragraph 17 of the Seventh Schedule shall, where the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland, be appointed by the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance for Northern Ireland after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
    7. In subsection (6) of section seventy-three, subsection (7) of section eighty, and paragraph 17 of the Seventh Schedule, for references to the Arbitration Act, 1950, there shall be substituted references to the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland), 1937.
    8. In subsection (9) of section seventy-three for the reference to subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the National Insurance Act, 1946, there shall be substituted a reference to subsection (4) of section sixty-six of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland), 1946.
    9. In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule, for the reference to section sixty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to section nine of the Conveyancing Act, 1881.
    10. An arbitrator for the purposes of paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule shall, where the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland, be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
    11. References to enactments or statutory provisions include references to enactments of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and provisions, whether of a general or a special nature, contained in, or in any document made or issued under, any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, whether of a general or a special nature."
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Eleventh Schedule [Repeals]:
    LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 149, line 47, column 3, after ("Schedule") insert ("the words ' An Area Railway Authority constituted under the British Transport Commission (Organization) Scheme Order, 1954,'").—(Lord Chesham.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 155, line 12, column 3, at end insert ("and the words 'or of the Kennet waterways'"),—(Lord Chesham.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment provides for the repeal of Section 22 of the British Transport; Commission Act, 1957, which applied the provisions of Sections 27 to 46 and Section 48 of the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, to charges under any port charges scheme under Part V of the Transport Act, 1947. The Eleventh Schedule to the Bill provides for the repeal of Part V of the 1947 Act (page 141, lines 57–8, and page 143, lines 21–2), and paragraph 6 (2) of the Ninth Schedule provides for the application of the above sections of the 1847 Act to the port charges provisions of the Bill. Section 22 of the B.T.C. Act, 1957, should therefore also be repealed. If your Lordships did not quite follow that, I would say that this Amendment is a drafting Amendment, for tidiness, and I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 155, line 18, at end insert—

    ("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. xxxiii (c. 33).

    The British Transport Commission Act, 1957.

    Section twenty-two.")

    —(Lord Chesham.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    LORD STONHAM: My noble friend, Lord St. Davids, asked me to explain that he would not be here to move the next Amendment, No. 263, and to assure your Lordships that he will be back on Report stage like a lion refreshed. This also gives me the opportunity, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, of

    809
    thanking the noble Lords, Lord Mills, Lord Dundee and Lord Chesham, very much indeed for the helpful way they have received our arguments, and for the manner in which they have contributed to what I think we have all felt has been a very happy Committee stage.
    LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he has just said. We on this Front Bench have been most impressed by the very hard work that has been put in by noble Lords opposite and noble Lords behind me in their consideration of this Bill. It must amount to a great deal of work, and we appreciate the help and the manner in which this stage of the Bill has been conducted.
    Title agreed to.
    House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  ESTATE AGENTS
  ESTATE AGENTS
  SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITY RENT REVISIONS
  SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITY RENT REVISIONS
  AWARDS TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS
  AWARDS TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS