Sitting of 8 November 1962

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

  BOOK (OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT)
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Attorney-General if he will authorise the prosecution of Hamish Hamilton Limited and Mr. Montgomery Hyde, publishers and author, respectively, of the book "The Quiet Canadian", on the ground that it contains breaches of the Official Secrets Act.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): No.
  Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: Is my right hon. and learned Friend really telling the House that no breach of the Official Secrets Acts has taken place in the writing and publication of a book that describes in detail the work of one of the head agents of the British Secret Intelligence Service? Can he assure us that the publication of this book had the full approval of the present head of the Service, and, if it did, will he say what advice one should give to former members of the Service who will now, of course, be encouraged to cash in on their own personal knowledge of similiar sensational events and interesting and intriguing bits of information, such as Sir Stuart Menzies's successors?
  The Attorney-General: In answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, I am not, of course, saying that an offence cannot have been committed but only that I do not have any evidence in my possession upon which I could order a prosecution. Neither the author nor the publishers are Crown servants, and I have no evidence at all that any of the matter contained in the book was obtained by either the author or the pub-
  1124
  lishers in the course of the public service. I have no evidence, therefore, that an offence under Section 2 (1) has been committed nor any evidence that any other offence has been committed. As to the second and third parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and not for me.
  Mr. Edelman: While recognising that in a formal sense this question is in order, is it not the case that it would be more in accordance with the traditions of the House that where a serious and unspecified charge is made against men, in this case men of the highest reputation and character, the names should be communicated privately to the Attorney-General and that the Order Paper should not be used as a public pillory?
  Mr. Speaker: The method to which the hon. Gentleman refers is sometimes adopted. I have already written to the hon. Gentleman about this. I cannot say that the Question is in any way out of order.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PUBLIC GRIEVANCES)
  Dr. Johnsonasked the Attorney-General when it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner with powers to investigate individual grievances against Government Departments.
  The Attorney-General: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the conclusions reached by the Government after their consideration of the Report of a Committee of Justice. The statement sets out the difficulties which seem to the Government to stand in the way of the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate grievances against Government Departments.
  Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that while one has not powers of foresight which enable one to see what is in his Answer, none the less there is much sympathy for this idea in this country, and not only in this country but in the Commonwealth as well, and that the Government of New Zealand have,

  1125
  apparently, been able to adapt a similar institution to this to their own Constitution without difficulty whatsoever?
  The Attorney-General: I am, of course, aware of the interest there has been and the discussions there have been in many quarters about this proposal. It seemed to me that the statement which was to be made was too long to be put down in answer to a Question, and I therefore regret that my hon. Friend had not the opportunity of studying it before he asked his supplementary question.
  Mr. Fletcher: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the statement, although it may reject the suggestion of the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, makes some other alternative concrete suggestion to enable grievances against Government Departments to be dealt with more satisfactorily than at present?
  The Attorney-General: The statement draws attention to the fact that the Government themselves have reviewed the possibility of further instances where appeals might be given as of right against the discretionary decisions of Ministers. It deals with that aspect of the matter but not with any other.
  Following is the statement:
  The organisation known as Justice made two proposals: first that the Council on Tribunals should survey the area in which there is at present no right of appeal against a discretionary decision made by or on behalf of a Minister, with a view to providing a right of appeal in such cases to an independent tribunal; and secondly, that a Parliamentary Commissioner should be appointed to investigate cases of alleged maladministration. The Government consider that there are serious objections in principle to both proposals and that it would not be possible to reconcile them with the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. They believe that any substantial extension of the system of reference to tribunals would lead to inflexibility and delay in administration, and that the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business. In the Government's view there is already adequate provision under our constitutional and Parliamentary practice for the redress of any genuine complaint of maladministration, in particular by means of the citizen's right of access to Members of Parliament.
  In their examination of the Report the Government have themselves undertaken a detailed review of the extent to which persons
  1126
  aggrieved can appeal against discretionary decisions. This review has disclosed a few instances in which provision for appeal might with advantage be introduced as an additional safeguard to the person affected by the decision, and these are being examined in greater detail.

  BREACH OF PROMISE ACTIONS
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to abolish actions for breach of promise of marriage.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Lipton: May I press the Attorney-General to reconsider that reply? Now that men, for all practical purposes, no longer sue women for breach of promise, would it not be a good thing for the small minority of women with an inferiority complex to follow the good example of men in this respect, and, in any event, is is not better for a woman to find out before marriage rather than after marriage that the man does not want her?
  The Attorney-General: Being myself a married man, I would not dream of suggesting that women ought to follow the example of men. The law in this respect is exactly equal for both. While I recognise that there may be some cases which are unsatisfactory when litigated in public, nevertheless.there are cases where very grave hardship indeed is caused to a woman, whose body may have been, taken possession of by promise of marriage, or who may have given ten of the best years of her life under the expectation that a man will marry her.
  Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while nearly all these cases are brought by women, the majority of the women in the country find the whole business most distasteful and would like to get rid of the whole degrading business?
  The Attorney-General: I am perfectly aware, of course, that there are many cases where it would be much better if they were not ventilated in public, but that does not mean that because the circumstances surrounding the actions of our fellow citizens are sordid or unpleasant the law ought not to deal with the respective rights between the parties.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of every £1 spent by Her Majesty's Government on civil defence goes, respectively, on administration, upkeep of buildings, miscellaneous expenses, and instruction and training of personnel.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): Taking the approved estimates for the defence expenditure of Civil Departments for the current year, of each £1, approximately 4s. 6d. goes on administration, 2s. 5d. on upkeep of buildings and installations, 2d. on miscellaneous expenses, and 4s. 3d. on the instruction and training of personnel.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if I am correctly informed, the figures for the Home Secretary's own constituency are: administration 6s. 8d., upkeep of buildings 6s. 4d., miscellaneous 2s. and instruction and training 5s.? Would it not be absurd if only 25 per cent. of the expenditure went on instruction and training?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The figures naturally vary in different parts of the country. The figures that I have given are for the national average.

    Remand Homes
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he is making for increased accommodation in remand homes.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): The responsibility for providing remand homes rests with the councils of counties and county boroughs, and I am in consultation with them. I am glad to say that the remand home accommodation in England and Wales has increased by 190 places, or 15 per cent. since June, 1961. I hope that about 100 more will become available early next year, and schemes are in hand to produce further places.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what, in fact, is the extent of the shortage at the present time
    1128
    and how far these expansions, to which he refers, will go to meet that shortage?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. It is not possible exactly to evaluate the shortage because it is linked up with the shortage of places in approved schools. Boys and girls have to remain longer in remand homes if they cannot go to approved schools, but we are increasing the number of approved school places by 2.000, and, although I am very well aware of the seriousness of the present shortage, a great deal is being done to relieve it.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have been pressing this matter for the last two or three years and that magistrates all over the country are finding the position absolutely impossible? While we agree that it is the responsibility of the local authorities, can the night hon. Gentleman say what he is doing other than being in consultation with the local authorities? What pressure is he bringing to bear, and is he likely to review the financial position about this between his Department and the local authorities, such as was promised to us some time ago?
    Mr. Brooke: Work is being done on the arrangement for financing remand homes, which the hon. Lady may know can cause difficulty as between one local authority and another. That is certainly in hand. Neither my predecessor nor I have needed any prodding from the House, because we have been pressing forward very rapidly with the provision of new remand homes, as shown by the increase of no less than 15 per cent. in the last fifteen months.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is it not very disconcerting indeed for juvenile court magistrates, when they take their place on the bench, to be told before any case is started that there is no accommodation in the remand homes? This makes it very difficult when a decision has to be taken on what is to happen to one of the boys or girls who come into the juvenile courts? The Minister knows the difficulty that we are placed in in Liver-pool in this respect. Will not he see whether it is possible to speed up the provision of additional remand homes?
    Mr. Brooke: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I take this matter very

    1129
    seriously indeed. It is a consequence of the spectacular rise in juvenile delinquency, and we have to provide accommodation, with the help of the local authorities, that will correspond to the increasing need.
    Mr. Lagden: Is the Minister not aware that a farcical position has been reached in many courts where the clerk of the court, prior to the court sitting, phones round to see whether it is possible to remand anybody that day, but very often has to inform the magistrates that it is not possible?
    Mr. Brooke: I will most willingly look into any case of that kind, but the fact is, as I have just stated, that this massive increase both in remand home places and in approved school places, which are even more important, is now in progress.

    Explosion, West Bromwich
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the report of the manufacturers on the three substances involved in the West Bromwich explosion on the 6th February, 1962, has been received by his Department; and if he will make this available to hon. Members;
    (2) what results the Home Office scientists in the Explosives Branch have ascertained in respect of their researches into hydrogen peroxide, methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide and sodium metasilicate.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I understand that the report made by the manufacturers on the investigations which they have carried out is not quite complete. It will be the property of the manufacturers and my right hon. Friend would have no authority to publish it. Some supplementary tests on hydrogen peroxide and methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide involving the employment of special techniques have been conducted by the Home Office, and the results, which are highly technical, have been communicated to the manufacturers.
    Mr. Farr: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that a previous Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated that when these inquiries were completed regulations would be framed with a view
    1130
    to preventing repetitions of the type of disaster that we had at West Bromwich earlier in the year? Has he these sort of regulations in mind now?
    Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend will, of course, give consideration to this question when he has received the Report, but he cannot do so until he knows what the Report will contain.

    Probation Officers (Pay)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the 2½per cent. rise in salaries to probation officers to be effective from 1st April, 1962, has been rounded down to the nearest £5, and that, consequently, certain officers are receiving an increase of only 1·9 per cent.; and what steps he is taking in order to ensure that every probation officer receives the full two and a half per cent. rise in salary.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): In calculating the new scales, the usual practice was followed of rounding the increase at each point up or down to the nearest £5. As a consequence, the actual percentage increases at different points of the various scales ranged from 1·9 per cent. to 3 per cent.
    The Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service has recently failed to reach agreement on a salary claim for further increases with effect from 1st April, 1962, and I understand that the claim is being referred to arbitration. My right hon. Friend must now await the outcome of the arbitration.
    Sir B. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman say why on earth even on a meagre, silly, increase of 2½per cent. he still finds it necessary to reduce that amount so that in some cases £5 or £6 is saved by the Treasury as against the probation officer? Does he not feel that the probation service is of such a highly essential nature that every consideration should be given—there should be no cheeseparing—and will he see to it that the recommendation of the Morrison Committee for a 31 per cent. increase shall be accepted? Is he aware that there is very considerable agitation about this in the service itself, and that it does us no good?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can say that, of course, some get more and some get less. This rounding up and down is a practice followed in all these matters in fixing, for example, local government salary scales. As to the second point, since it is now in arbitration it would be quite wrong for me to say anything further, except that immediate and sympathetic consideration will be given to the outcome as soon as it is known.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 2½per cent. in the first place was a ludicrous amount to offer and that to reduce the 2½per cent. below 2 per cent. is just adding insult to injury?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In some cases it was raised to 3 per cent., otherwise we get, in these matters, into the difficulty where we have fractions of a penny and things like that. Rounding up and rounding down is, I think, a commonsense approach to the matter.

    Experiments on Animals
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to forbid experiments on animals in which they are forced to inhale tobacco smoke with the intention of inducing lung cancer.
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that experiments of this kind may properly be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering.
    Mr. Burden: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is really a shocking answer in view of the fact that the Americans have stated that, for a considerable time, they have been endeavouring to induce animals to contract lung cancer by forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke, but without success? Why is this experiment to continue in this country despite the American experience? Will my hon. Friend instruct the people concerned to get in touch with the Americans who have already been carrying out these experiments so that this cruelty can be stopped?
    Mr. Woodhouse: Research workers in this country are, of course, in touch with work in the United States, but the fact that experiments undertaken so far have not produced cancer in animals does not necessarily mean that further experiments carried out under different circumstances would not be liable to do so.
    Sir B. Craddock: Is it not a fact that the Government have accepted that there is a connection between smoking and lung carcinoma? In view of this, is it really necessary to allow these very cruel experiments to be carried out?
    Mr. Woodhouse: In the judgment of qualified medical research workers, on whose advice my right hon. Friend relies, the answer is "Yes."
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons licensed by him to undertake experiments on living animals are third year undergraduates at a university; and how many such experiments were carried out in the first six months of 1962.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Two hundred and forty-five undergraduates who have passed their Second Year M.B. hold licences under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. Information about the number of experiments performed this year will not be available until after the end of the year.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not the case that these licences are issued under the condition that the animals are kept under complete anaesthesia during the whole of the experiment and are not to be allowed to recover, and that students shall perform these experiments only under supervision? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that all these provisions are carried out in every case in which these experiments are conducted?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The information contained in the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is correct. If it were known to him, or to any of his informants, that there were any cases in which the regulations were not being strictly carried out, we should be grateful if that information were conveyed to us, when it would be investigated.
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits to how many premises registered for experiments involving animals were paid by his inspectors in 1961
    Mr. Woodhouse: 1,407 visits were made during 1961 to 525 places registered under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern not only about experiments in general but about methods of animal slaughter, broiler plants, battery hens and inadequate dog kennels? Has not the time come for another Royal Commission, since the last one was a very long time ago? Will he consider that?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The question of the need for some form of inquiry in relation to the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act was one of the matters referred by my right hon. Friend to his Advisory Committee headed by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest last summer. The Committee has held a number of meetings and has completed its work, and my right hon. Friend expects to hear shortly from it.
    The question of an inquiry into the subjects which my hon. Friend has referred to would go somewhat outside the scope of the Cruelty to Animals Act, and any recommendation which the Advisory Committee made would be confined to the operation of that Act. Further steps would be for other Departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not an anti-vivisectionist or a crank but that I am profoundly shocked by the complacency of the Home Office in regard to vivisection? Is there not a case for a greater number of inspectors? I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to what I believe to be a strong movement of public opinion in this connection.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am very well aware of the strong feeling in this connection, but there is some misunderstanding about the role of inspectors, which cannot be directly related to the number of so-called experiments carried
    1134
    out in the year but more to the number of establishments which have to be inspected.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. McMaster
    Mr. McMaster rose—
    Mr. Woodhouse: In many cases, the research work and the work carried out in such laboratories is only in a technical sense experimental. Many are what are called "diagnostic experiments which are not devoted to medica research in the normal sense.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Everyone is trying to be very courteous, but I am concerned that we should try to make better progress.

    Hall Committee (Report)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the recommendations of the Hall Committee and to assist the Government of Northern Ireland to reduce the level of unemployment in Ulster; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer my hon Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate on Monday last. I am also circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement made by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on 23rd October, with the approval of the United Kingdom Government, dealing more fully with the recommendations of the Report.
    Mr. McMaster: According to the words used in the final passage of the debate— recorded in column 731 of Vol. 666 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—the Government are not at all satisfied with the problems of Northern Ireland, so I would like to press my right hon. Friend to answer this question: if the Government are not satisfied, will they address attention particularly to some of the proposals on which the working party could not agree, especially the opinion in paragraph 122 of the Report that, because of the dismal future forecast for employment in Northern Ireland, there should be a tax holiday?

    1135
    Will my right hon. Friend look again at that proposal and devise some form of tax holiday which would encourage firms freely and willingly to go to areas of high and persistent unemployment. such as Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I cannot go back from decisions reached and indicated by the Government in the very recent past. In Monday's debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Report and its consideration did not close this matter and that the United Kingdom Ministers would continue to work very vigorously alongside Northern Ireland Ministers who tried to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, about which I do not take so pessimistic a view as does my hon. Friend.
    Statement by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, Stormont, on Tuesday, 13rd October
    1. I have the authority of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to make the following statement on the conclusions reached after consideration by the two Governments of the report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland, which is being published today.
    2. The two Governments have carefully examined, in consultation, the proposal of the Northern Ireland Government for a subsidy of ten shillings a week in respect of all employees in productive industry which was suggested as a means of maintaining existing employment whilst new industrial opportunities are being attracted to Northern Ireland. The arguments in favour of a subsidy and the objections which have been seen to it are set out very fully in the report. The United Kingdom Government, while recognising that the Northern Ireland Government have attached great importance to this proposal, have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the serious objections both practical and of principle to a subsidy outweigh the likely advantages to Northern Ireland industry. They have concluded also that the possible tax concessions examined by the Working Party are not acceptable, for the reasons stated in the report.
    3. However, the report endorses the existing measures, set out in Appendix IX of the Report, to assist employment and to induce industry to settle and develop in Northern Ireland. The two Governments recognise that these measures have met with considerable success in attracting new industry, and are resolved to ensure that adequate finance is available to sustain them.
    4. In addition, in order to encourage the maximum activity in existing industry the two Governments agreed on the following measures: —

    (a)to accept the additional measures recommended by the Working Party, for
    1136
    stimulating the use of industrial advisory services, for improving facilities for the training of labour and for improving facilities for tourism, and action to implement these recommendations has been put in hand;

    (b) to maintain industrial de-rating in Northern Ireland;

    (c) to maintain substantial financial assistance towards co-operative publicity by the linen industry;

    (d) to extend the Coal Subsidy Scheme to oil. The Working Party drew attention to the economic disadvantages which derive from the fact that the present subsidy to industrial users of coal and energy derived from it does not extend to the users of fuel oil, and the two Governments have agreed in principle that it should be so extended. A scheme for this purpose, which it is estimated will add £350,000 a year to the cost of paying subsidies, is being worked out.

    5.In addition, to assist generally in the development of the area the two Governments have agreed on the following measures: —

    (a) The Working Party expressed the view that there was a case on social grounds for an increase in the housing programme, and the United Kingdom Government have agreed that the present temporary additional Exchequer subsidy of £11 per house—which is at present financed from the proceeds of a special customs surcharge—should continue as a charge on ordinary revenue when the funds provided by the surcharge run out;

    (b) To give effect to another recommendation of the Working Party, arrangements are being made for the investigation, through a study which will be promoted by the Air Transport Licensing Board, of the possibilities of developing the transport of freight by air. Further consideration will be given to the question of the effects of the cost of sea transport on Northern Ireland industry in the light of the Working Party's observations when the report is received of the House Committee, which was set up last year by the Minister of Transport to consider the types and frequency of shipping services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the standards of service and the reasonableness of charges.

    6.Short Brothers and Harland.
    The Working Party noted that the future prospects of Short Brothers and Harland gave cause for concern. The two Governments have considered most carefully the representations made that the firm should continue in operation because of its significance to the economy of Northern Ireland.
    The two Governments have together agreed that the necessary steps should be taken to provide the finance needed to enable Short Brothers and Harland Limited to complete the current order for ten Belfast aircraft for the Royal Air Force. I understand that a sum in the region of £10 million is likely to be required.
    In addition when it was decided recently to place a further order for V.C.10 military aircraft, arrangements were made for a substantial share of the work to be sub-contracted to Shorts.
    7. The two Governments agreed that the Report provided a valuable analysis of the problem but should not be taken to be the final word on the subject. They will continue with their close consultations to seek a long term solution to the Northern Ireland unemployment problem.

    Prisoner, Newport (Book)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the request of Samual Maurice Daffon, now in Her Majesty's prison, Newport, Isle of Wight, to borrow a book entitled "An Introduction to Criminal Law", by Cross and Jones, was refused; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: A request from a prisoner for a textbook of criminal law for the purpose of serious study would not usually be refused, but the governor was not satisfied that this was the object of this request.
    Mr. Dugdale: While not having the least idea as to why my constituent wanted this book, may I ask whether it is really for the governor to say that my constituent could give no convincing explanation? Is it not a little odd that, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to me by letter, the circulation of a book describing the Criminal Law should be deemed, under the criminal law, to endanger good order and discipline in the prisons? Is not that answer rather peculiar? Is it not also a fact that this book belongs to my constituent's mother and is being held by the prison and not sent back to her?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have no information about that matter. Usually, if the governor were satisfied that the prisoner required the book for the purpose of his own appeal or any legal matters in which he personally was involved, leave would certainly be granted. I think that we have to leave discretion to the governor in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—since, under the rules as they stand, there is no right to insist upon any particular book.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that, without exception, the more that prisoners have
    1138
    opportunities for learning about the criminal law the better? Ought not the Home Office to lay down a regulation that any prisoner who wants to study a subject should have every facility for doing so?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is almost always the case, but there are exceptional cases. I do not wish to canvas the reasons here.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Richard Pilkington. Question. No. 16.
    Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The position is confusing. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has given notice that he wishes to raise this matter on the Adjournment. Sir Richard Pilkington. Question No. 16.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I had twice been called by you before my right hon. Friend gave notice on this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that my voice apparently does not appear to work accurately. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.

    Channel Island Prisoners
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from the Channel Islands have been accommodated in United Kingdom prisons in each of the last 10 years; and what lengths of sentence each prisoner is serving or has served.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of these Channel Island prisoners are accommodated in United Kingdom prisons three or more to a cell with United Kingdom prisoners, and that while the United Kingdom prisoners have a right of appeal,

    1139
    Channel Island prisoners do not? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to use his good offices, as the Minister responsible for liaison with the Channel Islands, to ask the Channel Island authorities to set up a court of criminal appeal?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is a limited right of appeal for Channel Island prisoners to the Privy Council, but it is recognised that it is unsatisfactory and the Channel Island authorities are taking steps to constitute a court of appeal for all the islands.

    NUMBER OF PERSONS CONVICTED IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS WHO HAVE BEEN ACCOMMODATED IN UNITED KINGDOM PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS IN EACH OF THE LAST TEN YEARS

    —

    1952

    1953

    1954

    1955

    Jersey

    15

    5

    20

    8

    Guernsey

    5

    5

    3

    4

    20

    10

    23

    12

    —

    1956

    1957

    1958

    1959

    Jersey

    8

    2

    21*

    9

    Guernsey

    —

    3

    4

    8

    8

    5

    25

    17

    —

    1960

    1961

    1962†

    Total

    Jersey

    21

    25

    35

    169

    Guernsey

    4

    7

    5

    48

    25

    32

    40

    217

    The above mentioned persons were serving sentences as follows:—

    10 years imprisonment

    2

    7 years imprisonment

    3

    6 years imprisonment

    1

    5 years imprisonment

    9

    4½ years imprisonment

    1

    4 years imprisonment

    6

    3 years imprisonment

    21

    2/7/12 years imprisonment

    1

    2¼ years imprisonment

    1

    2 years imprisonment

    27

    21 months imprisonment

    1

    18 months imprisonment

    42*

    16 months imprisonment

    1

    15 months imprisonment

    5

    12 months imprisonment

    53

    Under 12 months imprisonment

    7

    Borstal training

    36

    Total

    217

    * Including one accommodated in a prison in Scotland.

    † To 31st October.

    Brownsea Island (Borstal Boys)
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much damage to yachts and other property was done recently in Brownsea Island, Poole Harbour, by Borstal boys brought over to help in the clearance work for the National Trust; what supervision there was; and what action has been taken in the matter.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Police enquiries into this incident are nearing a conclusion. The precise extent of the damage to property is not yet known. The working party, which consisted of ten boys, was in the charge of an assistant governor and one officer.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether any compensation is to be paid, and can he give an assurance that proper precautions will be taken in future?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Precautions will certainly be taken. They were in this case and will continue to be taken, but the incident was quite unpredictable and came as a sad shock in view of the trust which had been placed. Compensation is the subject of correspondence, and since there may be proceedings, I would prefer not to elaborate on that this afternoon.

    Prison Medical Service
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the inadequate numbers and sparse psychiatric qualifications within the prison medical service, and the present increase in penal institutions, he will, after consulting the Minister of Health, appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the structure and functions of the prison medical service and its relationship with the National Health Service.
    Mr. Brooke: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health I have already made arrangements for a study of the future of the prison medical service, and this is now in train. I am glad to say that Professor Denis Hill, of the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, and Dr. Peter Scott, of the Maudsley Hospital, have been good enough to agree to assist officials of our two Departments in carrying out this study.
    Mr. Abse: May I welcome the statement of the Home Secretary and hope that full attention will be given by this Committee to the manner in which the prison medical service is now so totally insulated and isolated from all the modern trends within the National Health Service, and that we may build up a service within our prisons which can play a proper rÔle in preventing further crime?
    Mr. Brooke: I attach great importance to the prison medical service. In view of the initiation of this study, I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if at this stage I do not say anything which might prejudice those who are making it. But I greatly look forward to receiving the findings of those making the study.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we greatly welcome his announcement, because there appears to be a good deal of disquiet about the whole prison medical service? Will he take into account a suggestion which I made some time ago—that a prison commissioner should be responsible for the prison medical service? Is he aware that at the time I thought that that suggestion had been received sympathetically, but that nothing has been done along those lines?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, I will consider that, but I think that the hon. Lady will excuse me if I first await the report of this study.
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men in prisons and borstals during 1961 were placed in strait jackets; what was the maximum time such men were so confined; and why this practice continues to be extensively employed by the Prison Medical Service.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The number of occasions on which a male inmate of a prison or borstal was placed in a loose canvas restraint jacket in 1961 was 86. The longest period for which the restraint was retained was 47¾ hours, excluding the compulsory break of one hour after 24 hours, and other short temporary releases. Standing Orders expressly enjoin that every effort must be made to avoid recourse to mechanical restraints; and a restraint may not
    1142
    be kept on longer than 24 hours without the authority of a member of the visiting committee or board of visitors. Subject to these provisions, the concurrence of the medical officer is required for the use of a restraint, and this is a matter for his professional judgment.
    Mr. Abse: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that no self-respecting mental hospital today would even use a strait-jacket? In days when sedatives are available, do not these horrible facts, which the Under-Secretary has given, of the time which these people are kept under restraint indicate either the psychiatric illiteracy of our prison medical service, or, alternatively, that medical sanction is being given to clearly unlawful restraints? Is it not time that this medieval practice came to an end? If the practice has ended in mental hospitals, why not in prisons?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Whatever the hon. Member may think about it, there is nothing illegal in it. It is a matter of professional judgment, and a prison medical officer has the same liberty of prescribing as any other medical doctor.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when the prison medical service will learn what mental hospitals learned long ago—that a strait-jacket only makes a violent man more violent?In these days of tranquillising drugs, is not this process a barbarous anachronism and ought we not to get rid of it?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member will have heard my right hon. Friend's announcement that the whole subject of the prison medical service is at present under discussion.
    Mr. Abse: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Fireworks and Bonfires (Accidents)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what details are now available of the number of accidents caused by fireworks on 5th November last.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what

    1143
    measures he has adopted since 1st February, 1962, to reduce the number of accidents from the use of fireworks.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Discussions with the manufacturers of fireworks have led to their setting up a Safety Association with the objects of co-operating with my Department in the safe design of fireworks and of promoting publicity to urge their safe use. Wide publicity was given to safety measures before 5th November this year and my right hon. Friend is grateful for the co-operation of the press and broadcasting authorities.
    With a view to considering what further measures might be adopted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has arranged to obtain from hospitals detailed information about people receiving in or out-patient treatment for firework injuries between 15th October and 10th November. No reliable information about the number of accidents on 5th November is yet available.
    Mr. Lipton: May I thank the hon. Member for that reply, which indicates that at last the Government are beginning to wake up to the fact that Guy Fawkes dead does far more damage to persons and property than Guy Fawkes was able to do when he was alive? Will the Government now take into account the statistics which are shortly to be forthcoming and if necessary, with or without the co-operation of the manufacturers of these explosive missiles, take some action to reduce the dangers in future years?
    Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend will take (full account of the statistical and other evidence when it is available, but I cannot in advance commit him to any particular course of action.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires were caused by fireworks and bonfires on 4th and 5th November in the county of London.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The number of fires caused by fireworks and bonfires is not yet known, but the total number of calls received by the London Fire Brigade on Monday, 5th November, was 433, compared with 613 on Saturday, 4th November, 1961. There were 135 calls on Sunday, 4th November, this year.
    Mr. Boyden: Did the Under-Secretary see the B.B.C. television broadcast when a firework manufacturer said that the Home Office statistics on this subject were useless? Does he agree with that? If he does, will he take some steps to remedy it, and, if he does not agree with it, will he take steps to see that the maximum publicity is given to and full co-ordination is made of all the statistics relating to this subject?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The answers to the first two of those supplementary questions in both cases are "No". The others, therefore, do not arise.

    Mr. J. M. Reimunto
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Mr. J. M. Reimunto, sentenced to a month's imprisonment at Avonmouth as a stowaway, has now been taken back to the ship where he will work while she is at sea, but that when the ship is in port he will be looked in his cabin; and, in view of the fact that no other country will receive him, if he will allow this man, when he returns to this country, to land and remain.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This man stowed away in Norfolk, Virginia, and was formally refused leave to land when the ship arrived at Avonmouth. On the expiry of his sentence, the ship's owners were directed to remove him and on 30th October he sailed for the United States. It is normal international practice to return stowaways to the countries whence they came. It is not established that no other country will receive Mr. Reimundo and the last part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this unfortunate man served a sentence of a month's imprisonment for stowing away, that at the end of a month he was taken down to a ship in the docks, that the ship refused to take him, that he was taken back to prison where he served another fortnight, and that he was then taken again to a ship and put aboard? This man will have to work aboard the ship, and, while he is in a foreign port, he will be imprisoned and a guard put on him, and the shipowner will have to pay for the guard, I ask the Minister whether this is

    1145
    British justice and whether he will do something to receive this stateless man into this country?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: One cannot get into this country simply by stowing away.
    Mr. Awbery: He is a stateless person and should be taken in.

    Deportation
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have occurred during the past 12 months in which magistrates have recommended first offenders and men guilty of trivial offences for deportation.
    Mr. Brooke: One hundred and seventeen aliens, 15 citizens of the Irish Republic and 37 Commonwealth citizens not known to have had a previous criminal record were recommended for deportation by magistrates' courts during the past 12 months, of whom 66 aliens, 2 citizens of the Irish Republic and I Commonwealth citizen have been or are being deported; some of the remaining cases are still under consideration.
    Mr. Awbery: May I ask the Minister whether he has given any definite instructions to magistrates that the threat of deportation, or a sentence of deportation, should not be made against any man for any trivial offence, but only for a serious one? If not, will he give magistrates instructions to that effect?
    Mr. Brooke: As the House knows, I have no power to give instructions to magistrates. What I was thinking of doing was taking a suitable opportunity in the near future to make known to magistrates and to the public generally the considerations which I bear in mind when deciding to act on a recommendation or not.
    Mr. Mellish: The Minister said that a number of Irishmen had been deported. How does one keep Irishmen in England? How does one stop them coming over here?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that they do come back. If they were deported, and if they came back, we should know how to deal with them.
    Mr. Mellish: How?

    Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the report published by Justice on the question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence, a copy of which has been sent to him; what other views have been submitted to him on this question; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on this matter.
    Mr. Brooke: I am studying this important question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence in the light of the report to which the hon. Member refers and also of reports by a Committee of the Conservative Party, by the Bow Group, and by the Police Subcommittee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to be able to do so before long.
    Mr. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that his immediate predecessor gave an undertaking some time ago that when the report referred to in the Question was published he would give it serious and sympathetic consideration? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do this in so far as the report has been prepared by an all-party, widely representative Committee?
    Mr. Brooke: Certainly, Sir. My task would have been easier if these four responsible bodies had come to the same conclusion as to the scheme which was desirable. Unfortunately, they have come to four different conclusions, and I now have to do some thinking to decide which is the best scheme.
    Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that this has been considered now for a considerable number of years, and that there seems to be general agreement outside the House, and on both sides in it, that something should be done? Will he now treat this as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Brooke: I do treat it as a matter of urgency, and, as I have said in public, I hope that it may fall to me to introduce legislation on this subject, but we have first to decide which of these

    1147
    various different schemes which have been recommended by responsible bodies is the best solution as a whole.

    Hull Prison
    Commander Purseyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the number of escapes from Hull Prison during the last 12 months; and what were the numbers due to faulty buildings, administration and shortage of staff, respectively;
    (2) what steps are being taken to improve the security of the buildings, to improve the administration and to increase the number of staff at Hull Prison, in order to reduce the escapes of dangerous prisoners into a densely populated area.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There were two incidents in this period, one on 23rd April and the other on 29th October, involving a total of eleven prisoners. The first was due primarily to an error of judgment on the part of a prison officer. The second incident is at present under investigation by the Prison Commissioners. Everything possible will be done to prevent future escapes.
    Commander Pursey: Is the Minister aware of the serious concern among my constituents about these escapes and the fact that the last three who have escaped have been free for 10 days, as I understand it? No doubt the Minister can confirm or deny that. If the security of this old prison cannot be improved, why not abolish it and build another one? Is it not high time that steps were taken thoroughly to investigate the question of the security of the present administration and whether there is a need for an increase in the number of prison officers in this prison to cope with long-service prisoners of dangerous character?
    Mr. Woodhouse: The rate of recovery of prisoners who have escaped is usually extremely good. I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member the details of the number he mentioned. As a matter of fact, with regard to closed prisons generally, the rate of escape this year is far better, that is to say, far less than last year.

    JOHN VASSALL (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he will add some persons with special knowledge of security to (the Committee of inquiry into recent Admiralty failures to provide an efficient security service.
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister what representations he has now received about setting up an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Vassall spy case; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I told the House on Tuesday, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, why I decided that this Committee is best suited to ascertain the facts of this case. As to their special knowledge of security, the members of the Committee are experienced in the security problems and practices of Government Departments as part of their day-to-day administration. They can, of course, call for expert advice on any matter if they wish; and they will be guided by the findings of the Radcliffe Committee.
    As the House knows, the Committee has already submitted to me an interim Report, which was published as a White Paper last night.
    I had not intended to call for an interim Report at this stage, but the atmosphere of speculation and innuendo made it in my view desirable that this White Paper should be published at the earliest possible moment.
    I am sure that the whole House will unreservedly welcome the refutation of the serious imputations against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith). My hon. Friend has told me that he nevertheless feels it his duty to submit his resignation to me, and, in all the circumstances, I have thought it right to accept it.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking the Prime Minister for calling for an interim Report, is he aware that I regret that the ex-Minister has felt it necessary to offer his resignation and I am sorry that the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to accept it?

    1149
    May I now come back to my original Question? In view of the fact that the country really has had a shock, can the Prime Minister explain why it is that if the country wishes someone who has had modern and up-to-date experience in Russian methods to be a member of the Committee, he does not feel that he should bow to the wishes of the country? May I also ask him whether he does not think that it would be a good idea to have a medical consultant on the Committee to deal with the pervert aspect of this problem? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this problem will have to be faced at some time, and is it really very difficult for a very distinguished Prime Minister for once to allow democracy to be satisfied?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the last part of that question, I thought that this would be the quickest way, and I think that it is going to be, having regard to the previous inquiries to ascertain the facts. It will then be necessary to decide what should best be done. As regards the calling in of experts, that can be done, and this problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded may have to be considered.
    With regard to the first part of the question, I regret, but I fully understand, the feelings of my hon. Friend, and I think that he will command both the respect and the sympathy of the House.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that we for our part agree with what he has said, and that this action by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is, I think, the only right one and is to his credit?
    This, however, means that the real issue, namely, whether or not this is the right sort of Committee of inquiry to set up, becomes disentangled from other matters. Has the Prime Minister noticed the phrase in the interim Report:
    "…you have directed us…to produce an interim report…"
    We do not feel that a Committee of inquiry into this sort of matter should be capable of being directed by the Prime Minister to do this. If it can be directed to do this, it can be directed to do other things.
    Is the Prime Minister also aware that he has continuously said that this Committee is going into the facts, but that
    1150
    its terms of reference include an inquiry into whether there was any neglect of duty? This is not a fact. Neglect of duty is a judgment, a judgment which civil servants may have to make on the actions of their own highly placed colleagues, or of Ministers, and this does not seem the right sort of inquiry to go into this grave matter of the breach of security.
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, it is a little fortunate that it was possible for me to ask for this interim Report—or to require this interim report. Had it not been possible, perhaps six weeks or two months of the Committee's proceedings would have been going on with these terrible imputations being made and no method of refuting them.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the Prime Minister reply to the second part of my supplementary question?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained, having had first the Romer Report and then the Radcliffe Report, I think that this will be the quickest way of ascertaining the facts, upon which it will be my responsibility to make a judgment.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that halfway through the.proceedings of a (fact-finding Committee, consisting of three civil servants, a Minister should be forced to resign, apparently on the publication of letters which, in themselves, are taken to be perfectly innocent and which appear to be perfectly innocent if, in fact, Vassall was the hon. Member's private secretary, or acting as such, and if there are no other letters unpublished? Further, as there are bound to be allegations about security in our embassy in Russia, is it not an entirely different matter from the question of security in Government Departments, and will it not therefore involve the examination of people in that embassy? In that case, is not this a matter which, as the hon. Lady has said, should at least lead us to see that there are people on this Committee who are cognisant of security, and that it should not consist solely of civil servants?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, if the Solicitor to the Treasury—I

    1151
    had meant it to be Sir Norman Brook, the Head of the Civil Service, who has been taken ill—and Sir Charles Cunningham, who has perhaps the most experience of the Civil Service in all its aspects, wish for further specialised advice they can call for it. They have available both the Romer and Radcliffe Reports on the general principles, but if they require to make inquiries overseas they are quite capable of making them.
    As for the first part of the supplementary question, in a sense this is fortunate, because I can imagine no more terrible situation than if this continual build-up of rumour and innuendo of the most scurrilous kind had been left without any method of answering it for the necessarily long period that a Committee of this kind would take.
    Sir M. Lindsay: Is the Prime Minister aware that nobody who knows Lord Carrington or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) could possibly believe that they could conceivably have had any kind of improper relationship with Vassall? Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have lent their weight to a Press campaign to this effect have not played a very honourable part?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members on this side are not concerned with the question of the Civil Lord—my right hon. Friend has explained our position on that—but we are very much concerned with the type of inquiry into the Vassall case and what may lie behind it? May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend? The Prime Minister has continually said that this Committee is to assemble the facts, but according to the terms of reference it is to judge whether there was any neglect of duty. This is not a matter of assembling the facts. How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he says about the functions of the Committee with its terms of reference? Does not he appreciate that it is precisely this element of judgment which, in our opinion, should not be exercised by civil servants under the direction of and responsible to Ministers, but should be conducted by independent persons?
    The Prime Minister: I think that assembling the facts will disclose whether
    1152
    the rules were kept and whether the proper arrangements—which are now very carefully laid down—were kept, or at what period they were broken, if they were broken. This is the collection of the facts, and from that follows the question whether these rules have or have not been kept.
    Although I am grateful for what the right hon. Member has said, I venture to repeat that this was a situation building up which seemed to me to be intolerable to any fair-minded man, in which quite a lot of contributions were made and in which anonymity was kept so that no action for libel or slander would he, yet it was quite clear who were the victims of these attacks.
    Mr. Speaker: I appreciate to the full the importance of this matter, but I think the wish of the House would be that we should have more than one Question to the Prime Minister answered.

    MINISTERS (TITLES)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the nomenclatures of many Ministers are outmoded; and if he will consider taking steps to modernise them in such a way as to make them more descriptive of the work done by Ministers and the duties for which Ministers are responsible.
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but no doubt his supplementary question will disclose it.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be very much in the public interest to be frank and explicit about matters of this kind, and to avoid confusion? I can give him one instance, namely, the fact that the Lord Privy Seal masquerades in this House as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We have no Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House. Would it not be much better to call the person who operates in that Department the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Another example is the President of the Board of Trade. There is no Board of Trade for him to preside over. That is an anomaly which I am sure he will agree is out of date. The third example is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is often confused in the public mind with the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Marten: On a point of order. Will the hon. and learned Member repeat all that? I could not hear it.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not exactly a point of order. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to guess what it was about when he hears the answer.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that some of the older offices of State have historical titles which it might be thought convenient to change. But there are arguments against doing so, unless such changes are connected with some reorganisations of functions. Some people feel that the title of Secretary of State for War is not an accurate one. If there were to be a change in the whole structure, that would be the moment for making changes, but I do not think that we need make them just for the sake of doing so.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that most hon. Members on this side of the House are more concerned about the state of mind of Ministers than the labels on their backs?

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that the application of the Official Secrets Act is carried out in such a way that every person subject to it undergoes the same limitations with regard to the use, and subsequent publication, of secret and other classified material in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: The application of the Act is, in general, well understood by those who have control of, and access to, classified information; and I do not think that any special steps are required to ensure uniformity of treatment between individuals who seek to use such information for purposes of publication.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Official Secrets Act is in the most appalling mess? Will he explain how it is that Mr. Montgomery Hyde has an access to papers—presumably Foreign Office papers—how it is that Sir William Stephenson has been able to give all his
    1154
    experiences, and how Mr. Sefton Delmer has been able to write a book giving all sorts of experiences of his, while other people have their books refused? Why do some people feel that they must adhere to the Official Secrets Act and others that they need not do so? It is a most terrible muddle, and I think that everybody concerned would welcome a proper definition.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's question was cast in general terms, and I therefore replied in general terms. If she will give me particular instances I will certainly look at them.
    Mr. Wigg: If the Prime Minister is going to carry out an investigation, will he inquire how it becomes possible for Lord Avon to have access to Cabinet material in a way that historians are not able to do, with the result that a highly contentious and coloured account of contemporary events is presented to the public when nobody else has the opportunity of ascertaining the truth?
    The Prime Minister: Lord Avon has complied in every way with the regulations and the customs in clearing the passages that he wished to use.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Prime Minister recall—since this question as originally asked raised the whole question of the Official Secrets Act—that in response to Questions from me the right hon. Gentleman promised at the conclusion of a recent case which went on appeal to the House of Lords that he would consult the Attorney-General of that date to see whether there should be an inquiry into the Official Secrets Act in view of the many doubts and misinterpretations that seemed to have arisen in connection with it? Now that the Attorney-General of that date is the Lord Chancellor, can the Prime Minister say when that inquiry he promised may take place?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised this matter with me. I am afraid that, with many other matters, there may have been an oversight, but I will deal with this matter and try to make some reply when I have had an opportunity to consider it further.

SERJEANT AT ARMS
Mr. C. Pannellasked the Prime Minister (1) if he will move to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the office of Serjeant at Arms;
(2) whether he will consider the early implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee Report on Accommodation, Staffing, etc., with particular reference to setting up a House of Commons Commission.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The appointment of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons, like that of Black Rod and of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Lords—the latter office at present combined as an economy with that of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain—has always been made by the Monarch. In making this appointment the Crown does not seek advice from the Executive.
In the words of one of my predecessors, when the question was raised in 1875, the appointment "is in the gift and entirely in the gift of Her Majesty ". This is based upon long precedents going back to the early history of Parliament.
Nevertheless, as the House probably knows, in 1875, and on a more recent occasion, there was a generally expressed view that a particular officer already in the service of the Office of the Serjeant at Arms should succeed, and on these occasions the Crown has been made aware of this feeling and has taken note of it in exercising the Prerogative.
In addition—although, as I have explained, no formal advice is tendered to the Crown—it is, of course, the practice of the Monarch to make informal soundings as to the qualifications required for the appointment and as to the fitness of any particular individual who may be in mind for appointment to it.
This precedent was adhered to by the informal consultations which Her Majesty's Private Secretary had with you, Mr. Speaker, in the early months of this year. These consultations followed General Hughes's intimation to the Queen in February that he wished to be relieved of his post towards the end of the year, and they were concluded before the Summer Recess.
1156
I realise, Mr. Speaker, that one of your difficulties arose from the late Serjeant at Arms' urgent desire that, in the circumstances, his decision to retire should be regarded as strictly confidential. Nevertheless, I think it right to give this account because I know. Sir, that you would be the first to wish to protect Her Majesty from its being thought that in this appointment there was any deviation from the established precedent.
However, if it be the general wish of the House. I am ready to consult with Her Majesty as to whether on future occasions she would welcome arrangements by which some more formal method of consultation might be available to her before she exercises her Prerogative.
Mr. Pannell: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the latter part of his statement would, no doubt, commend itself to a great many hon. Members? I have promoted a Motion and have received expressions of sympathy from a great many hon. Members opposite. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would convey to Her Majesty the idea that an office which centuries ago merely represented a courtier who was seconded to this House to bear the Mace has now become that of general manager of this House, a high administrative post involving daily contact with all hon. Members?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take it —and this is, at least, my general view, for I cannot speak for all hon. Members —that something which he indicated at the end of his reply, concerning a more modern practice prevailing would rather commend itself to a large number of hon. Members? What Disraeli said in 1874 was, perhaps, true—it may still be true today—but I think that some hon. Members will think it rather ironical that the point of view expressed by Disraeli should have any really great relevance in 1962.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which he has expressed what I know are his views. I want to be clear about one thing, and that is the Prerogative. In following it on this occasion the Queen followed the strict precedent of informal consultation that has always taken place and as is shown by the dates when that consultation took place. It is

1157
true—and I know, Mr. Speaker, that embarrassment was, perhaps, caused— that it was General Hughes's particular wish, no doubt because of his illness, that this should be kept confidential. This may have meant a slight difficulty in the informal consultations being carried on by you, Mr. Speaker, than would otherwise have been the case.
I would make it quite clear—it is fair to the House that I should do so—that from the Queen's point of view she followed exact precedent and made the informal consultations in the way that has always been the practice. I will now, however—if it is the wish of the House— consult her, as I said, as to whether she may be graciously pleased to welcome arrangements whereby a more formal method of consultation might be available to her before she exercises Her Prerogative on another occasion.
Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the Prime Minister for his full reply and can say that, on this side of the House certainly, and. I believe, generally, there would be a welcome for what the right hon. Gentleman has now proposed, namely, that there should be, after this long period, a slight change in the arrangements and that formal consultation shall take place before any fresh appointment is made.
Mrs. Castle: Do not these difficulties arise because the premises where Members of both Houses have to meet and work are a Royal Palace? Is it not time that this basic position was reconsidered and that these working premises were, in fact, nationalised so that hon. Members, through the Government, could gain control over the running of the House, over their own working conditions and the appointment of the servants of the House who help them?
The Prime Minister: That, of course, raises much wider questions than I wished to deal with today. What I thought was right, and what I think was received with great generosity by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, was for me to make quite clear—and it was right and proper that I should do so—exactly the part Her Majesty played in exercising her duty.

PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. IREMONGER: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to amending the Public Order Act, 1936, to make words inciting hatred against racial groups a specific offence.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 37.
In accordance with my undertaking before the Recess I have given thorough consideration to all the various proposals put to me for amending the Public Order Act.
The whole House, I believe, regards with abhorrence the expression of views likely to incite to racial hatred. But we need to be certain, before we legislate further, that the present law is less than adequate to deal with the situation which exists and, in addition, that any amendment of it which is proposed would be enforceable and more effective to stop the evil. These are matters upon which we are none of us yet in a position to come to conclusions, because important aspects of the present law are at this moment under consideration by the courts.
There are now two cases involving leading members of the so-called National Socialist Movement which are still sub judice, and they both have a very important bearing on the matter. In the first, Jordan and Tyndall were charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act with using at their Trafalgar Square meeting on 1st July threatening, abusive or insulting words whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. They were convicted by the magistrate, but Jordan's appeal was allowed at the London Sessions. This case is now going to the Divisional Court.
In the second, Jordan, Tyndall and two others were charged under Section 2 of the Public Order Act and have recently been convicted and sentenced. Jordan and Tyndall have appealed. Until these cases are finally disposed of, it is not possible to form a final view as to the adequacy of the present law.

1159
The sanctions provided by the existing law do not rest entirely on statute law. A person who speaks words or publishes matter calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, with the intention of stirring up hatred or hostility between different classes of the Queen's subjects, is guilty of the common law misdemeanour of sedition. This, of course, extends to the stirring up of hatred or hostility on the ground of race as well as on any other grounds. This offence is punishable by fine and imprisonment, and the amount of the fine and the term of the imprisonment are entirely at the discretion of the court.
I have come to the conclusion, however, that the penalties at present available to the courts in respect of offences against Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936, and the Public Meetings Act, 1908, are inadequate and need to be increased. The Government propose to take steps to rectify that as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
This is without prejudice to any further steps which may be considered necessary in the light of the decisions reached by the courts in the cases which are now sub judice. The Government will review the situation in the light of these decisions, and if the law should then be shown to be inadequate we shall give that immediate attention.
In the meantime, the closest watch will be kept on the situation, and the police can be relied on to continue to make full use of their powers under the existing law to deal promptly with any threats to the public peace. I am assured that prosecution will be instituted in every case where the facts warrant it.
I am certain that for their part hon. Members on both sides will discourage those who imagine that the right way to deal with speakers whose views they dislike is to resort to violence themselves.
Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome very much a good deal of the statement which he has made today, particularly the announcement about the review of penalties involved in the present law and the fact that he has still not shut his mind to the possibility of a change of the law being applied?
We understand the difficulty of dealing with this matter while the appeal in
1160
the first case, at any rate, is going on, but does he not feel that the second case to which he referred, in which the prosecution says "for seeming to set up "—or words to that effect—" a quasi-paramilitary organisation", seems far removed from a reference either to using insulting language or trying to put out racial hatred? To some of us that second case seems largely irrelevant to the issues that we are asking him to consider. Can he tell us how long these appeals will take?
We shall look forward to discussions with him a little later to see whether, in the light of what happens, the law, even so, should be amended.
Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for what he has said. The time it takes to dispose of these appeals is, of course, a matter for the courts. I am advised that the application of Jordan and Tyndall for leave to appeal against sentence under Section 2 of the Public Order Act is likely to be heard in the near future. I think it necessary for us to wait until both these cases are decided, although I will agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if I am right in thinking so, that I think one of these cases is more directly relevant to the problem than the other.
Sir B. Janner: While thanking the Minister for the expressions of his views on this shocking kind of thing that happens, may I ask whether he would consider that although cases are pending there is still reason for legislation to be introduced so that the kind of meeting that is held with the obvious object of creating racial hatred shall be stopped, so that, among other considerations, the police and others who are concerned with keeping meetings in order shall not be compelled to go to meetings of that nature knowing full well that that type of doctrine is to be preached there? Does the Minister realise that a very bad impression has been created outside our country because of the fact that this kind of meeting is being held and that there is no legislation here to prevent it?
Mr. Brooke: I have said that, in any case, it is the intention to have legislation to increase the penalties, but

1161
I think that the hon. Member will realise that we shall get into very deep water if we think in terms of giving any Government power to prohibit in advance the holding of political meetings by certain persons.
Mr. Mitchison: While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, may I ask that when he is introducing a Bill—as he will have to—to increase these penalties, he will consider making it wide enough to allow the House to decide whether any further amendment to the language of the Bill is required? It may be a question of the Title of the Bill.
Mr. Brooke: I think that the time to consider whether any wider legislation is desired is when we have the final outcome of these two cases.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Iremonger. I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for not calling him if he rose earlier I failed to notice him, as he was so far distant from his usual place.
Mr. Iremonger: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him two things? First, could he tell the House what the penalties are for sedition? Secondly, could he find a suitable means of conveying what he has said about sedition to chief constables, because it might seem that it would have been more appropriate in the case of the offence for which Jordan was charged under Section 5 if the charge had been brought under the common law crime of sedition.
Mr. Brooke: I think that I am right in saying that a charge of that sort is not a matter for a chief constable, but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. In any case, I am quite certain that the statement I have made today about sedition and other matters will have the widest publicity in all relevant quarters.
The reply to my hon. Friend's question about the extent of the penalties is that, in the case of a conviction for sedition, the fine is unlimited and the period of imprisonment is unlimited.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill and of the Expiring Laws continuance Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.
TUESDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by 7 p.m.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on the Government Motion to take note of the White Paper on Aden (Command No. 1814).
WEDNESDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER.— Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motion on Farm Improvements Grants.
Committee and remaining stages of the Tanganyika Republic Bill.
THURSDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
FRIDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER.—Committee and remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.
MONDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER.—The proposed business will be: Debate on Public Investment, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper (Command No. 1849).
Then, consideration of the Motion on the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that, while we are anxious to do everything we can to expedite the Pensions (Increase) Bill, it may be difficult to get it all through on a single Friday this week? Will he find time in the near future for a debate on Service pensions, a subject which, I think, the House has

1163
not discussed for a very considerable time?
Mr. Macleod: I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said about then Pensions (Increase) Bill. Naturally, I do not wish to push that business, but perhaps I should make it clear—because all hon. Members will be in sympathy with this Bill—that the pensions are paid from the first of the month which follows the Royal Assent. The House will, therefore, wish to take this as quickly as it can. Subject to that, we shall see how we get on that day.
The Leader of the Opposition asked about Service pensions. War pensioners were covered by a sentence in the Gracious Speech which the Leader of the Opposition will remember. I will take note of what he said.
Captain Orr: Can my right hon. Friend yet say when we may expect a debate on the Hall Committee's Report on the economy of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Macleod: No. Sir. It is too early in the Session. The House will recognise that this is inevitably a period when we have to have a lot of Second Readings put through so that the Committees can start work.
Miss Herbison: On Monday of this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the President of the Board of Trade today would be making an announcement about further advance factories and, I expected, possible industrial sites. Since the President of the Board of Trade has not taken the opportunity, which he could have taken after Questions, to make that statement, I want to ask the Leader of the House, first, whether that statement is being given to the Press rather than to the House today, and, if that is so, whether he will find time next week so that we may discuss a subject which is of prime importance to the economy of Scotland?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot give an undertaking to find time for that debate. Of course, the Question is first answered to the House. It is a Written Question, and the Answer is no doubt already available. It will then become available to the Press in the ordinary way.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask a question about Tuesday's business? Will
1164
the Leader of the House consider consulting the appropriate Ministers to see whether, when we reach Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill, we may be clearer as to what the total sum of money will be, because at present no sum is mentioned in the Bill?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I will certainly convey the point which my hon. Friend makes to those who will speak on this Bill.
Mr. Greenwood: Does the Minister expect next week to be able to make a statement on visits by Black Rod?
Mr. Macleod: No—or it may be. I should have thought, subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, that if any statement were made on that matter it would be made by you. I am in touch with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.
Mr. Thorpe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform is likely to report?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot say. I do not think that it will be very long. It was only recently reassembled.
Sir W. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a debate fairly soon on Malta, a subject which interests many people in the country and in Malta, who are much worried about the docks and the general situation there? We should like to know more about it.
Mr. Macleod: I understand the anxiety which Members who are particularly concerned with Malta feel, but I am bound to say that I cannot at this period of the Session see any likelihood of a debate.
Sir B. Janner: After many promises have been made, will the Leader of the House say when he proposes to arrange for a debate on the Albemarle Report? He and his predecessors have said that they are very keenly interested in it. Has he had an opportunity yet of considering how important it is?
Also, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity at some time of considering a Bill to revise the jury system?
Mr. Macleod: I have no statement to make on the second question.
Unquestionably, the Albemarle Report is of great importance, and there were various opportunities which could have been taken to debate it last Session. I cannot see any likelihood of it being discussed at present.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House consider the Motion on the Order Paper in my name which refers to my Question which the Prime Minister has just answered? Will he also bear in mind the undesirability of leaving that sort of Motion on the Order Paper any longer than is necessary? [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it off."] Will he consider that it might be to the advantage of the House to have half-a-day's discussion on this and related matters in respect of the implementation of the Stokes Committee's Report? These sort of things are long overdue and if there were a discussion it might give rise to the idea that further Motions would not be necessary. Would he consider finding time for the House to discuss this, probably for half a day?
[That this House regrets that Her Majesty has made an appointment to the office of Serjeant at Arms in attendance on the House without consulting the House.]
Mr. Macleod: I hoped that after the very friendly discussions which took place just now, which appeared to be welcome to both sides of the House, the hon. Member would be prepared to take that Motion off the Order Paper. But it is for him to decide. Naturally, one does not want to see it remain there. I think that the whole House feels that the next step must be for the Prime Minister to carry out the undertaking which he gave to the House this afternoon, and that we should wish to await the result of that.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Leader of the House give some consideration to the position which has arisen from the statement on Monday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely it has important implications in regard to the control by the House over finance and also for the Finance Bill. I do not wish to take the matter any further now, but it raises questions of the Finance Bill and of the time-honoured responsibility of the House for financial Measures.
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not think that this arises out of the business of the House. There are possibilities, perhaps, for the Select Committee on Procedure, or something like that, if this is thought suitable as a matter for discussion, but I am not saying necessarily that that is the right answer.
Sir C. Osborne: Do I understand that on Monday week, after a discussion on Command Paper 1849 on Public Investment, some other business is to be taken? We shall need all day to discuss this very important Command Paper.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The second business Which I announced—the affirmative Motion—is exempted business and follows after 10 p.m. if the first business runs all day. The point made by my hon. Friend is covered.
Mr. Hector Hughes: When will the Leader of the House move to appoint a Select Committee on Procedure? When he is doing that, will he include in the terms of reference the matter referred to in my early day Motion No. 8, which deals with the present rule which enables one private Member to frustrate another private Member's Bill simply by saying, "I object", without giving any reason and perhaps without having even read the Bill?
[That this House takes note of the power which at present enables one hon. Member to frustrate or postpone or defeat another Private Member's Bill by simply indicating on Second Reading his objection without giving reasons and without having read the Bill, and would welcome the reference of this matter to a Select Committee on Procedure for their consideration.]
Mr. Macleod: As for the appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure, the hon. and learned Member, if he studies the Order Paper, will see that it is on the Order Paper for today and that I shall be moving it in the usual way after business at 10 p.m. The subjects are a matter on which we must have some discussion. As he knows, there are very many claims.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the House that if ever we are to get to the

1167
business of the day we must try to keep off policy during Questions on the business for next week?
Mr. Collick: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Monday, definitely told the House that there would be a statement today from the Minister at the Board of Trade about the building of advance factories. Why has that statement not been made?
Mr. Macleod: I should like to look up the words used. My recollection is not the same. I thought that he said that an announcement would be made on Thursday. That is happening. An announcement has been made, and I think that it is now available to the country and, of course, to hon. Members.
Miss Herbison: I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House took it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement meant that we should have an Oral Answer today. Is it not the case, from what the Leader of the House has said, that information is to be given in answer to a Written Question? Is he not aware that there are Questions down to the Board of Trade today for Oral Answer which would have given the President of the Board of Trade a chance to make this statement. Since he has not made it, and since it is a matter of importance not only to Scottish Members but to any other area where work is scarce, will the Leader of the House give some time next week for a discussion of this important matter?
Mr. Macleod: I have already said that my impression of what the Chancellor said was different. We shall have to refer to the words in HANSARD. My impression is genuinely different. I did not think that any undertaking had been given that a statement would be made.
On the general matter, this information on advance factories, particularly in the North-East and in Scotland, has now been issued. I should have thought that it was convenient for hon. Members to have it in that way so that if they wished they could follow it with questions to the President of the Board of Trade.
Commander Pursey: As the Government can provide a day for a full debate
1168
on the public servants Pensions (Increase) Bill, why do they not also provide a full day for a discussion of Service pension increases and increases in widows' pensions so that they can be debated? Does not a principle of the Constitution arise, namely, control of expenditure by the House, because these prerogative Motions go through, first, without anybody ever seeing them, secondly, without them ever being debated, and thirdly, without anybody being able to express grievances about the pensions of lower ranks as well as officers, except by a Private Member's Motion?
Mr. Macleod: What is done follows long-established precedents. I will certainly consider what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us on this side of the House certainly gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the President of the Board of Trade would be making his statement in the House on the advance factories programme? Does he not agree, in any case, that a statement of this degree of importance should be made in the House, so that the Minister can be questioned?
Since the President of the Board of Trade has not made it, but it has apparently been issued as a statement in Answer to a Written Question, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the request of my hon. Friends, which I strongly support, that some other opportunity should be provided in the near future for us to discuss this matter?
Mr. Macleod: Of course I will consider it. I was merely making the point that I took what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a rather different way from that in which some hon. Members have taken it. I will discuss at once what has been said in the House and let the President of the Board of Trade know the feeling of the House.
Mr. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House at what time tonight the debate on the Common Market will be continued?
Mr. Rankin: May I remind the Leader of the House that he is about to embark on a most important business matter?

1169
He has appointed a Committee to inquire into the rights of Scottish Peers and Peeresses, along with some other parts of the United Kingdom. Does he realise that this inquiry may involve the Act of Union between England and Scotland? Is he aware that there is not a single Scotsman on the Select Committee which he has appointed? How does he expect a Select Committee composed of nothing but Englishmen to deal in a businesslike fashion with Scottish affairs? Will he not reconsider the composition of this Select Committee—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard what I said just now about keeping off policy during questions on business.
Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the worsening position in Rhodesia and the overwhelming vote in the United Nations calling for the suspension of the Constituion, when can the House expect a statement from the First Secretary of State and a debate?
Mr. Macleod: I have no information to give the House as to any intentions of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, but I will tell him what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Dame Irene Ward: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has made the position about Service pensions quite clear. I understand that they will be increased through the Royal Warrant. Can he make it clear that, following precedent, an opportunity will be given to discuss this whole matter, because it is just as important to discuss Service pensions and increases to them as it is other pensions? I have not got the position quite clear. It is probably due to my stupidity.
Mr. Macleod: Frankly, I am not quite clear on this, either. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that we will follow the usual custom.
Mr. Reynolds: Is the Leader of the House aware that, apart from the political arguments about the reform of local government in the London area, a growing number of people are becoming concerned about the short amount of time available for the vast administrative work to be done if the Government stick
1170
to their programme? Can the Leader of the House say whether we shall be seeing the Bill next week, or can he give us any other indication as to the programme he has in mind?
Mr. Macleod: The Bill will be published as soon as possible, in about a week or ten days. Then there will be the appropriate interval before we ask the House to agree to the Second Reading.
Mr. J. T. Price: With reference to the second item of business set down for next Wednesday—the Motion on Farm Improvement Grants—am I correctly informed that it is now the proposal of the Government to set aside no less a sum than £35 million as an additional payment for this purpose? If so, can the Leader of the House now tell us under what authority this Motion is being presented to the House, because we shall want to know this and have the information available when the debate takes place?
Is it not a serious departure from the budgetary policy of the House when large items of public expenditure are brought before us at short notice for the purpose, as many of us see the proposition, of influencing a series of by-elections in rather critical agricultural constituencies?
May we be told the authority under which this transaction is being put before us for approval next Wednesday, because it is a most serious departure from the budgetary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall never be able to manage our business unless hon. Gentlemen will refrain from making speeches instead of asking questions on the business statement.
Mr. Popplewell: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is no statement yet available on the question of advance factories? The assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday was in these terms:
"I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, on Thursday, be announcing details of new advance factories in the North-East and in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 635.]

1171
Will the right hon. Gentleman now say at what time today this announcement is to be made to the House, as I assume it would be, in accordance with the Chancellor's very firm promise during Monday's debate?
Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading those words, because I think that the House will agree that they confirm that my recollection is right. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They were exactly the words I used, that an announcement would be made, not that a statement was promised. However, I have promised the Leader of the Opposition that I will consult at once on this matter, and my right hon. Friend will be in no doubt about the feeling of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [7th November:]
  That this House reaffirms its decision of 3rd August, 1961, and urges Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to bring the negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament.
  Which Amendment, was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "would support the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community provided that guarantees safeguarding British agriculture, the vital interests of the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association countries are obtained and that Great Britain retains her present freedom to conduct her own foreign policy and to use public ownership and economic planning to ensure social progress within the United Kingdom; it regrets however that the terms so far provisionally negotiated do not satisfy either these conditions or the binding pledges given by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to negotiate terms which secure these essential conditions and fulfil the Government's own pledges ".—[Mr. Gaitskell]
  Question again proposed,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: In resuming this two-day debate there is one point I should like to make to the Leader of the House before he goes. A habit is now growing up of not having a Government spokesman to wind up at the end of the first day. I can understand this from the point of view of making more time available to back benchers, but in a debate where, because of the mechanics, the Government are not opening on the second day it produces the somewhat unhelpful situation to the Opposition that we have a series of speeches from this side, from both the Front Bench and the back benches, either critical or, as happened yesterday, seeking information.
  There is then no effective reply until the whole case has been deployed from this side, or, indeed, from the Conservative side, if there are critics on that side of the House. Since this has apparently

  1173
  now become an established practice, different from what it used to be, I ask the Leader of the House to consider whether in debates like this we can have a Ministerial spokesman replying to the first day's debate before we start the second.
  There seems to me—I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members agree with me—to be one improvement in this debate over the previous debates we have had on the Common Market. For the first time we seem to have moved away from a discussion almost wholly in the stratosphere, with a lot of unprovable assertions on the one side and on the other. Yesterday, the debate was conducted on the real issues, namely, the terms and the conditions, the prices and the consequences. Perhaps we can take credit for that from our Amendment but, in any case, it helps us to open the second day of this debate with a clearer understanding of what is involved and of what is now between us.
  I think that the general position emerging from yesterday's debate is that, to virtually everybody, a wider, outward-looking Community would be not only desirable, but acceptable. We are, in fact, no longer arguing about that. Nor, indeed, is it something to be argued about. It is now wholly a matter of the timing and the terms on which the entry of ourselves and others could turn this into a wider Community.
  To say that it is a matter of terms is not to say, as has been suggested—in the Press, at any rate—that one is making a bargaining or debating point only. I think that the House appreciates that the terms control the nature of the Community. It is no use talking of going into an outward-looking Community unless those in the Community, by the agreement they make—and this, to some extent, will be the test—show in deeds from then on that they are acting in an outward-looking way. This is the major point emerging from yesterday's debate.
  The second thing that emerged from the Lord Privy Seal's speech was that, even at this stage, we still know far too little about the terms on agricultural issues to be able now to make a judgment. I rather got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman himself felt that; if was a great change from the
  1174
  days when it was the fashion on that side of the House to have a little fun at our expense for not, at that stage, and long ago, having made up our minds.
  The lack of information on agricultural issues applies to every single aspect of the case. We do not yet know enough, and I rather doubt whether the Minister of Agriculture will later put us in a position where we do—I do not know whether he knows enough—about how we are to handle the consequential problems for our own domestic agricultural community and economy. We clearly do not yet know how the Commonwealth obligations and rights are to be settled. That applies even to New Zealand, which seems to be the one Commonwealth country that everyone is least worried about, in the sense that they must feel that it can be accommodated. We do not even yet know how New Zealand dairy produce is to be looked after and admitted.
  We certainly do not know about Asian manufactures, or about the States in Africa and elsewhere which feel themselves or find themselves unable to accept overseas associated territory status. Clearly, also, we do not yet know, even in outline, how the problems of the other European countries, our partners in E.F.T.A.—either those who want to join as full members or those who want association—will be dealt with, or even when. We do not know whether it will be at the same time, or much later.
  Finally, one thing to which the Government still seem to be giving less attention than to anything else, though I would have thought it absolutely critical, is the voting arrangements. We do not know how the voting will be arranged when we go in. So much that is provided for in the Treaty is, in fact, an acceptable obligation if the voting arrangements are made in one manner, but not acceptable if they are made in a totally different way. But we do not know anything about the detail of that. I would, therefore, think that it quite clearly emerged from yesterday's debate, whatever people may have thought optimistically before, that we are not yet even nearly in a position to make a judgment about the actual timing or terms, and this has nothing to do with the great broad issue of principle.

  1175
  The Lord Privy Seal said yesterday that there had never been any question last July of negotiating against a deadline. I will not spend much time on that, but I must say that some of those who sacrificed their time, and who collapsed from fatigue overnight, may well wonder why they were kept working so long if it was not a critical issue. My own belief is that at that time the Government were trying to get through by the end of July—the Lord Privy Seal shakes his head, and I must accept that, but certain points I want to make arise out of it.
  First, I should like an undertaking that, whatever may have been the position in July, no new deadline will be set; that we shall not again—or for the first time—get ourselves into a situation in which we are arguing and working against an arbitrarily-suggested date. I say that because many of us suspect that the General Election still looms very large in the minds of Ministers when thinking about this issue. If we start trying to finish the negotiations with a legislative target in the Government's mind we shall get into the same muddle that things got into in July and August of last year.
  Secondly, I ask that no attempt will at any stage be made to put across the outline of the whole picture—which the Lord Privy Seal said was what they had been hoping to get, and still hoped to finish—as the detailed terms and conditions, because that cannot be. Even if the Government achieve an overall outline, it will inevitably leave, as it does now, so many vital details unsettled that I should have thought that it would be quite an imposition on the British people to ask them to make a decision on that kind of basis. That is why, all the way through, we from this side have been pressing so firmly and continuously for all the proposals as they emerged to be examined in detail and very clearly.
  The Lord Privy Seal yesterday seemed to resent this. He talked about the assumptions he said we made, and even talked about the premature judgment he thought we were in danger of making, or had made. That, however, cannot mix with the other allegation that we were sitting on the fence. We cannot both make a premature judgment and sit on the fence.
  1176
  The point is that this is not an answer to what we are, and have been, trying to do. At every stage we have wanted the details examined and understood. This position must, in the light of the background of the Government's own behaviour, remain. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday referred to the continuous atmosphere of double-talk, and this has clouded and befogged this whole problem at every stage. Different things have been said in Brussels from those said in London. Different thing have been said inside the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference from what has appeared in the inspired stories coming to the Press outside. One cannot ignore the fact that we have had to drag the Government down to the area of details, and we have had to drag out of them at almost every point the answer to the details we were raising.
  Quite apart from the area of double-talk, there was, of course, that tremendously slick and stage-managed effort at Llandudno—an effort which, ironically enough, seems to have boomeranged very fast, because it is almost certain that what has helped to get this debate down to details as much as anything else has been the toughness, the new toughness, of the Community negotiators in Brussels, and it is quite likely that those negotiators would not have appeared as tough if they had not got the impression that the Prime Minister had got away with no opposition at all in his party. The whole stage-managing of affairs at Llandudno, far from helping us as a nation, and far from helping the party opposite, has an effect opposite to the one they so laboriously set out to achieve.
  I therefore suggest that it is the duty of the House, having got matters to this basis, to keep them there. It is true that the fact that we on this side of the House have had the job of examining the details all the way through means that our speeches tend to take on the atmosphere of the critic. We are giving critical examination, and various hon. Members opposite are still making that point in this debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) referred yesterday to my right hon. Friend's speech as not being constructive, but that is exactly what a critical

  1177
  examination of the details is. That is the purpose of it, and the achievement. What was interesting was that. at the only point at which the hon. Baronet did a little critical examination, he turned to his right hon. Friend and said, "Of course, this agricultural plan is totally unacceptable to us, and we ask you to tell them in Brussels that it is totally unacceptable."
  I do not know why he thinks that that is different from the critical examination which we were making, or how much leeway he thinks there is left in which his right hon. Friend may negotiate.
  Sir Richard Nugent: What I said was unacceptable was the transitional arrangements, not the plan as a whole.
  Mr. Brown: That is hardly worthy of the hon. Gentleman. If we do not settle the transitional period, the plan never operates. If one says that that is unsuitable, one is saying that we are not going in on this basis. When hon. Gentlemen opposite come down from the stratosphere they find themselves having to do the same job as we have been left to do all the time.
  Let us make it perfectly clear that this is what emerged from the policy which we adopted at Brighton and from the speech made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We much prefer an enlarged European Community which would be expansionist and outward-looking in its economies and would base its internal policies on social justice; a Community which would seek to be neither a third force politically, economically, and so on, nor yet a party to the polarisation of the power blocs existing in the world at present. We should much prefer that. As was said by my right hon. Friend, that is what we hope to see emerge and it is what we would work to achieve.
  The issue is, on what terms and at what time would entry by us, in company with others, help to bring about that state of affairs? There are some issues not yet settled which are clearly of importance in deciding that. I will not go over the whole field because of the lack of time, but there are three issues which I wish to re-emphasise.
  1178
  First, if and when we enter we must enter with others as full members along with us at that time. When we enter, with those others, the voting arrangements must be such that we are then as assured, as each of the Six arranged for themselves to be assured at the time when they went in, that there is no automatic majority against us on any important issue. These two matters, the entry of others with us and the voting arrangements, seem to me to be absolutely critical.
  We repeat the pledge to E.F.T.A. It is a very binding pledge. Were we to go in with any of these countries not having satisfied their legitimate interests—as it is put -we should be in breach of our most solemn pledge. I sometimes get the impression that it is only the atmosphere of the pledge with which people are concerned. There is, of course, a moral obligation, too. But it seems to me that one ought to emphasise that this is equally a matter of the highest self-interest if we hope to live happily and in a worth-while way in the Community afterwards. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will emphasise that he accepts that that is so, and that we are not only bound by our word but that we understand— and propose to leave the Six in no doubt of it—the importance of the matter to us.
  The second issue that I consider to be of critical importance in deciding the timing and the terms is the question of the arrangements for other Commonwealth countries. Again, I will not go over the whole subject, or try to repeat the analysis made yesterday by my right hon. Friend. But unless certain matters are settled in a way which was indicated by my right hon. Friend, there can be no question of considering this Community to be outward-looking in the real sense of the word.
  What are these matters? I will mention three. There are also other Commonwealth considerations, but I regard these three as outstanding. We must be satisfied that the subsequent outlet for Asian manufactures is such that the markets which they already have may be maintained and some opportunity afforded for the growth factor which they must have if the democratic experiments being conducted in those Asian countries are to succeed. Any failure to achieve that would seem to me a very

  1179
  important item to be placed in the debit balance.
  Secondly, those States which do not want A.O.T. status must have other arrangements made to protect the entry of their goods. It is an academic question whether in this House we regard A.O.T. status as being neo-colonialism. It just happens not to be a decision which we have to make. We may feel that Nigeria or Ghana, or any other country, is silly to see it in those terms and to reject it. We may wish that they could see, with the clarity with which it was revealed yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal, the advantage of going in on that basis.
  But, however we may feel about that, the decision, in the end, falls to be made by sovereign members of the Commonwealth. It is a decision which they will make for themselves. It seems to me that we have an inescapable duty to say to the Six that other arrangements must be made for those countries. We owe it to those countries to do so. They are part of the Commonwealth.
  It is fashionable for everyone to say that the Commonwealth should stay together. We recall the great declaration by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, that he would not be a party to entering the Common Market if that meant breaking up the Commonwealth. It is even fashionable for the Six to make the same assertion and to say that they do not want to see the Commonwealth damaged. I accept these things at their face value. But one must point out that if we found ourselves in a situation where, because Nigeria, let us say, had not accepted A.O.T. status and we could not get equivalent protection in some other way for her, we found ourselves—as a member of the Commonwealth—discriminating against Nigeria and in favour of, say, Senegal, the Commonwealth could not survive that for very long. Everyone may want the Commonwealth to continue. But the consequences of such a situation as I have described would be intolerable and would break up the Commonwealth. So that must be explained to the Six.
  The third issue is the question of protection for the dairy products of New Zealand. Everyone says that this pro-
  1180
  tection can be provided. But it is such a vital matter that we cannot leave it with only a set of vague assertions and promises. Also, in the list of inescap-ables is the position of our own agricultural community with which no doubt the Secretary of State will deal during the debate.
  Here again, let us establish that there exists more than a moral obligation to a group of people. Whatever may be our hopes and aims for the future, like most other nations this nation would neglect its own food producing potential only at its peril. We are not yet at the stage where we can do anything which would seem to reveal such a neglect. Therefore, we have the same need to see that we protect the stability of our agriculture and the means by which we brought the industry from the condition in which it was before 1939 to the condition which it enjoys in 1962. We have the same impelling necessity to protect that as those who are already members of the Six had to protect their interests. This must be explained clearly and in a friendly manner and without in any sense giving the impression that we are trying to avoid anything. The Six must be made to understand that our reasons for protecting our interests are the same as theirs.
  In this matter, I submit that practically nothing has yet been achieved. The last time we heard the Minister of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman—as he always does—made a rousing, amusing and enjoyable speech. He took us over the threshold, through the sluice gate and out of the dam on the other side. We had all the jargon from the right hon. Gentleman. But. with respect to him, he was unable to tell us a single thing that had been established except the one which the Lord Privy Seal keeps coming back to.
  It is that they have got agreement on a review of agriculture in the Community which retains a national agricultural review. But we could be playing with words here and we could be totally misleading ourselves. It is not the fact that we have an agricultural review that gives stability to British agriculture, but what follows inevitably from the review.
  I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make abundantly plain what the

  1181
  Community agricultural review entails and what action follows. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not know."] If they do not know, then let us be told that it is not known, and that would be another reason why we cannot make a decision.
  Secondly, I ask the Minister or the Lord Privy Seal what would happen about the British national review if we were to go into the Common Market? Would that simply mean that the review would give us figures to contribute to the Community agricultural review, or would we be able to take action here about the reward to industry as a result of the factors we learn from the national review, just as we do now? Could we make changes to restore the industry's profitability if it was shown that it had worsened? These questions must be answered straight and clear. If they are not yet agreed, then that is all right. It does not follow that they will not be agreed some time. But no one need be on the defensive about this matter. We and the agricultural industry must know what is the position.
  We ought to be in a position to know whether our subsidies currently made to British agriculture can stay. One keeps on reading suggestions that production grants of some kind can stay. I even saw a reference somewhere in the mountain of papers we have on this subject Chat producer subsidies in exceptional circumstances can stay. We cannot assess how much of this will be transferred to the consumer and, therefore, to what extent food prices will go up. Nor can one assess how much stability one can guarantee the farmer and the farm-worker unless one knows the answer to the question about which of the Government payments we are now making are likely to stay. When we know the answer we shall know what proportion that is of the total, but so far we have no information about that at all.
  If producer subsidies in the main are to go, the assumption is that the producers will then get their reward through the mechanism of prices. They will not starve or suffer. They will be paid in a different way. I saw a statement by the National Farmers' Union the other day which very fairly said that it was not its business whether this was done by production grants or subsidies. It was for the Government to decide. But the ques-
  1182
  tion that arises in my mind and in the minds of farmers in Derbyshire is how we ensure that, having got rid of the subsidies, we can control the price system that will make up for them.
  What is the mechanism by which we then fix control and enforce prices to give producers the same return? Or does it become a matter of the market? In that case let us be perfectly clear that the assertion that British producers will lose a great part of their stability becomes absolutely true. We must have a clear answer to this. Linked with this are the existing market arrangements and the marketing boards. Can these arrangements be maintained and fitted into Community agricultural ideas? It seems questionable to me, but do the Government think it can be done? There are a lot of detailed questions which have to be answered. I apologise if they are detailed, but they are critical to an industry which is of fundamental importance.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Whilst the right hon. Gentleman has the Floor, which we back benchers find so difficult to obtain, may I ask him to ask the Minister how much it will cost the consumer to guarantee these prices?
  Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Member has made use of my time very well to ask it himself.
  Then there is the question of the present non-review commodities of this country, horticulture and the others. They have all along, even since the 1947 Act, taken the rough end of the stick. Despite many promises from all of us, they have had less of guarantees and of help and protection than we promised. How will they be taken care of in these circumstances?
  I come now to the transitional period. The Government have been pressed from their own side, which I join, to make it absolutely plain to the Six that there can be no question of a given day on which we enter after which there is no transitional period for any changes in British agriculture. There can be no question of this. I should like the Minister to make it quite plain that he will go on saying in Brussels, whilst negotiating about the length of the transitional period, that there is no chance of giving completely away any transitional period at all.

  1183
  The last point that I raise relates to the Prime Minister's pledge about the 1957 Act to which many references have been made. The pledge was given on 31st July, 1961, in these terms:
  "We have given a pledge to maintain the 1957 Agriculture Act for the lifetime of this Parliament and we stand by that…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645. c. 1488.]
  Does that mean that there will be no legislation in this Parliament to amend that Act? I am bound to point out to the party opposite that if it does it makes a considerable difference to some of the signs we have recently seen about their intentions between now and the General Election. If it does not mean that, what does the pledge mean that the Government are maintaining an Act in a Parliament in which, in fact, they are amending it? I ask the Government to give a clear explanation of what this means in practice.
  I like the phrase "sticking points" and I have mentioned three. Everyone has his favourite issues, but these seem to me the outstanding and really critical issues. I hope that we will now get down to the business. I want to say a few words through the House to the Six and some of my colleagues there. I hope that we shall get down to the business of negotiating on the minimum settlements that we must have. We in the House do not believe that any of these issues are unreasonable to raise or to insist upon.
  There are those who show, as I do, a keener desire to go in than do some others. There are differences of emotions, prejudices, background and ambitions here, but it does not seem to me that any of these issues could be regarded by our colleagues in the Six as unreasonable to insist upon and on which to ask for a high level of terms before we are satisfied.
  We do not believe that any of them are unattainable, provided that our posture is right and that our colleagues in the Six understand the situation. We do not believe that any of them would be disruptive of the Community if the Community of the present Six would be ready to meet us on them. I have never understood the suggestion that negotiating satisfactory terms for us on these would disrupt the advantages which they themselves obtain from the Six.
  1184
  There would be a problem only if the Six were intending to be unrealistic, restrictionist, or a tightly protectionist club. I know some of the people involved and I do not believe that such a criticism of them holds. I know their philosophy and I do not believe that is what they mean. I could pick out facts to show that in many ways they are not behaving in that way at the moment. Reference has been made to what has been done to provide for Indian and Pakistani developments and to the French contribution to the underdeveloped territories, and so on. We ought not only to give these people credit for meaning what they say, but also bring into our speeches some of the evidence to show that they have tried to work in this way. Then, having said that, I repeat that I think I am in a position to appeal to them to see the incompatibility of speaking in that way and doing some of these things and yet being unreasonably obstructive or oppositionist to us in our desire to be met on these points.
  There is another reminder which my right hon. Friend made yesterday and which I should like to repeat. There are many advantages to the members of the Six in having Britain, Denmark and Norway as full members and other European countries as associates. It is not only a question of their market and its value to us. There is a market here; there are resources here and elsewhere which are also of value to them. I always get the impression that somehow the negotiations must have got on to the wrong basis at the very beginning and that we have gone on behaving as suppliants. It is a label which has become stuck on us now and which may well bring some problems to the Six.
  Arguments both ways can be applied, and the Six ought to be asked to recognise the fact. No matter what they say in public, if these negotiations fail, and we do not get in either temporarily or permanently, the Six themselves had better take note of the fact that there would be a question mark over the future of the Community even as it now is. Some of them recognise this fact, and some refuse to see it. But there are others who see it. This is also strengthening our position. It is not only we who have to do some heart-searching and tough jobs if the

  1185
  negotiations break down. They have the same compulsion as we have.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) last night set out the kind of alternative action that we should Lake if we had to take an alternative step and if the thing broke down. I will say this to the Six. The situation for them gets much worse if we become involved in some of those alternatives. I would not like to have to walk that road. I have said this many times. That is part of the case as I see it which has led me to be more strongly in favour of getting in if we could get the right terms. I think that the effect on world political problems and stability, and the effect on aid to the under-developed territories, would all be damagingly affected if we were to have to embark on that particular course of action.
  But the Six must not misunderstand There are alternatives and, therefore, we do not have to break our pledges in order to meet the future. We do not have to disown our essential interests in order to meet the future. It can be met in one way or another. Coming into the enlarged Community would be much the better way to meet it. I was very impressed yesterday by the speech—I am sure that the House has read it—made by Mr. Peter Tennant, of the Federation of British Industries, speaking as an avowed and very strong supporter of entry. He, too, made abundantly plain, as the House will see and as our friends in the Six will see, how we could meet the ensuing situation if we had to. If they will only understand us clearly on that, we might save a lot of difficulties.
  Last week there was a meeting of my Socialist colleagues in the Six. I was not there, but I followed with interest what they said, including what they said to the British Labour Party. I do not see any objection to my using this occasion to speak from the British Labour Party to the Socialists in the Six and asking them to exert their influence and ability to enable us to negotiate the sort of terms on which the British Labour Party and the British nation would join them, as they say they are so anxious for us to do.
  1186
  May I sum up in this way? We urge the Government now, first, to get our own economy going again. I am sure that this is the first psychological weapon in the battle. Let us again be expansionist and productive. We urge the Government to continue the negotiations not only on what was left unsettled at the meeting two or three weeks ago, but on all those issues which have not yet resulted in firm and clear understandings; to continue the negotiations with toughness, to make it plain that we are using every effort to settle satisfactorily, and not to worry unduly about the timetable.
  I understand that there is a continuing uncertainty in industry, in the economy here and elsewhere, while the outcome of this is uncertain. That may be a sad point, but a little more delay is far less of a price to pay than either the thing breaking down because we cannot get satisfactory negotiations, or, equally bad, of dashing in because one wants to get it by a certain date, and one is left with lots of things open to misunderstanding and allegations of bad faith to follow later.
  Also, we urge the Government to start talking now about alternatives, to start now discussing with those who would be concerned. It would not do any harm to the negotiations. It might well strengthen our bargaining position. In any case, it is a very elementary piece of national prudence to do it at this stage in the light of where the Government have reached. I have little faith, I must confess, that the Government are up to doing what I have urged on them, but I want the Six to understand that this is the position of those of us on this side of the House.
  It is, I am sure, the position of a large number of people in this country, and at some stage this can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion if the Six will understand that that is much nearer to the British point of view than that which the Government seem to have told them, and if they will help us on this side of the House in trying to bring it about.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) reiterated what his right hon.

  1187
  Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech yesterday, that the Government had been indulging in double talk on this issue. This we cannot accept under any circumstances. The Government's position is the same today as it was before my right hon. Friend started his negotiations in Brussels, that we wish to enter into the Community, that we are seeking to get proper arrangements and only if we could get those proper arrangements would we be able to enter. I believe this to be the personal position also of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The people who have been indulging in the double-talk are those who do not in their hearts wish this country to enter in any circumstances and who use the negotiations—highly complicated negotiations—as a means and a weapon to try to see that this matter is not brought to a successful conclusion. This is certainly the position as seen by the general public as a whole today. [Interruption.]Of course, there are hon. Members on this side of the House who take a very different view from the Government about this. Of course, that is so. The right hon. Gentleman said that we knew too little as yet of the detailed terms on such a critical issue to be able to reach a judgment. This is, of course, true across the whole field of Government pledges, and not least in relation to agriculture.
  We have got to get down to the details, as far as they have been negotiated up to now, and look over them with some care. At the time that we applied for membership of the European Community there was no common agricultural policy in existence. There were general principles set out in the Treaty of Rome about what the objectives were for agriculture, and a decision to work out a common agricultural policy which would lead at the end of the transitional period to the free movement of agricultural goods between member countries. It was understood that the basis of this common agricultural policy would be a managed market with fiscal controls on foodstuffs imported from outside the Community. When we applied to join. we accepted that we should participate in a common agricultural policy and we accepted also that the basis of that policy should be a managed market.
  1188
  The negotiations with the Six as they affect home agriculture can, broadly, be divided into two categories. First, there is the question of the transitional period which covers the manner in which we should move over from our present system of support to the Continental system and the length of time this should take. Second, there is the common agricultural policy itself so far as it has been developed.
  In the first category, the transitional period, we are asking for special arrangements both on manner and timing to meet our own special circumstances and problems brought about, on the whole, by the fact that our system of support is so different from that of the present members of the Community. As regards the second category, the common agricultural policy, what we are suggesting is not alterations or special arrangements just for ourselves but what we consider to be necessary improvements in the policy for the enlarged Community as a whole.
  We tackled first in the negotiations at Ministerial level the question of an annual review, which comes under the second heading. The right hon. Member for Belper said that, when we last discussed this—it was in the June debate, not the August debate—I had made much of the annual review. It had not been negotiated at that time. We were saying what we were hoping to get from the negotiations as regards an annual review. It has been through the process of negotiation now and is in the category of a provisional agreement, and I want to say a word or two to the House about what it involves.
  The way the Six were evolving the common agricultural policy was that they were taking each commodity separately and agreeing on the arrangements by which the market for it should be organised. Each commodity was being treated, as it were, in a watertight compartment. We put it to them that a common agricultural policy had to be more than just a series of arrangements for different commodities and that it needed to be pulled together by an annual review which would fulfil three main functions. First, the basic data which each country would provide to the Commission should be decided upon and should present a picture of the progress of agriculture in member

  1189
  countries and the extent to which the agricultural policy was fulfilling the objectives in member countries of Article 39 of the Treaty. Second, all this information should be collated at Community level to enable the Commission to review the progress of agriculture within the Community as a whole. The third function should be to review the extent to which the agricultural policy, as it was working out in practice, was enabling the Community to strike a proper balance between its responsibilities to its own producers and consumers, on the one hand, and towards the outside world, on the other.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gave the impression yesterday that he attached but little value to the agreement which we have made on this subject. It is not my impression that this is the view of the farming community. The right hon. Gentleman said that the annual review as agreed was quite different from ours,. But is it so different? We pointed out to the Six that we had had long experience in reviewing each year the effect of our policies both upon our own agriculture and on our trade with the outside world, and that we had over the years evolved what we believed to be the best procedure for assembling and considering the economic and statistical data necessary to guide us in our decisions on our agricultural policy as a whole. We spelt this out in detail to the Six and suggested that they should adopt these same data for the Community annual review. This the Six accepted.
  Under our system, the Government use the review to guide them in all the major decisions they have to take on agricultural policy, including the determination of guaranteed prices. Similarly, under the arrangement we have made with the Six, the Commission will report to the Council of Ministers the results of the review and the Council of Ministers—and, indeed, all the Community institutions— will make use of them in the decisions which they will have to take year by year concerning the application of the common agricultural policy in all its aspects, including, of course, pricing policies.
  What the decisions are will depend on the precise arrangements made for individual commodities. The easiest case to take is that of cereals. Decisions will
  1190
  have to be taken on the target prices each year, and these in turn govern, for example, the threshold price for imports. Pricing policy must obviously occupy a central place in the common agricultural policy, and the agreement to have a Community annual review means that these key decisions will be taken after all the relevant factors have been presented in the review.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who takes part in this review? Would it be a two-sided review, with the Commisison on the one side and producers' representatives on the other, as it is here, or would it mean simply that the Commission would do it? Would there be representatives on the other side?
  Mr. Soames: The Commission does the review. Under the system as we have it, the review is done by the Government and producer representatives are consulted. That same provision for the Commission to consult producer representatives is made in the agreement which we have made with the Six.
  Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this review is in no way bound to take any action to necessitate the changing of policy in any country?
  Mr. Soames: That the review is in no way bound to change policy? That is not done by the review. The changing of policy would be done by the Council of Ministers, not by the review. This has nothing to do with the annual review. It is an entirely different point.
  Viscount Lambton: Did I hear my right hon. Friend say that it has nothing to do with the annual review?
  Mr. Soames: The Council of Ministers are the people who would bring about a change of policy. The review is undertaken by the Commission and presented to the Council of Ministers with recommendations from the Commission as to what steps the Council should take. It will be in the light of that review that the Council of Ministers will take its decisions.
  Viscount Lambton: May.
  Mr. Soames: The Commission will report to the Council of Ministers and it

  1191
  will be for the Council of Ministers and other Community institutions to take decisions from that point.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: The Minister said that this is a provisional agreement. Those were his words. If this is a provisional agreement, will he explain what will be the full agreement or what he seeks to achieve apart from that?
  Mr. Soames: I used the word "provisional" in the way that my right hon. Friend has used it for all the agreements he has arrived at in Brussels hitherto. It is agreed provisionally in that sense, to be looked at in the context of the negotiations as a whole. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may be the final agreement."]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition commented yesterday on the fact that the arrangements for different commodities varied considerably and that there were some where the Community authorities would have but little control over the level of market prices. This is a perfectly valid point, and I will come to it in a moment, but it is not a point against the review itself. One can argue that the commodity arrangements should be changed and that the Community should take unto itself greater responsibility, for certain commodities, for control of market prices, including guide prices, intervention prices and the like. That is an argument on the regulations for each individual commodity. The point I am making here is that, in all the fields where the Community decides it should have an influence, the necessary decisions will be taken as a direct result of the picture presented by the review.
  Of course, the review is not a policy in itself. Nobody is suggesting that, and the form of the commodity regulations is enormously important. The policy which is emerging as regulations are produced, either as adopted by the Council of Ministers, or in draft by the Commission, is that for those commodities where there is likely to be a considerable level of imports, there is to be a wealth of Community control, by fixing target prices or guide prices to be reflected in the prices at which imports are allowed into the Community and supported, indeed, in some cases, by intervention or support-
  1192
  buying provisions. But, in the case of commodities in which the Community is more or less self-sufficient, though there will still have to be fiscal controls on imports from outside, the internal arrangements in the Common Market stage at least as so far envisaged, are less definite and leave more to the pull of the market.
  We take the view that the Community's policy in this latter sector may well have to be developed further, and this we have yet to discuss with the Six at Ministerial level on the basis of individual commodities, and this is going to be an important part of the negotiations to come. Included in this category is horticulture, where we have special and considerable problems which have given rise to a number of proposals that we have put to the Six and which will have to be discussed at Ministerial level in the future.
  With the annual review which we discussed with the Six came also the question of further assurances on living standards in agriculture. We put it to the Six that the relationship of the standard of living of the farmer to that of people in other sections of the economy varied considerably as between countries. What matters to a farmer in any country is the comparison between his standard of living and that of his compatriots working in other jobs. We put it to them that we should have to consider the possibility that, when the Council of Ministers had taken decisions following the annual review on price levels and other matters for implementing the common agricultural policy, so as to serve the best interests of the agricultural community as a whole and the Community's responsibilities as a whole, these might not prove to have maintained acceptable standards for farmers in every part of the Community.
  We therefore suggested to them that if this proved to be the case, member States should be empowered to take remedial action. The Six replied that, though they accepted that an assurance of this nature should be built into the common agricultural policy, and were prepared to support it, they could not accept that such remedial action should be left to the autonomous decision of member States. They argued that as this was an important addition to the

  1193
  common agricultural policy, which, indeed, it is, the very fact that it was an important addition and could give rise to the expenditure of quite large sums of money, meant that decisions should be taken on a Community basis. On the other hand, they appreciated our argument that it was not sufficient to leave recommendations to the Commission under this heading on a permissive basis. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Commission may make recommendations if it wishes. What we have agreed with them is that if any member State could show that the objectives of Article 39 were not being realised, then it would be the duty of the Commission to submit to the Council of Ministers proposals to remedy that situation. It is for member States, if they wish, to draw attention to this, and the Commission will put proposals to the Council of Ministers, and I say will because it is obligatory upon it.
  Mr. Peart: But only by a qualified majority.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman says "only by a qualified majority". I must say that, from the point of view of any particular country wishing to do something for its agriculture, it is much more advantageous that it should be put before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision on the basis of a qualified majority, rather than on the basis of one "black ball" forbidding it to do it.
  Apart from a short preliminary discussion on those commodity regulations which are already in operation, and to which we shall have to return later, there had been no other discussions on home agriculture until the week before last, when the topic was our arrangements for the transitional period.
  Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about marketing boards. Is it the Government's policy to insist that marketing boards, such as the Milk Marketing Board, shall be maintained? Is it their long-term objective that they should be maintained or not? Is he fighting for this or not? Is he assuming that the Milk Marketing Board will be incompatible? He has not given us any answer to that question, but he must
  1194
  be able to tell us what is his objective. Is it his objective to keep the Milk Marketing Board intact?
  Mr. Soames: We believe that producer marketing organisations can have an important part to play within the framework of a common agricultural policy. This is not ruled out within the common agricultural policy, but the extent of the powers which that producer marketing board can have, and the blueprint under which it must work, must depend upon the individual commodity arrangements.
  Mr. Crossman: I am asking the Minister whether the Government— [Interruption.]He has said that this is not ruled out. Is he fighting to have it ruled in? Is he going to fight to get the Milk Marketing Board allowed to go on, because there are thousands of people whose livelihood will depend upon the answer to that question?
  Mr. Soames: It is not a question of fighting to enable it to continue.
  Mr. Crossman: Of course, it is.
  Mr. Soames: There is no doubt, in our view, that there is room for producer marketing organisations, of which the Milk Marketing Board is one, within the Treaty of Rome, but we cannot know the details of the blueprint until the regulations are settled for each individual commodity, and the regulation for milk has not yet been adopted.
  Mr. Crossman: What is the Government's policy?
  Mr. Soames: It is absolutely clear. There is room for it, and we believe that producer marketing organisations can play quite an important part, inside or outside the Common Market.
  Mr. Peart: Will the Minister insist—
  Mr. Soames: I really must get on. I am not going to insist on anything in public in this country which is going to jeopardise or make harder the problem of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his negotiations in Brussels.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I apologise to my right hon. Friend. I know that it is not convenient on these occasions to be subjected to interruptions, but if, as I understand it, he is now leaving the long-term arrangements to turn to the transitional ones,

  1195
  would he be good enough to say a word or two about one other topic which may trouble him and which also troubles some of us? We value the Annual Price Review, not as a mere statistical exercise, but as a prelude to prompt and effective action. Assuming that action can, in the event, be taken effectively, and I leave that as an open question in these arrangements, will my right hon. Friend say something about the timetable of action which he envisages as to whether the other requisite of prompt action could be satisfied in some arrangement which the Community would have to go through?
  Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir, when the Community review comes into operation, it will involve consideration of the timing and the fitting in of the national reviews with the Commission's review on which it makes recommendations to the Council of Ministers. It is for the Council to take action, and there certainly seems to be no reason why it should not be prompt action.
  We explained to the Six that, whereas we, in common with them, during the transitional period, would be having to move towards a harmonised price level for the various commodities, we had a separate and considerable extra problem which they did not share.
  Broadly speaking, their producer price and their market price are one and the same thing, whereas, under our system, the market price is below, and sometimes well below, the producer price. We would therefore have the double problem of harmonising both our producer and market prices with the eventual Community price level. We therefore put to the Six that we should adjust our market price over the transitional period by a gradual imposition of fiscal control of imports, of tariffs and levies on food coming into this country, so that by the end of the transitional period we would be implementing in full the agreed provisions of the common policy governing imports. In this way, we would be gradually increasing the proportion of the return which the farmer obtained from the market, thus reducing the proportion which comes from the Exchequer.
  1196
  The Six put to us the counter-proposal that we should abandon our present system and adopt theirs immediately on entry and mitigate the effect on the consumer by bringing in consumer subsidies with, perhaps, producer subsidies in exceptional cases which would be phased out over the transitional period. We made clear to them the numerous reasons why this proposal was not acceptable to us. It would involve setting up afresh the whole administrative paraphernalia which had to be associated with food subsidies and dismantling it again when we reached the Common Market period.
  We do not believe that this is in conformity with the Treaty, which provides specifically that the necessary adjustments should be made gradually. My right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that there were serious objections, both on policy and administrative grounds, to the Six's proposition and all that could be agreed at that meeting was that Ministers would resume their discussion of it at a later date. Therefore, this important item of our transitional period, its arrangements and its duration, remains to be settled together with many other points affecting the common agricultural policy and arrangements for the different commodities.
  We have a lot to agree upon yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is a lot of negotiating to be done before we will be in a position to decide whether or not we have been able to agree with the Six arrangements which will preserve the vital interests of our agricultural industry. There will inevitably be some factors about which we shall have to make the best assessment we can and in repect of which the precise arrangements will be known only as the common policy develops.
  The Leader of the Opposition specifically referred to the question of direct grants—this was also raised by the right hon. Member for Belper—which, as he rightly said, the Community authorities have not yet reached decisions upon. But on this point three things are clear. First, we, like every member of the Community, make considerable use of direct grants as a means of supporting agriculture. Secondly, all these will come under scrutiny to see that they are compatible with the Common Market. But, thirdly, it is certain that these direct

  1197
  grants will continue to have an important part to play in the development of the common agricultural policy.
  Plainly, the time for final judgment has not yet arrived, but I should like to put to the House two general points on how the common agricultural policy would be likely to affect the fortunes of our home agriculture. The root cause of the difficulties which not only we in this country but those in the developed world as a whole are facing in agriculture today is that scientific and technological advances in agriculture have led to increases in productivity in the developed world far outstripping the increases in consumption in those countries which can afford to pay for the food that they want.
  This applies to almost every major temperate agricultural commodity. We see it reflected in numerous ways. In the New World we see the soil bank—an active policy to take fertile land out of production. There is a hackneyed joke in the United States of a man who, in replying to a question as to how he earned his living, said, "By not rearing hogs ". We see it from time to time in the depression of prices in the world food markets. We see it in the expenditure on storage and disposal of surpluses. We see it in this country in the rising bill for deficiency payments, and an increasing strain is being placed upon our system which stood us well from almost every point of view in times when there was a sellers' market for food but which is now becoming increasingly costly.
  Individual national action alone cannot solve this major problem. It can be mastered only by means of international commodity agreements going further than those in existence today. These agreements would have to provide for the quantity of the different commodities entering world trade, for an effective confrontation of pricing policies between importing and exporting countries, for the control and handling of surpluses, and for the special problem of trade with the developing countries.
  The Leader of the Opposition questioned whether world-wide commodity agreements were likely to be achieved and suggested that this country should not commit itself to joining the Community until they were. I would not attempt to belittle the very real difficul-
  1198
  ties which lie ahead before satisfactory international commodity agreements can be settled, but neither should we underestimate the value and importance of the statements on this subject included in the provisional agreement on temperate foodstuffs reached in Brussels in the early days of August.
  We regard as a major event in the Brussels negotiations the agreement that, if we join, the Community, as an act of policy, will take the initiative in calling as soon as possible an international conference of the principal exporting and importing countries of the main commodities. Agreements along these lines could be of immeasurable value to the future of agriculture in the developed world as a whole, including this country, and could contribute usefully towards the removal of the paradox that, while half the world is trying to damp down its agricultural production, the other half is seriously under-nourished.
  The second point that I wish to make is the important one that the Leader of the Opposition touched on yesterday: is our entry into the Common Market, with its managed market system, likely to provide as satisfactory a basis for the future as our present system? This, of course, begs the question of the extent to which our present system of open-ended guarantees would need to be changed anyhow to meet the circumstances of the future. Doubtless the Opposition have given thought to this.
  Since I have held this office, I have seen a growing demand among farmers for the imposition of import controls on different kinds of foodstuffs coming into this country. My hon. Friends who represent agricultural constituencies have seen this in full measure. But the whole basis of our present system of support is that, subject to our anti-dumping legislation, food should come in here as cheaply as the trade can procure it, and that the farmer's price should be protected by variable deficiency payments.
  The perfectly understandable desire of farmers to alter the fundamentals of the system by the imposition of import controls is in itself a reflection of the increasing strain under which our system is being placed. But fiscal controls on imports from the outside world are the very basis of the Community's

  1199
  system of agricultural support. In general terms, it requires that the consumer should pay the price for his food which the Community sets as a proper return for the farmers.
  Of course, this will mean higher food prices for our consumers and this had to be considered in the balance of general economic arguments. The prosperity of the 4 per cent. of our population engaged in agriculture is closely bound up with the prosperity of the remaining 96 per cent. who are their customers. But, from the point of view specifically of our farmers, there are surely few who are not aware of the advantages in the present and likely future state of world supplies of getting their full return from the market as opposed to getting only a part of their return from a market price which for them in many cases is uneconomic and a rising proportion of their returns having to be voted for them by Parliament each year.
  Sir C. Osborne: Has my right hon. Friend or his Department tried to estimate what it will cost an average family of, say, five in increased prices if the guarantees are lost and farmers' incomes have to be maintained by higher prices to the consumer?
  Mr. Soames: This is an extremely difficult calculation to make, for two basic reasons. First, we do not yet know the length of the transitional period. Neither can we foresee what will be the market prices decided upon by the Community for the individual commodities at the end of the day.
  We are, however, concerned to see that in the negotiations, first, we get reasonable and proper arrangements for the transition from our system to that of a managed market, and secondly, the arrangements by which the market will be managed will be such as to offer fair and proper opportunities to the Community agriculture, of which we would form a part.
  Let there be no doubt about the amount of hard negotiation yet to be done. If, however, we succeed, our farmers will be protected against the price at which food is imported into this country and into the Community to an extent not hitherto con-
  1200
  sidered. Against that, British agriculture would be facing competition from Europe; but do not let us forget that it is equally true that Europe will be facing competition from British agriculture as well. It is not only industry that could gain from a continental economy providing the big market which, in modern days, is necessary for a high wage economy and a high standard of living. We believe that there will be a growing market in Europe for agricultural goods, and particularly for quality produce. Given that the market is properly managed—and the desire to see this will be shared by the whole Community—the extent to which our agriculture will benefit from this large market will depend upon its competitive ability with that of other countries in the Community.
  It will mean for all countries a certain switch in emphasis of production towards commodities which, for differing reasons, they are best able to produce. This is inevitable when switching from serving a national market to serving an international market. But taking our agriculture as a whole, if we consider the structure of our industry, the size of holdings, the efficiency of our farmers, the output per man and the extent of mechanisation. there is surely no room for doubt that given the right arrangements, which we will do our best to achieve in Brussels. British agriculture will be able not only to meet the challenge but also to seize the opportunities which this large market will offer.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that if we enter the Community, European agriculture will get competition from us, and that is true. My belief is that our agriculture is so efficient that, given equal terms, it will more than hold its own.
  I wish, however, to return to the general subject of the debate, because it has shown that we on this side are not against going into the Common Market. What we ask, however, is "What kind of Common Market?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and I, when we were together at the Board of Trade, tried to secure a

  1201
  Common Market for the world. It was our hope that a United Nations agency would be established to deal with trade. I was the Minister who led the United Kingdom trade delegation to the conference at Havana and it was not the fault of the Labour Government that we did not get a Common Market established for the whole world.
  We failed and, therefore, the next task was to try to bring about a trade association on a more limited scale but, in this case, in Europe. The Labour Government brought about the development of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. It was not the fault of the Labour Government that that organisation divided East and West, because the late Mr. Ernest Bevin invited Mr. Molotov to the initial conference and suggested that the whole of Europe might be united for developing its economy.
  In my judgment, the O.E.E.C. did an excellent job. It removed the quota restrictions, it liberalised trade and it played a major part in expanding world trade generally. I should have liked to see the O.E.E.C. continue. It was an organisation in which we were building an international civil service and in which technical, economic and social experts got together and knew each other. Had this great administrative machine been allowed to continue much longer, we could have superimposed upon it an efficient political institution which could have been accepted by us all.
  Although it has now changed into a development organisation, the O.E.E.C. has to some extent been pushed aside because of the creation of the Common Market. In the first instance, however, it was not the Common Market as we know it today. It was the Common Market for coal and steel. At the Conservative Party Conference, the Lord Privy Seal criticised the Labour Government for not going in at that time. My reply is that it was impossible then to hand over two public organisations—coal and steel—to an as yet untried body.
  Furthermore, I challenge the Lord Privy Seal to say that he thought that the Schuman Plan would succeed. I had my doubts. There were six countries with different labour standards,
  1202
  different methods of taxation. different social services and different languages. We must, however, face the reality of the situation that it did succeed. Because of its success, the Six said that they would go ahead and have a Common Market for all goods.
  History will, I think, show that the Conservative Government stand condemned because in 1955, when they had the evidence before them, they did not accept the invitation to go to Messina and take part in the discussions about the Treaty of Rome. I hope that their reason for not doing so was not that it happened to be a Socialist. Paul Spaak, who was leading.
  Now, we are faced with the reality of the situation. The Common Market is in being and the Government have led the country to a position in which we have to consider not only advantages, but the disadvantages of staying out. The Common Market showed that it could succeed because in days of modern mass production, when there is new scientific and technical development, small-scale organisations could not do what was required. We had to have a larger market. I know from my experience at the Board of Trade that only by having a broad-based home market—and the Common Market is one of 170 million people—can we provide a firm base for exports.
  That is one of the dangers for this country. When the Six really are able to build and co-ordinate industry, they will be able to provide a home market with goods at reasonable prices and so establish an efficient economic organisation that will enable them to go into the markets of the world and undercut us in every case. Therefore, in these days of modern mass production, large-scale organisations are vital.
  To those who are doubtful about going into the Common Market, I would say that nobody in his economic senses believes that British business can ignore this vast and profitable market so near the Port of London, Middlesbrough and other places, because to do so would be fatal for our own industrial development.
  We have obligations to our trading partners in E.F.T.A. and I hope that they will be honoured. I do not wish to develop this theme—others, doubtless,

  1203
  will do so—but I am as interested as anyone else in seeing that our E.F.T.A. partners are fairly treated.
  So that as many hon. Members as possible may speak, I should like to confine my remarks to a subject which is as dear to me as the Common Market, and that is the Commonwealth. I should be the last person to do anything that I thought would damage the Commonwealth. I hope that this is true of the Government, too. Perhaps I may recall what was said in this House by the Prime Minister on 26th November, 1956, and I believe that this is the present mood of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I do not believe that this House would ever agree to our entering arrangements which, as a matter of principle, would prevent our treating the great range of imports from the Commonwealth at least as favourably as those from the European countries."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 37–8.]
  This is important. We cannot differentiate against our Commonwealth and we cannot give advantages to other countries at the expense of our Commonwealth. I think that the Common Market countries themselves must recognise these special relationships which exist between the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth countries. I would go so far as to say that it is in their interests to do so, because in Asia and Africa we have provided for Europe as a whole a bridgehead to this important developing part of the world. It is in the interests of Europe as a whole that there should be peace and security in those parts of the world.
  Of course, we have to recognise the dangers of not entering the Common Market, and it is not only those of us in this House and in this country who have to consider that, but those in the Commonwealth, too. I think that it can be shown that Commonwealth statesmen are facing up to this. I will make only one quotation from the recent speech of the New Zealand Prime Minister in the New Zealand House of Parliament. He said:
  "If Britain joins or if she does not there are equal challenges. Indeed, the best informed people are not quite sure whether New Zealand would not have a more serious challenge if Britain did not join than if she did on present terms."
  So I think that the Commonwealth countries as a whole have to face the realities
  1204
  of the situation as we in this House have to do. I would ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he thinks that all that can be done is being done to assist the Commonwealth.
  I want to make some propositions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, let me take the African countries. The Common Market countries have all agreed that it is necessary to do everything possible to build up the standards of living of the African countries. Not only are there moral grounds for doing this, but also, I think, self-interest demands that we should do it. In this troubled world, all those of like mind must join as closely together as possible.
  Why is it that this associate membership, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday, has not been accepted? I confess that the arguments which he put forward yesterday were very sound, but he has not only to convince me. He has to convince the Africans. Why are they rejecting it? They are rejecting it because they really believe that associate membership means that they are going to be subject permanently to economic domination by Europe.
  I do not think that the old system will prevail in the future. In the past, primary producers were compelled to produce cheaply in order to buy manufactured goods in short supply. But now circumstances are changed. Every country is becoming industrialised. There will be a time when everybody has manufactured goods and primary products will be the goods in demand. I think that it would be in the interests of the primary producing countries to concentrate as much on primary products as on manufactured goods.
  As I say, the African countries, Ghana, Tanganyika and Nigeria, think that it may mean economic subjection. So I make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Why cannot he bring it home to the Common Market countries that Eurafrica is worth fighting for? Why not say that we will give the same concessions to all the African countries which are willing to co-operate in building up Eurafrica, whether they are associated or not. I think that this is a forward-looking challenge and something which might be considered.

  1205
  As far as the Asian countries are concerned, I had the opportunity of going to India and Pakistan during the Recess. I can assure the Lord Privy Seal that the bitterness and fear which they have about our going into the Common Market have to be experienced to be believed. I was speaking in favour of Britain going in, but they found it very difficult to believe that it would not damage their interests and destroy the Commonwealth. We have to remove this fear and let them see that we are fighting as much for their benefit as for our own, and fighting in the interests of democracy as a whole.
  Whereas they accept that they are to have a comprehensive trade agreement which they hope will bring benefit to them in the future, from the short-term point of view they will suffer. I return to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. Let them keep their preferences at the moment. I do not think that this is asking too much. Let them keep their preferences until the trade agreements are concluded. I hope that the Common Market countries will be generous and give opportunities to the less-developed countries to develop and to be better provided for than they are at present.
  The Lord Privy Seal stressed that they had greatly benefited by the reduction of the tariff on tea, and this at the expense of coffee. But does the right hon. Gentleman expect for one moment that it will stay that way? Is there not the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that those who have coffee interests will put the pressure on as strongly as possible to get revenue and fiscal duties imposed on tea higher than they are at the moment, in order, to bring about equality? I think that they are entitled to get some better recognition of what this tariff concession means, not only in the short term but in the long term.
  Then there are the anxieties of that other section of the Commonwealth, particularly Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They are worried about their traditional exports and also about exports which they are trying to build up. But they are mostly concerned about the exports geared to this country. We ought to tell the Common Market countries that this is vital to us as well as to the Commonwealth countries. The E.E.C. ought to give assurances that it recognises this and will do whatever it can
  1206
  to give to its verbal assurances some measure of substance. I do not think that it is impossible for that to be worked out. It has been done in the case of French associated countries.
  These Commonwealth countries are also troubled about the agricultural policy within the E.E.C. itself. I have been told by Commonwealth representatives in the countries which I have mentioned that they still have not sufficient information on which to make a judgment. I believe that they are entitled to have it, and I hope that it will be forthcoming as soon as possible. It is in the interests of the Government to do everything to help the Commonwealth countries and to make sure that they are satisfied. If the E.E.C. does not recognise the requirements of the Commonwealth countries, it is a short-sighted policy on its part.
  In conclusion, I would say that if the E.E.C. does recognise them it will help to consolidate the free peoples of the world and make peace more secure. I do not think that the challenge is between the Commonwealth and the Common Market, but I am bound to say if I were forced to make a decision as between the Common Market and the Commonwealth it would be in favour of the Commonwealth.
  5.40 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) has, I consider, made a helpful speech, as, indeed, did the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—very different in tone from the speech to which we listened yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But then we know where the sympathies of the right hon. Member for Belper lie. I think that the right hon. Gentleman gave a fair summary of the position when he said that the terms are the test but that we do not yet know sufficient about the terms to form a judgment. I agree with that. I think that we should go into the Common Market, but. of course, not at any price.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made a speech full of good sense, and I hope that it will be very widely read and carefully studied. After the welter of detail and criticism that we have had in this debate. I think it a good idea to go back to what the House

  1207
  decided on 3rd August, 1961. It was to apply formally under Article 237 to negotiate, to see if he could get terms which we could accept and which would satisfy the interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. We undertook not to enter into any agreement affecting those special interests of British sovereignty till the House had approved and the other Commonwealth countries had been fully consulted.
  The present Motion we are asked to approve urges the Government to do all they can to obtain acceptable conditions. That is precisely what the Government are endeavouring to do, so ably led by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in Brussels.
  The Opposition goes on sniping away all the time. That is the job of the Opposition. We know that, but denigration and destructive criticism, such as we heard yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition and others, is, of course, the easiest thing in the world, and it is nonsense and not true to suggest, as he and other Opposition speakers did, that the Government have abandoned their pledges. That is not true.
  A lot has been talked about agreements reached so far—whether they were binding or provisional. Of course the agreements so far reached are provisional, but whether or not it is worth while reopening any of them is a matter for judgment. They are provisional because whether we eventually accept them depends on how far the full terms, when we see the full picture, satisfy the three conditions which we require.
  I believe that the Government's approach to the Common Market question has been entirely correct; that is to say, to apply, as we did last year, to join in order to discover what the conditions were before we committed ourselves. The Liberals have reproached us for not signing the Treaty of Rome several years ago and negotiating afterwards. With our peculiar agricultural and Commonwealth requirements, no responsible Government could have done that, nor would the country for one moment have accepted it.
  Now the Opposition Amendment demands two further conditions: first, that if we join we should be free to conduct
  1208
  our own foreign policy, and, secondly, that we should be free to introduce nationalisation and economic planning if we want to. Judging by the political complexion of some of the Governments in the Six surely, with regard to the second point, the answer must be "Yes". With regard to foreign policy, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) made a very interesting speech yesterday in which he dealt with that question within the context of the sharing of sovereignty.
  If we stayed out of the Community, he asked, how much freedom would we have in deciding our foreign policy? Because foreign policy is only effective if it can influence events outside our own shores. How effective would we be, he asked, in isolation? Perhaps no more effective than some of the smaller neutral countries were at the beginning of the last war; because final decisions might be taken over our heads by the United States of America and a closely integrated European community to which we did not belong. This is one of the questions on which we shall have to make up our minds, but I believe that we could exercise greater influence in the world in the Community than we could outside it.
  If only a Commonwealth free trade area were a workable alternative to the Common Market, how simple it would be. But it is not, and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference the other day showed clearly that the Commonwealth does not want it. Besides, the industrialised countries of the Commonwealth would provide us with only a tariff-free market of some 30 million people over and above the 50 million in these islands, and the rest of the Commonwealth consists of developing countries all of which are in urgent need of financial help. Unless Britain is prosperous we shall be no good at all to the Commonwealth. Surely the best chance of expanding our trade and increasing our prosperity lies within the large industrialised trading group, the biggest in the world, which a combined Europe would provide and in which we could also act as a two-way link with the Commonwealth.
  If we look at Commonwealth trade over the last two years we see the trend has been away from Britain and towards nearer geographical neighbours, as in the case of Australia towards Japan. British

  1209
  exports to the Commonwealth during that time have dropped by £60 million, and we have an unfavourable balance of trade with the Commonwealth. With the Common Market, however, our trade is up by about £100 million and we have a favourable balance of trade, and this year, for the first time, Europe has bought more from Britain than has the Commonwealth. In fact, Europe seems to have become an expanding market whereas, unfortunately, the Commonwealth market has contracted.
  We must, of course, do all we can to foster trade between ourselves and other Commonwealth countries, but these facts I have given are compelling economic facts to which we cannot shut our eyes. I was very interested in the speech yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), and what he said about his experience in Australia and New Zealand. I entirely agree on this, that the special terms which New Zealand requires must be safeguarded.
  I have very little more to say, but I should like to touch on the question of agriculture. Representing as I do an agricultural constituency, I am naturally very much concerned about the conditions for agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) on Monday asked the Lord Privy Seal to insist that, if we go in. our present system of agricultural support should be maintained during the transitional period. I entirely understand and sympathise with the feelings which prompted that Question. However, I can see that my right hon. Friend, who is our chief negotiator in Brussels and about to reopen negotiations on this very question, could not, for obvious reasons, give such a categorical assurance. But the very fact that my right hon. Friend turned down the proposal that immediately on joining the Common Market we should switch over from our present system of support to one of consumer subsidies shows that he is well aware that there are conditions which we could never accept. We must leave it to him and to the Minister of Agriculture to negotiate. There is nobody better fitted to carry- out these negotiations than my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. We cannot, of course, expect to get the best of all worlds in negotiations of this importance and complexity, but it would
  1210
  be the greatest mistake for the European Economic Community to imagine that, because the Conservative Party at Llandudno came out so strongly in favour of the Common Market, we could accept sudden changes in our agricultural support system. The switch over, if we go in, must be phased and gradual.
  When the negotiations are finally completed and the full facts have been put to the country, it will be for Parliament to decide. It is not a question which should be thrown into the turmoil of a General Election, for this reason, that on this question, with all the other issues which must inevitably arise at such a time, a General Election would never provide a clear-cut answer.
  I personally sincerely hope that the terms will be such that we can accept them. We could then go forward into a new and exciting phase in our history and play the important role which, by our tradition, our history and our experience as a world Power, we are fully qualified to play. Unless we go in, I suggest that the European Community will never be really effective, and I believe that most European countries realise this.
  5.50 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal claimed that we had gone two-thirds of the way towards getting satisfactory terms for Britain's entry into the European Community. I think that by the time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition resumed his seat he had successfully demolished this claim. It was quite clear that, in return for specific guarantees from this country, we are still floundering in a morass of uncertain promises about European terms.
  But if there were any doubts left in the minds of any hon. Members at the end of yesterday's debate, I Should think that they were set at rest when the Minister of Agriculture resumed his seat today. If we are talking about two-thirds of the journey having been successfully covered, I should like to know to what the Government are referring. Clearly, they are not referring to agriculture. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will look at his speech in HANSARD and examine the questions which were put

  1211
  to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I am certain that the Minister is not a shifty character and that if it had been in his power to give clear answers to clear questions he would have done so.
  Mr. Percy Browne: How far does the hon. Lady think the Six have got in their negotiations between themselves over their own agricultural problems?
  Miss Lee: I am not an expert in agriculture. I have merely listened to an interchange between two hon. Members and am making my comment on it. As far as I can gather, the Six have not made very much headway, either. I am not presuming to talk as an expert on agriculture. I am simply saying that no one in the House could have listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture without knowing that, particularly on the vital issue of the Milk Marketing Board, he either does not know where Britain stands or is afraid to state clearly what is the position
  There is one obvious conclusion that must come from the situation as revealed in the debate yesterday and today, and that is that the country must have a clear promise from the Government that they will not land us in a no-man's-land in which we begin to dismantle our own agricultural guarantees, our own Commonwealth preferences and our own E.F.T.A. trade arrangements without having reached firm and satisfactory guarantees of another kind. Even if the debate had served no other purpose, it would have been invaluable in alerting informed opinion in this country to the totally unsatisfactory state that we have reached in the negotiations so far.
  That is the only comment I have to make on agriculture. Others with great experience in this field will make further comments. Sufficient for me to say that one needs very little experience to know that the Minister of Agriculture was in a muddle and had nothing effective to tell us today.
  Turning to the Commonwealth, no hon. Member will say that the alarm and concern felt by the Prime Minister of India, the President of Pakistan and other great Commonwealth leaders is without very solid foundations. We know
  1212
  that the great desire of members of the Commonwealth, particularly the poorer ones, is that they should not for ever have to come for grants in aid. They want to be able to develop their own secondary industries. I find it impossible to see how we could possibly enter the European Common Market without very much firmer and more generous terms in this respect than we have got at present. So far, it seems that poor old Europe is to be asked to drink tea, eat mutton and buy our excess milk. If they really knew how we were approaching their problems we might find that the opposition which some of their leaders are putting up to our entry would be greatly stiffened. I can see no satisfactory picture either about agriculture or Commonwealth claims.
  I now turn to our relations to E.F.T.A. I place very great emphasis on this matter. I am at one with Dr. Hallstein, Dr. Adenauer and other European leaders in accepting the fact that the initial impulse towards the European Economic Community was essentially political and not economic. The leaders of Europe have said this again and again. It is the barest courtesy that we should examine their point of view at its full face value.
  We have moved a long way from the "glad morning atmosphere" of earlier discussions when we were told, "All the top people are in favour of going in. We are certainly going in. Let us get in quickly. We shall have a free market on commodities, a free market on labour and a free market on capital. It will be wonderful for everyone concerned. More than that, we shall have a European Economic Community which will be the economic shield for N.A.T.O. We are to have a gathering together of Western Europe, of a kind that will frighten the life out of Mr. Khrushchev and all the other Communist Powers."
  I am not exaggerating when I say there was a good deal of talk of that kind and in that mood in the earlier discussions, even in this House. The debate yesterday and today has been a vast improvement on that earlier attitude, for we have now got down to discussing bit by bit precisely what will be involved if Britain joins the Common Market.
  It is clearly a matter of honour that Britain should not enter the Common

  1213
  Market unless her E.F.TA. partners, if they so wish, are able to do so at the same time and on the same conditions. Indeed, it is more than a matter of honour. It would mean that not only N.A.T.O. Powers, but neutral Powers, would be members of the European Community, and if that happened it would go a little way towards quieting the alarm of those who fear that the motive behind the Common Market is to sharpen the cold war between East and West.
  I fully agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday when he reminded the House that when looking to the future it is not enough to say that the world will be safer because France and Germany stand closer together. One does not prepare to avoid future war by looking only behind one. One has also to look ahead. The danger that the world is facing at present is that of deepening antagonism between the Communist and the non-Communist parts.
  Some economists tell me that we shall enjoy certain trading advantages if we join the Common Market. Few make excessive claims in this respect. Certainly no serious economists do so. Also, they are inclined to quarrel among themselves as much as any other specialists. Some say that we shall be better off and some that we shall be a little worse off. However, even if an economist could persuade me that as a member of the Common Market Britain will be substantially better off in trading terms, he has also to reassure me that we shall not be spending more on defence and that there will not be a sharpening of tension between East and West. How much will it profit us to be in a slightly improved economic position if as much as, or more than, we gain in that respect is lost because the world feels just that much more uncertain?
  I do not regard Mr. Khrushchev as a Santa Claus. I would not trust him with organising the world's destiny; and, with all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would not trust you to do that. I would not trust myself to do that. I would not trust any single human being. But this we do know about Mr. Khrushchev. He is occupying a different position in history, with a different economic background behind him in Soviet Russia, than, for instance, other famous Com-
  1214
  munist leaders, Mr. Chou En-lai and his colleagues in China.
  In all our deliberations over the European Common Market, we must take into account not only the specific trading terms for agriculture, the Commonwealth, and E.F.T.A. We must also take into account the overriding effect that our membership would have in either easing or worsening world tensions. I am willing to acept the five points in our Amendment. If I could be assured about agriculture, Commonwealth relations, E.F.T.A., the independence of this House, and freedom to put this country's affairs in order if a Labour Government is returned to power, we should be talking about something radically different from the original conception of the European Common Market.
  We should then be talking about a conception that might appeal to those of us who are internationalists as well as concerned for the safety and well-being of our own country. I think that part of the misunderstanding, if I may presume to say so, on our own benches on this issue has arisen from the fact that many of my colleagues are passionately internationalist and consider that our entry into the European Common Market would be a step in the right direction. I should be delighted to see a united Europe, but I should take no delight at all if I thought that six or seven countries in Europe were trying to band themselves together into a power bloc, particularly a power bloc moving towards a common political programme.
  I have referred to the E.F.T.A. countries. In doing so, I have in mind not only the neutral nations such as Sweden and Switzerland. We have also to consider Portugal. Portugal is an E.F.T.A. country. If Portugal were in the European Common Market how could we find a common political denomination between Dr. Adenauer, General de Gaulle, Dr. Salazar and myself? It would be very difficult indeed.
  Suppose that Dr. Adenauer was, in the course of time, replaced by Mr. Willy Brandt. That is not beyond the possibility. But the German Social Democratic Party is just as passionate as Dr. Adenauer's party in insisting that it will not recognise the Oder-Neisse line and in insisting on the unity of Germany. How could we possibly have a common

  1215
  political policy among those of us who want to see disengagement in Europe and those of us who want to accept the Oder-Neisse line, those of us who are profoundly alarmed at the thought of Europe having independent nuclear weapons of her own—how can that type of attitude be reconciled with the well-known point of view of other members of the European Community?
  Therefore, I say that we are a long way from anything that would bring about a common political programme, unless we are asking for a programme of the lowest common denominator and the most dangerous common denominator, that is, assuming that there is no difference between Conservatives, Fascists, Liberals and Socialists, and that the only difference is between all of us together and the Communists on the other side.
  I regard that as the same kind of illiteracy as not seeing the difference between what Mr. Khrushchev stands for in the world and what Mr. Chou En-Lai stands for. So I say that any political agreement is a thousand miles away. It is not even on the agenda at present. We are only at the point of discussing whether we can find a solid economic programme. I do not see it so far, but I shall listen carefully, as I listened to the Minister of Agriculture today and the Lord Privy Seal yesterday. I imagined that I was reasonably good at arithmetic, but I simply cannot work out how the Lord Privy Seal can justify his claim to have gone two-thirds of the journey, leaving only one-third to go. He may be right, but he has not convinced me, and I do not think that he has convinced many people in this country.
  It is a good thing that many of our larger disagreements have been in the background of this debate. At least, this has forced the Government to see the poverty of their immediate situation and the danger of any of us assuming that they have got within a hundred miles of a settlement which would justify our country jeopardising its present arrangements by anything that has yet been offered.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: In the very brief time that I shall detain
  1216
  the House, I want to confine myself entirely to agriculture, because agriculture is one of the problems which is freely admitted to exist in dealing with the question of the Common Market and also because agriculture is the industry in which I have worked all my life.
  I should like, first, to make the point that the farming community is very well seized of the need for industry in Great Britain to thrive and to prosper if prosperity is to smile on agriculture itself. It is the knowledge of the complementary roles which agriculture and industry play vis-a-vis each other which has, I think, been responsible for the restraint and moderation and statesmanship shown by the National Farmers' Unions while considering this matter over the last several months.
  They realise that the earnings from industry provide the spending power to buy the goods produced on the farms, and in return, of course, the agricultural market is worth many hundreds of millions of pounds to industry. Therefore, I am quite certain that it has been the view of the leaders of the farming community that, if it is quite definitely to be to the advantage of British industry to go into Europe, it should not be the farming industry which should stand irresponsibly in the way.
  I agree wholeheartedly with something in the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) yesterday, When he said that his experience has been that he has found a sense of adventure and excitement prevalent among what he described as the younger executives. I do not think anyone would comtradict the assertion that no industry in the country has shown during the last twenty-five years more initiative or greater readiness to adopt new ideas than has the farming industry. It is only too true that the farming community has been participating gladly in a very real agricultural revolution.
  I believe that it is ready to face competition with Europe—it is certainly not afraid of it—provided only that it can feel fairly convinced on three points, two of which have been touched upon frequently in the debate. The first concerns the transitional period. My right

  1217
  hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said at the Conservative Party Conference something that many of us had known but which, perhaps, too many of us had not realised—that is, that the present income of farmers depends to the tune of over 80 per cent. on support from the taxpayers.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Is that net income?
  Mr. Stodart: Yes. I think that if one accepts that—and there is no question that the figure is correct—and if any attempt were made to abandon suddenly our system of agricultural support, the chaos that would ensue defies imagination.
  The second point has not, I think, been touched upon in the debate. It refers to something which I think is of great importance—that we must not disturb, if at all possible, the balance of our farming. A very great feature of our agriculture since the war has been the reasonable balance throughout between those farming on the arable farms and those who indulge in livestock husbandry. If grain prices in Europe were to go up, as has been suggested, by 12½ per cent. grain growing would become extremely profitable in this country and one might easily see a flight out of livestock into grain growing. Of this I am certain, because today the returns from livestock husbandry are a good deal lower than they are from grain growing.
  I would merely make two observations on such a situation. Our reputation in the agricultural world is based primarily on our livestock—natural conditions, if nothing else, have brought that about. Secondly, an over-supply of grain could be extremely embarrassing within a comparatively short time.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Surely the prices of livestock might also rise? Has not my hon. Friend made an investigation into that? Has he not eaten beef in France?
  Mr. Stodart: I can only talk from the experience I have had of twenty years of grain growing up to three years ago, when I had to become a livestock producer. I can assure my hon. Friend that the difference is so substantial in the returns one makes that I really cannot
  1218
  conceive that what he suggests will take place.
  Thirdly, I want to say a word to my right hon. Friend about production grants. The importance of these lies in the fact that to a very large section of the agriculture industry they are absolutely vital—and I use that expression with great deliberation. Without production grants what is generally known as the upland stock-rearing sector of farming would collapse, because at present production grants provide about 100 per cent. of the net profit of this type of farmer.
  I do not want to seem in any way parochial. This is a United Kingdom problem, but it is one which would particularly apply to Scotland, because 80 per cent. of Scotland's land area is given up to rough grazing and permanent grass; the equivalent figure in England and Wales is 55 per cent. One-third of the value of the output of Scottish agriculture comes from mutton and beef, compared with only one-fifth in England and Wales. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that great determination is shown in retaining the production grants. The weakness, of course, in this case is that certain subsidies—for instance, the calf subsidy and fertiliser subsidy—are available to all farmers regardless of the kind of land on which they are working. It may well be difficult to retain these subsidies if we go in, other than on geographical grounds, for specific types of farm.
  That is why I wonder if my right hon. Friend should not be giving earnest attention to classifying farms now which could be eligible for production grants, and limiting those grants to those farms. I must confess that I think it absurd— though I dare say that not many of my English friends would agree with me— that a calf subsidy which was originally intended to produce more beef on farms which are obviously designed by nature for that kind of production is now being used to an enormous extent by farmers who are breeding calves on rich, fertile arable ground.
  These are three points which require the most determined negotiations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will negotiate determinedly on them, and I make no bones about the fact that I wish him well in his task.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: In common with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I want to concentrate on the difficulties which will arise in connection with food and agriculture in the negotiations which are now in progress, but before doing that I must say that the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has provoked me to make one or two observations on the attitude of hon. Members towards our membership or non-membership of the Community. I shall not canvass in general terms the arguments for and against going in. That has already been done fairly exhaustively in the course of the last two days.
  No one in the House has argued in favour of going into the Common Market on any terms, or that we should join the Community at any price. A number of hon. Members clearly take the stand that we should not go in whatever the terms. I understand their point of view, and there are several of them in that position. They say that, whatever the terms and whatever the safeguards, Britain should not go into the Community.
  There is another category, a category which is the official attitude of the Labour Party among others—
  Mr. John Diamond: The hon. and learned Member must not say that the official attitude of the Labour Party is that it is against going in on any terms. It has never said that.
  Mr. Bowen: I never said any such thing.
  Mr. Diamond: That is exactly what he said.
  Mr. Bowen: With respect, it is not. I will repeat what I said. I said that no one in the House had advocated going in on any terms. I said that, secondly, there were hon. Members whose attitude was that, whatever terms and safeguards we got, we should not go in. There is another group. That third group agrees with the official policy of the Labour Party as outlined in its Amendment. The Labour Party is not alone in this, of course. That third group says that we should join, provided that certain conditions and safeguards can be obtained. There are differences among those
  1220
  hon. Members about what those conditions and safeguards should be, but that is their overall attitude.
  I believe that many of those who ostensibly base their criticism on the present position and prospects about obtaining conditions and safeguards are basically opposed to entry into the Common Market and that they are seizing upon the difficulties about the conditions because they are basically opposed to the concept of the Common Market as envisaged by the Six and as is envisaged by us in our consideration of entry. It would be far more straightforward if people in that category—and they are on both sides of the House—made their position quite clear instead of criticising the conditions and safeguards—and many of their criticisms are well-founded— when their real case is that they do not accept the concept which we are discussing.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) is a member of the legal profession. He will appreciate that if he makes a contention, I shall naturally expect him to produce some degree of proof. Would he care to do so?
  Mr. Bowen: The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, who is perfectly entitled to her views, of course, was a clear and positive indication that she is opposed to Britain going into the Common Market on any terms which could conceivably be obtained in the course of the present negotiations.
  Miss Lee: What we are now being asked to agree to is a European Community not of Six but of Six plus Seven, which makes thirteen. If we have complete E.F.T.A. membership as well as Common Market membership, can the hon. and learned member assure me that this Common Market will not worsen tensions between East and West? I am all in favour of international agreements, but the hon. and learned Member has a long way to go before he can give me that assurance.
  Mr. Bowen: The hon. Lady's intervention has strengthened my argument. I ask hon. Members in this category to say what is their attitude towards the European Community irrespective of

  1221
  whether Britain is in or not. Do they regard the creation of the Community as it now exists as a backward or forward step in international affairs? Their answer to that question would be some indication of the sincerity of their objections based upon the conditions when their real objection is to the basic concept.
  No one who listened yesterday to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal could doubt his own personal enthusiasm for our entry into the Common Market.
  Mr. Diamond: Or ability.
  Mr. Bowen: Or his ability, or industry and endeavours to obtain satisfactory conditions for our entry. But I saw few signs of anything like that enthusiasm among the main body of Government supporters. All the signs—and it was a source of misgiving to me—were that the belated and reluctant converts to this concept were still not taking any pride or enthusiasm in their own conversion. This is a matter for regret to me and I am certain that it is a matter of embarrassment to the Lord Privy Seal.
  In common with the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and the overwhelming majority of the public, I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be successful in his negotiations and will obtain terms which will enable us to join the Community; but even if he does and we go into this adventure reluctantly and halfheartedly, our admission will be nothing more than an empty sham.
  I do not want to minimise the importance of safeguards or conditions, and I shall deal with one or two later, but far more important than conditions and safeguards is the fact that if we go into the Community we must go in determined to take an active and vigorous part in the whole concept and to provide leadership in progressive thought and progressive action. If we are not going to do that, whatever conditions we get we would be far better outside.
  I turn now to the problems of food and agriculture, because, with great respect to the Minister of Agriculture, he left a large number of queries completely unanswered. He has given specific and concrete assurances to the agricultural industry—and I appreciate that in the middle of negotiations it is difficult to
  1222
  speak freely about many matters—but the farming community is entitled to more concrete and specific assurances on where the Government will make a stand in relation to some of our agricultural problems.
  As I see it, the difficulties which will face Britain if we go into the Market are those which arise not only from our position as food producers but from our position as food importers. Going into the Common Market will involve, ultimately, a unified agricultural market with an internal price level. This internal price level, from the point of view of the consumer in this country, will be substantially above that at which competing supplies are available from outside. The British housewife, in contrast to the British taxpayer, has so far been in a happy position with regard to foodstuffs. She has been able to buy imported food at substantially world prices because our imports, including those from the Commonwealth, have been, in the main, at world prices. These imports have come from the Commonwealth not because of Imperial Preference but because of efficient production by the countries concerned, that is to say, the price of the product has led to its being imported into this country.
  It is very difficult to gauge how much, but these imports will have a substantial influence on food prices in this country. Let me give one factor which illustrates this. I am talking in the main about temperate zone products such as cereals, dairy products and meat. Temperate zone products of those categories at present imported by Britain exceed in quantity the total imported by the Six. This is the size of the problem, and it seems to me that unless, during the transitional period, some duty-or levy-free quota system operates, the effect on retail prices of imported foodstuffs will be very much more dramatic than is envisaged at the moment.
  The second aspect is the effect which all this will have on the food producer. We have an internal price level which will suddenly be threatened by surplus production by the Continental members. With great respect to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart)—I do not pretend for a moment to have his agricultural knowledge—I believe

  1223
  that what the farmers of this country are most anxious about is what the future price levels will be. By going into a unified agricultural market, the internal price level fixed by the market will continually be threatened by surplus production, particularly by Continental members.
  Let me illustrate that by one reference to France. At the moment the production of wheat per acre in France is 30 per cent. less than that in Britain. If France picks up half of that—and there is no reason why she should not—and brings the margin down to 15 per cent., this will provide her with an increased production of two million tons of wheat. This will obviously have a dramatic effect on internal price levels. The likelihood of that happening is made all the greater because the indications are that the internal price level of the Community in relation to the type of commodity about which I am talking will almost certainly be substantially higher than that which appertains in France at the moment, and there will therefore be every encouragement to increase production.
  Milk provides another example. It is estimated that by 1965 the Community will have a surplus of over 1,000 million gallons of milk. This is after making the most generous allowance for increased consumption. This surplus within the Community will tend to depress the internal price level of milk.
  It can be said that Chat aspect of the agricultural problem, that is to say, the problem of rises in production not being met by rises in demand, with the obvious effect which this will have on the level of prices, will be with us whether we go into the Community or not. I believe that in the long run this problem, whether it is faced by British agriculturists inside or outside the Community, will be met, in part I agree, by international agreements, but as far as the Community is concerned the only prospect of meeting it effectively is to increase demand.
  One of the fortunate features is this. If we get, as we hope we shall, a really substantial industrial development within the Community, the demand for the more expensive and highly esteemed
  1224
  foodstuffs such as meat, eggs and dairy produce will be substantially increased. This will lead to a reduction in the demand for cereals and potatoes, and I believe that surpluses in the lower-priced products can be more easily handled by international agreement than can the more expensive foodstuffs.
  That is the long-term position. The immediate problem which faces the negotiators is what will happen during the transitional period. I hope that the Minister will really dig his heels in with regard to this aspect of the matter. After all, he has every right to do so. We are not going in as supplicants. Whatever arrangements were made by the Six in relation to agriculture—and these are to some degree a mystery—they were not made on the basis that Britain would be within the Community. In fact, they were made on the basis, I was going to say, that we were not going in, but in any event they were made without reference to the British position and without any reference to our problems. It is, therefore, not unreasonable for us to say that we cannot be expected to accept the full pattern for agriculture immediately we enter the Community.
  I believe that the position during the transition period should be this. One can argue whether the period should be up to 1970 or whether it should be for five years, but we need a substantial period for adjustments in our farming. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West touched on this. I believe that this transitional period should be used, amongst other things, to bring in new schemes, within the framework of the Common Market, to assist marginal farming areas. If we are within the Community we shall have to look again at all the schemes to provide assistance, and the production schemes. These schemes will have to be looked at in the light of the members of the Community and the implications involved. That cannot be done overnight, as the Community seems to suggest it can.
  We should bear in mind the dislocation that the immediate dropping of our deficiency payment system would involve in both farming incomes and retail food prices. I wonder whether we realise what a dramatic effect the immediate withdrawal of the deficiency payment system would have upon retail food prices. The

  1225
  distinction which the Six appear to be drawing at the moment between production grants and consumer grants is a confusing one. I am opposed to the suggestion that the difficulties of the transitional period should be met by the introduction of large-scale consumer subsidies. That would involve the setting up of a vast new administrative system, with the re-establishment of a Ministry of Food, which would have to be wound up only a year or two afterwards. That is quite an impracticable alternative to the phasing out of the deficiency payment system as we know it today. I hope that the Minister will really be tough on this matter.
  I now turn to one or two specific products, ft is all very well to talk about assurances and to say that the Six will see that our standard of living is maintained. The farming community wants to know what will happen in relation to certain products. Reference has already been made to milk, and I do not want to say much more about it, except that the ex-farm prices in Britain at the moment are substantially higher than anyone can anticipate will be the prices within the Community. Britain is in the happy position of being able to sell two-thirds of her milk production in liquid form. On the Continent, the proportion is less than one-third.
  Within the farming community of the Six there is a substantial measure of support for the introduction of milk marketing schemes comparable to that which now operates in Britain. I was sorry that the Minister was not far more forthcoming in his attitude about the preservation of the Milk Marketing Board, perhaps in a revised form. As I see it, it is consistent with the Treaty of Rome. Does the Minister agree? Is there any possibility of its being developed in the Common Market, or are we to sacrifice the whole idea of the pool system which has worked here so well for many years? If we do, it will have a dramatic effect upon gate farm milk prices in this country.
  We are told that everything is all right in relation to beef and store cattle. Their prices will probably rise. Indications are in that direction. But that will be counterbalanced by the losing of the acreage deficiency payment on oats and barley for feed on the farm, and also of the hill cow subsidies.
  1226
  If the present deficiency system for mutton and wool is removed, the only way to maintain anything like a decent return for the farmers will be by curtailing imports from New Zealand. This entirely goes against our wishes in relation to that country. It is quite clear that the tariff proposed by the Community for mutton would have virtually no effect in this regard. As I understand it, it would be 20 per cent. There can be no doubt that if the deficiency payment on mutton went and New Zealand's mutton came in subject only to a 20 per cent. tariff, the British farmer would be in dire straits.
  At the moment the Six have little interest in mutton, and I think that it will be a long time before their interest in it develops. In those circumstances, is there any reason why, with a view to helping New Zealand and also the British sheep farmer, an agreement should not be obtained for the continuation of the deficiency payment system for mutton and wool? It would have virtually no effect upon the position of the Six. It would be of largely academic interest to them and it would not conflict in any way with our desire to help New Zealand. It would meet the real difficulties which the sheep farmer would otherwise feel.
  If we go into the Common Market, in many areas we are likely to have large quantities of surplus milk. The scheme by which farmers, and especially small farmers, can make use of surplus milk for pig production is nothing like as satisfactory as it should be. One of the matters which should be gone into in this transitional period is the question of the provision of grants for home mixing and cube rations, and the storage of milk products, in preparation for the fierce competition that we shall undoubtedly have in that sphere.
  The Minister had nothing to say about the agricultural levy. What is the European agricultural levy? We shall be heavily involved in this matter, and we ought to have a better idea of where we stand. As I understand it, the Germans, who are the biggest importers of the Six, have already indicated that their initial contribution to this fund will be 32½ per cent. of the total. Where do we stand? How is payment out of the fund going to work in respect of such things as production grants? If we are

  1227
  going to have to pay substantial sums into this fund, as importers we want to know more about what will happen to our money and how much will come back to us to assist British farming. It may be difficult to be precise on the point, but I hope that before the end of the debate we shall hear a good deal more about it than we have so far.
  In common with the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, I wish the Lord Privy Seal all good fortune in his continued negotiations. It may be that hon. Members can do little, but whatever we can do, either as members of parties or as individuals, it is our duty to do in order to attempt to strengthen the Lord Privy Seal's hand in these negotiations in the hope that he will be able to produce conditions which will enable us to become a full, active and vigorous member of the Community.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Having started by saying that we must go into the Community "determined", the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen)— having declared that the terms should not divert us in this course—made a lot of small points about agriculture with which I do not, in the main, agree. He made two important points, however, which I endorse; the importance of the transitional period and where the levies will go. These are sticking points for British agriculture, but many of his other remarks were really details which should not be allowed to interfere with "our determination", as he put it.
  The debate has concentrated mainly on whether the terms which the Lord Privy Seal has so far brought back are good enough. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking the line that the terms so far agreed are completely unsatisfactory and it seems that the official Labour line is that they would not want to join on those terms.
  I do not consider that my right hon. Friend has done too badly, although I agree with much of what has been said about there being a suspicion that the Six are still protectionist in their outlook. That feeling has been heightened since the last meeting, when the Lord Privy Seal came back having met, as it were, several brick walls. It is that aspect of
  1228
  protectionism on which the debate has mainly concentrated and on which I wish to concentrate tonight.
  The Leader of the Opposition pursued this matter altogether too far in his speech yesterday. He was trying to secure terms which would exist in 1970, 1980 and perhaps even further ahead. Obviously, especially considering the future of the Commonwealth as a part of the world in general, one cannot make agreements now for periods of up to ten or twenty years' ahead. While we might secure for ourselves and the Commonwealth the maximum amount of good, we certainly cannot foresee what will happen in the distant future.
  By far the most important Commonwealth countries from the point of view of these terms are the Asian countries. Most hon. Members agree that their balance of payments and export problems are much more vital to them than to almost any other country. For example, India's exports represent £1 per annum per head of the population while Britain's exports are the equivalent of nearly £80 per anum per head of the population. That shows how marginal is their balance of payments.
  Cloth is one of India's main exports and if every Indian used one more yard of cloth each year the total quantity available for export would disappear because they have the same number of yards of cloth for export as they have people. That proves the necessity of trying to help the Indians, particularly on tariffs for textiles. I am certain that the Six realise that even a slight diminution in India's exports would be very serious and that any delay in the application of the tariff is of the greatest importance.
  The Indians also expect to export to this country and Europe some of their manufactures which their factories are beginning to produce. Surely we can accommodate these things in Europe? The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) went so far as to say that the Six should not only guarantee that there would be room for the existing volume of exports, but that a reasonable margin would exist for their growth in the future. I wonder, if we stay out, whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to guarantee that in our home market? That, I would have thought, would be a

  1229
  promise which his Lancashire friends would not like to endorse
  I suggest that the value of the terms we have so far got for the Asian countries has been underestimated. The trade agreement has been promised and we have never before felt able to enter into such a thing. We import 47 per cent. of our total consumption of textiles, while the Six import only about 2 per cent. That shows that we must use the whole market of Europe to absorb the manufactures of India and Pakistan. The fact that my right hon. Friend has secured a concession whereby this whole market will be, to some extent, open is more valuable than our attempting to carry this on our own backs.
  It has often been suggested by many, including the Leader of the Opposition, that the nil tariff concession on tea was of little value. The whole market of Europe is open to the Indians and Ceylonese while, in a sense, it has been less accessable to them in the past. I believe that our own negotiations on these matters have already made the Common Market much more liberal in its approach to this subject than it was when we first applied to join. Had we not had these negotiations there would have been no access for any Indian tea, except over the tariff, and no access for Indian textiles into the Community. To that extent we have started to perform what is our historic role; to widen the market of Europe for the good of the under-developed peoples of the world.
  During the Summer Recess I visited India and Australia, but I certainly do not wish to follow the already amply described tour of Australian economic problems which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) gave so ably yesterday. We need not regard Australia in the same light as India. She is a prosperous country with a high standard of living as high as, if not higher than, our own. Australia is not likely to have the sort of marginal problems of the poorer countries. Most Australians, I thought, saw the general advantages of our joining Europe. Feeling was not as strong among the many people I spoke to as it appeared to be when listening to the Australian Prime Minister addressing the conference of Prime Ministers here.
  1230
  Australian industrialisation, however, has set us certain problems, such as the way in which the heavy end of our industrial production has suffered. Australia now makes her own steel, ships and heavy industrial goods, meaning that her markets are protected and our own heavy industrial exports are kept out. This is a rather small contribution—and I do not want to exaggerate this aspect— to the problems of the North-East, of Scotland and elsewhere, where most of our heavy industry is situated. I am not saying that the Australians have been wrong in doing this, or that it has greatly affected our balance of payments with them, but it has caused us to change from the export of heavy industrial goods to the more modern, sophisticated type of industrial goods.
  It seems that Australia's main complaint is that her dried fruit industry will suffer. To this proposition it can only be said that we are asking her to change from some forms of primary production to other forms—and this seems perfectly reasonable since we have had to make such changes ourselves. Hon. Members tend to underestimate the value of world commodity agreements for Australia. That country has wanted them for many years and I consider such agreements to be the ultimate solution to Australia's primary production problems. We must keep them here and in the Common Market as well. The vital thing in all this will be the level of the agricultural target prices in Europe.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Six are to make a declaration of their agricultural price policy, which will be the determining factor in the main on agricultural production. I am sure that that is the real key to the whole situation because, unless there is a market, there is no point in fixing up means for importing from the Commonwealth. I expect that declaration to be very precise and favourable in order to prove to me—I am, perhaps, as keen as anyone that we should join Europe—that the Six really mean that we should develop a liberal trade policy. If we stay out of the Common Market there will be no such declaration, and no such policy quite likely. We shall admit before we start that we have failed to open the market of Europe to

  1231
  the agricultural produce of the Commonwealth.
  The French have already started subsidising exports of certain grains and they are tending already to dump them on our market. With high prices and with the money coming from the levies on German imports, they will have endless opportunity to develop their agriculture. It seems that they are much more likely to dump on to our market if we stay out than if we go in. There is no way we can stop them unloading cheap grain on to the British market while we remain outside the Common Market, but they cannot subsidise that grain if we go in. Therefore, it seems the best way to keep our market open is to join.
  The Commonwealth consists of 750 million people, of whom we are 50 million. It must be absolutely clear that we cannot take the ever-increasing manufactures, textiles, primary produce, foodstuffs of different sorts which the Commonwealth will continue to produce. I am quite certain that the industrial countries must, in the end, help us in Western Europe to do this. That is why I think that it gives a far greater opportunity to them if we join and if we persuade Europe to the right policies than if we stay out.
  The N.F.U. has just published what it calls a farm and food plan. It is perhaps rather idealist, but it has so much to commend it that I thought I must refer to it. It points out that we must find means of sending the surplus foodstuff productions to the people in half the world who are starving or nearly so. If we examine the plan we see that it describes in fairly close detail the system of agricultural protection which the Common Market intends to employ and coupled with that subsidising surplus production to send to countries where it is needed at very low or nil prices.
  I should have thought this was the right approach and that Europe, with its system which is evolving slowly, could be made to develop such a plan and use its agricultural system with the surpluses for such a purpose. This may be a little idealist, but it is by far the most feasible means of tackling the problem that I have seen. I think it possible if we become a member of the Community,
  1232
  whereas it would be impossible if we do not.
  The difference between hon. Members opposite and me is that I believe that the Lord Privy Seal has obtained some good terms as far as he has gone. He has a very long way to go and he may have some very difficult moments before he gets to the end, but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said in a previous debate,
  "Equally, on no account should I withdraw our application to join. I should keep it in and go on negotiating"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 727].
  That is the attitude of an hon. Member opposite which, I think, is the correct one, however long it may take. The difference between us seems to be that most of his colleagues and some of mine feel that if the terms do not look too good we should waltz out of the negotiating chamber and leave the whole problem. I do not believe that it is the terms which frighten the bulk of hon. Members opposite into taking this line. It seems strange to find this newfound love for Commonwealth trade among them. It was only last summer that I tried to speak in a debate on the cotton industry and we were told Indian and Hong Kong textiles were ruining prospects here. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
  I have often wondered if it was concern for employment which made them so hostile to these terms. There are two points I wish to make here, because I think them very important. All of us in this House, particularly hon. Members opposite, feel that employment is perhaps the most important of all the worries we face at present. I certainly do. But the leaders of the steel industry, the coal industry, shipbuilding and all the heavy industries which are at present in decline are welcoming the prospect of access to the Common Market. The most important point is that new firms which should be going to development districts have tended, during the last two or three years, to go to Europe instead, because that is the only way in which they can surmount the tariff barrier. If that tariff barrier can be demolished. I believe more firms would seek to go to development districts.
  I do not believe that hon. Members opposite are really concerned about the

  1233
  future of our Constitution. A suggestion was made today that we nationalise the Palace of Westminster. Many times we have had suggestions from hon. Members opposite that we should abolish the House of Lords. This new-found concern for the principles of our Constitution seems strange. The real fear is mentioned in the Amendment; but none of them has touched on it in their speeches. The real fear is that nationalisation and public ownership would become more difficult, because the cold wind of competition would blow through their cosy, subsidised nationalised world.
  The question is whether the Lord Privy Seal's terms have opened the European market wide enough. I believe that they have. I do not think that we can achieve results in these negotiations to serve us ten or twenty years ahead, but I believe that our progressive influence at Brussels if we are a member will serve this purpose. Just as my right hon. Friend has turned their policy on many important points, we hope he can do so all the more and all the more usefully when we are members of the Common Market and not just negotiating to get in.
  It may turn out that the next few weeks of meetings, perhaps the next few months, will be extremely tough. We must seek —and, if necessary, we may have to break off negotiations—to ensure that we get what is considered essential at this time. It is our responsibility, not only to ourselves but to the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, to succeed in these negotiations to the end. I do not believe that it is possible to "do a Canute" against the rising economic tides in the world today. Joseph Chamberlain said in 1904:
  "The day of small nations has long since passed away. The day of empires has come."
  I believe that the day of empires has passed away. Do not let us go back to the day of small nations.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: Some of the things which were said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were, of course, more acceptable to me than were others. It would be in the interests of all if I concentrated on those things in which I wish, without embarrassing him, to agree with him profoundly.
  1234
  The recurring theme of his speech, as far as it referred to the Common Market, as far as the facts were accurate and as far as he understood the views of the Labour Party accurately, was absolutely right: if we want to influence things in the way in which we think they should be influenced, in a liberal way, we should get inside the Common Market and not stay outside critioising from the sidelines. If the British wish to influence things, with the mature political understanding of give-and-take which we have learned in the House and throughout the country, the best way is by getting into the Common Market and contributing to their counsels.
  Mr. John Stonehouse rose—
  Mr. Diamond: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. He will have plenty of opportunity to intervene in my speech, for I do not expect to say everything to his satisfaction.
  The real division, as the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said, is between those who support and those who are against the principle of joining the Common Market. It is all very well for people, in considering the situation, to say, "I wish that the Common Market countries would do this or that", but when we have finally to make the choice, knowing that this is the best they will do, we must consider the overriding advantages of going in. We must face the fact that, much as we might have liked them to go a little more in this way or a little more in that way, in the end it will be for the benefit of this country and of Western Europe, and I believe for the benefit of the maintenance of freedom and the peace of the world, for us to understand the views of the Six and to interpret them in an open and liberal frame of mind.
  Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend referred to the influence that we should have in the Common Market community when we joined. Will he tell us what influence we have had before we join?
  Mr. Diamond: I agree with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that the very fact that we have confronted their ideas with our ideas has been of

  1235
  advantage. They are intelligent, honourable, decent people, as we are, although they speak funny languages, and speak them far too quickly for us to understand them. In spite of that, they are ordinary, decent, intelligent people, and the confrontation of ideas between them and us has resulted in our having an impact on their thinking and their having an impact on our thinking; and this is for the good of Europe.
  I have heard many times the argument that we want world government but that we do not want to go into a small government; that we want world trade agreements but that we do not want limited trade agreements; that we want world commodity price arrangements but that we do not want to start with European agreements. It has been my good fortune, in an amateur way, to teach swimming over a number of years, and I have always found it much more advantageous to start the boys off in the shallow end and for them to learn to swim up to the deep end. If we put them in the deep end first they tend to sink. If we jump into the deep end of world trade agreements and world government—all most desirable, ultimate aims—because we pretend that we are afraid of the more limited proposal, we are liable to sink. I suggest that it is a good thing that we have had this confrontation of ideas, and I hope that we shall be able to influence one another's thinking for the benefit of the peace of Europe throughout the consultations and, indeed, when we get together in the Common Market, as I sincerely hope we shall. And that is what our Amendment is about.
  The Amendment says quite clearly that the Labour Party support entry into the Common Market and that we hope that certain terms will be achieved. By and large those terms are the three to which the Government have pledged themselves in respect of E.F.T.A., agriculture, and the Commonwealth, and two new terms which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Party was good enough to say were pure declarations. The first was the existing freedom to carry out one's own foreign policy. It is purely a declaration because, as everybody knows, there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to prevent that. If we want to join with others in a merging of our ability to carry out our foreign policy, we must do it by a separate
  1236
  treaty. The time to consider whether it is wise or unwise to do so, and the way in which it should be done, is when we have such a treaty before the House. We have so many things to discuss at the moment that there is no need to discuss that at great length.
  Viscount Lambton: Does my right hon. Friend believe that inevitably our joining the economic union will result in our joining a federal part of Europe?
  Mr. Diamond: I wish to accept neither compliment—that of being a right hon. Gentleman or that of being the noble Lord's hon. Friend. I believe that the institutions Which are necessary to give effect to the economic union will cleanly present themselves to men of objectivity as we go along. I have not reached the end of the road but I am not afraid of going on to the end of the road.
  Viscount Lambton: The hon. Member does not know where the road is going.
  Mr. Diamond: I am not afraid of entering the Economic Community knowing that it may result in some kind of getting together, under which democratic power is given to people over a broader area, with Ministers subject to control; I see nothing wrong with that as a democratic system. I am not afraid of approaching that. At this stage, when we are considering the preliminaries of entering an economic community, it is ridiculous to cast our minds forward to that point of time at which a number of institutions will be found to be necessary in order to give effect to what we all desire. If I have not satisfied the noble Lord in my reply, I regret to say that I shall have to put up with that.
  The first three terms which I have mentioned are repetitions of the Government's terms. I have dealt with the foreign policy aspect. The fifth term is the ability of a Socialist party to carry out Socialist reforms. This, again, as my right hon. Friend said, is a declaration; it is an existing liberty, and it will not be denied. I can do no better than quote from the message which the British Labour Party has received from the other Socialist parties of Western Europe. This is the unanimous decision of the Socialists of the Six:
  "On the basis of ten years' experience, the Socialist parties can affirm that the building of

  1237
  a European community provides no obstacles to Socialist aims."
  Speaking as Socialists of six countries who have had ten years' experience of the Common Market, they make that declaration unanimously, and it strikes me as an expression of opinion which is worth some consideration.
  I therefore come back to the questions raised by the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and Cardigan. One referred to Commonwealth problems and the other referred to agricultural problems. What they have in common is this: that one tends to forget that consideration of the Common Market reveals existing difficulties and does not create them. Let me explain.
  Of course, there are many problems in our agriculture which we now see will have to be overcome, but these problems are not being created by our going into the European Economic Community; they are being looked at for the first time. The problems are problems of world surpluses. It is entirely wholesome that, as a result of these negotiations, we should be compelled to look at these problems and plan for them.
  As regards the Commonwealth, there are a number of difficulties, but these difficulties are not created by our going into the Common Market. The difficulties will exist in any case. Let anyone think of what is happening to Commonwealth trade now. Let us remember that Commonwealth preferences are of comparatively recent origin, that they arose at a time when there was complete stagnation in world trade and there was an attempt to get trade moving a little at a time of great depression.
  That was how they started. They have been considerably eroded. Circumstances have changed completely since then. Now, as everyone knows, instead of our major exports going to the Commonwealth, we are exporting more to Western Europe than to the Commonwealth. During the last eight years our exports to Western Europe have risen between eight and ten times as fast as our exports to the Commonwealth.
  Let anyone think of the 1970s, to which the Common Market negotiations are making us direct our minds. The situ-
  1238
  ation will be nothing like it is today. Extrapolate the graph, and what will be the further erosion in Commonwealth preferences? With Commonwealth trade continuing at that low level and trade with Europe continuing at that enormously high level, is it possible to imagine that the position will remain unaltered? Does anyone think that we can carry on without doing anything? It is absolutely unbelievable. Of course, we have to do something about it. The very fact that we have these Common Market negotiations now is making us look at these difficulties which are looming ahead and making us prepare for them.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman has been using statistics in a very odd way. However, the point I wish to make does not relate to statistics or to that part of his argument. It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman was treating Commonwealth preference as synonymous with the Ottawa Agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but that seemed to be what he was saying. It is, of course, fabulous nonsense. Imperial preference long ante-dated the Ottawa Agreement. The Ottawa Agreement was merely an episode in the development of Imperial preference.
  Mr. Diamond: I should have been a little more precise and spoken of the Ottawa Agreement. However, the fact remains unaltered that these preferences have been eroded over a period of years, and nobody imagines for a moment that we shall continue in the same way into the 1970s without doing anything by diversion of trade or that we could possibly sustain an adequate Commonwealth trade in the present way.
  The same considerations apply to agriculture. Consider how subsidies have increased. We heard a warning bell last years. Does anyone imagine that subsidies to agriculture could go on increasing and increasing and that any Government, from either this side or that, would tolerate that situation? Of course not. The problem is the problem of surpluses and how to deal with them. The very fact that we are confronted with the problem as a result of the Common Market negotiations makes us think about it and about methods of dealing with it.

  1239
  It is entirely wholesome and beneficial that our minds should be centred on the problems which are looming up ten and fifteen years' ahead so that we may start planning for them now. This is what the Common Market negotiations are doing. It is not that we are creating these difficulties. It is merely that we are planning how to deal with them once they have been revealed.
  By general tacit agreement, we appear to be discussing in this debate only the terms rather than the substance. This is appropriate having regard to the Motion and the Amendment. One of the difficulties of discussing terms only is that it is very difficult to keep the whole matter in perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) will agree that if, for instance, one is discussing the terms of a lease, looking through all the covenants which the prospective tenant or lessee will enter into—they go on for page after page, clause after clause—one is inclined to think of nothing but the difficulties, forgetting that at the end of it all someone will get a home, an office, or a factory, and that that is what the whole business is about. When we look at individual conditions or difficulties only, we are liable, unless we hold the whole thing in a reasonable perspective, to forget that we shall gain overwhelming advantages as a result of the whole negotiations. We are liable to concentrate only on some of the difficulties to which the Lord Privy Seal has referred.
  Having said that—everyone knows that my view is that the advantages are overwhelming—I think that it is right that we should look at the conditions and at the negotiations.
  As to the negotiations—I shall probably be thoroughly misunderstood, but I must say it all the same—I believe that they will affect vitally the welfare of this country and of Western Europe and will affect vitally the freedom and peace of the world. The negotiations are being conducted by a member of the Government, democratically elected as the Government of the country.
  Mr. Stonehouse: On a minority vote.
  Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend may say a variety of things. I only say that I came into this Chamber in 1945 on
  1240
  exactly the same terms as hon. Members came in who are in that position today. I do not propose to challenge the method by which I was brought into this position any more than I challenge the method by which they came here, which is the same method.
  In my view, whoever has the responsibility of conducting these vitally important negotiations deserves our good will and our good wishes. According to the terms of the Amendment, we ask the Government to negotiate. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well. He is our negotiator. I wish him success. I hope that he is able to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all do."] I am glad to hear that. I wish that that view had been expressed as clearly during the debate from these benches.
  We have all listened to the Lord Privy Seal from time to time explaining to Parliament the situation in the negotiations. No one who has listened to him can be anything but amazed at his capacity to hold all the facts, to carry them in perspective and to put them before the House in a reasonable and orderly way. As one who may claim to be a little bit of a negotiator, with twenty-five years' experience of it, I take my hat off to the right hon. Gentleman as a negotiator. It is not surprising. Anyone who has been Chief Whip on the Tory side of the House would be nothing if he could not negotiate. The right hon. Gentleman has had the best possible experience that anyone could have.
  The Lord Privy Seal, understanding negotiation, understands several important aspects of it. For example, he understands that the first rule in negotiation is to be tough but it is by no means the last rule. There are many other things besides being tough which are important in negotiations. If a man wants to sell an article at the highest possible price to a casual customer whom he will never see again, he may well think it appropriate to be tough. If, on the other hand, one is entering into a deal with someone with whom one will have to live for the rest of one's days, one has to realise that it is not a tough deal one wants. One wants a fair deal, a deal which the other side will regard as fair, too. One has to be flexible to that extent. If one is negotiating a partnership agreement, one does

  1241
  not start by drawing upon extracts taken from an agreement suitable for a master and servant. If we want to be trusted, we must recognise that trust is mutual.
  There is a good deal more to do than simply to be tough. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, understands these things, and I am very glad that he does because the only advice he has received so far in the debate, as I recall it, has been to be tough, tougher, and most tough.
  Mr. Harold Davies: We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to be tough. We are asking him to keep his pledges to the nation, to the Commonwealth, to agriculture and to E.F.T.A.. pledges which were made in this House before ever the negotiations were begun.
  Mr. Diamond: I recognise these things. It is down on the Order Paper for anyone to read.
  Mr. Davies: That is all we are asking him.
  Mr. Diamond: No; the advice given to the right hon. Gentleman has been to be tough. It has been said in many speeches from important places. I think it right to add balance to that by saying that those who have useful experience in negotiation understand that there are two kinds of negotiation and the way to be successful is not always to be tough. There are times when toughness is appropriate. There are times when a wider, more flexible, more understanding and more sympathetic approach is appropriate and likely to produce better results.
  I come now to the argument about a deadline. Of course, it is wrong to put a deadline to the negotiations. To do so has many dangers, but the thing that has more danger is to allow the momentum of very difficult negotiations to cease. If one wants to get up a very steep hill—and there are lots of steep hills to be mounted in these negotiations —the one thing one has to do is to keep as much momentum as one can coming down the hill one is on in order to go up the other. The essential thing is to keep up the momentum.
  I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will continue with his plan. If he is not successful in coming to a conclusion on a particular matter, let
  1242
  him go on to another matter, but keep the negotiations going. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said—and it was courteously alluded to by an hon. Member opposite—keep the negotiations going, for that is the way to be successful in these difficult matters. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of my party said, it is wrong to say this and that to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and tell them to swallow it—I think that was the term used. It is wrong to say that to our partners in the Commonwealth, but in the same way it is an equally wrong approach to our partners in the European Community.
  Therefore, I am conscious of the fact that there is a lot more that can be said and that there are many more people to say it who are far more capable than myself. In conclusion, may I say that I believe, though there is no time to expand the argument usefully, that there are tremendous advantages and opportunities open to this country as a result of entering the Common Market? It means more than I can say for the stability of Western Europe, freedom and the things in which I believe. I think that President Kennedy, the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Minister of Russia are all right in saying that our entry into the Common Market will strengthen the West. They all say the same thing, and they are all right, Chough some of us may draw different conclusions from what they say. It is vitally important that we should succeed in these negotiations in as good a way as we can. I am sure that our influence inside the European Community will be Wholesome, beneficial and outward-looking, and I pray that we shall succeed in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
  7.32 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I begin my speech in the same way as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who said of the previous speaker that some things in his speech were more acceptable than others.
  I cannot agree with everything that the hon. Member said by a long shot, but I do agree with him, and I think we all agree, that we owe a great debt of

  1243
  gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal for the immense amount of work which he has done over a very long period. I think that there are very few people who would be as capable of such high quality sustained work of this kind as he has been, and, for that reason, Whether we agree with him or not, he is doing a very good job and we owe a great debt of gratitude to him.
  There are two general arguments about joining the Common Market Which one commonly hears outside. One is that we cannot afford to stay out. I regard that as a very wide, negative and generally uninformed argument, because usually it is not backed up by any logical argument at all. Surely it depends entirely on the possible terms of entry, and we are just beginning to know something about these now. We understand the difficulties of the Government in not announcing more of the terms as they became available. We hear a little bit about the negotiations as they go along, but it would be extraordinarily difficult, if not quite impossible, for a Government to give us all the information available at the 'present time. It might do us untold harm. For that reason, it is as well to keep an open mind on this subject.
  It is most important that the Government should tell us something about the alternatives if we do not go in. We hear the argument that we cannot afford to stay out, but let us suppose that, for various reasons, we do. What is the alternative? What are the views of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers? Presumably they must have told our Government at the recent conference. We have been critical of many Commonwealth countries in recent years, because, by means of our hard-earned capital wealth, they are establishing small and in many cases inefficient industries, which have to be protected within their own borders against competition with manufactures from this country, which will have this competition from quite uneconomic small industries in the years that lie ahead.
  It would surely be to our common advantage if these smaller industries, which are required to absorb labour in the Commonwealth, were devoted more to manufactures requiring a very large
  1244
  quantity of labour, rather than the other highly efficient industries producing large quantities of goods with a low requirement of labour.
  Another vague argument for going into the Common Market is that it is a great challenge. I agree that it is an enormous challenge, but I should like to see what emerges from the challenge and whether it is likely to be reasonable or not. We are told that we should have the advantage of 200 million people, to whom we do not have a free run in selling at present. I would say that, although it is difficult to prove, the standard of living and the standard of spending in the Common Market at present is probably, over the period, much lower than in this country.
  It will be recognised, conversely, that we open our doors to all their goods, and that we have a high standard of living and this is probably the most valuable sterling market in the world. Some of our industries would suffer very severely, and, no doubt, go out very quickly. There are others which would undoubtedly improve and benefit by going into the Common Market.
  I was struck very much indeed with one part of the Lord Privy Seal's speech yesterday, when he made it completely clear that the Treaty of Rome did not provide in any way for political union. That part of his speech is to be found in col. 998 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is of the greatest importance that people in this country should have clearly in their minds that that is the case, but I think it is also important to realise that very many people who are strongly supporting and advocating going into the Common Market should realise that federation, in the widest sense—closer political union in some way—is just round the corner and likely to come fairly quickly.
  Most of the arguments for going in are also based on the fact that we cannot stand alone. That indicates that we are bargaining from weakness, and, personally, I cannot agree with that. We have shown more than once in recent years that, when we realise the importance of the situation, we are a very strong nation, and our Commonwealth has repeatedly come to our aid in difficult times. When we have had our backs against the wall, we have twice

  1245
  alone maintained for a time the freedom of the world. It is extraordinary to me that in war time our people are willing to work to their uttermost and to die for the benefit of their country, but, apparently, in peace time such as we are experiencing now, people are not even willing to work for their country. I believe that we have in some way "gone soft", and lack the discipline which we imposed on ourselves in other conditions. That is our main weakness and it is probably the most important reason for our joining the Common Market.
  We have refused to discipline ourselves. I think that neither political party would take the responsibility of doing that. I believe that by going into the Common Market it would be done for us from outside. If there are difficulties among employers or workmen, I understand that people will not be able to write to their Member of Parliament. Those problems will be, to a much greater extent, solved in Brussels by permanent civil servants. Do the people of this country realise that? Personally, I do not believe that they do.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not believe that. Does he really think that if we go in, and there is trouble in the cotton industry, he will not hear about it? Will not he still raise it in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Herbert Butler: He does not do anything now.
  Sir J. Barlow: The hon. Gentleman had better read HANSARD. He will see that he is wrong.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), I should probably hear about the trouble, but if we went in we should not have the power to act to anything like the extent that we have power to act now. That would be the very significant difference.
  This country, lacking the discipline that it should have, is in a weak position and is bargaining from weakness, and, therefore, many people are urging that we should go in. I find that this is not said openly and publicly, but many industrialists have said it to me. It may
  1246
  work both ways. Perhaps it would make things more difficult for industrialists and much more difficult for labour. As far as we can make out, wages are very similar in all seven countries. They vary a little, but not a great deal. The indications are that the productivity of labour is considerably greater, for one reason or another, in the Six than it is here and that restrictive practices are not tolerated in the Common Market in the way that they have been tolerated here. Those are great commercial weaknesses to this country. Personally, I should like to see them tackled at home rather than tackled by someone overseas in the Common Market.
  Owing to the greater development of industry, there has been a greater division of labour in this country than in other European countries. Repeatedly during the last few years very small sections of the community have held the country up to ransom. We have seen the tally clerks in London upset the whole of industry, with a comparatively few men doing it. Is a modernised civilised State like this prepared to tolerate that, with all the loss that it means to the nation as a whole? That problem has not yet been solved. Are we going to solve it or let others solve it for us if and when we go into the Common Market?
  I emphasise that it is of the greatest importance that before we decide to go in—I am willing to say, if we go in—we should know the terms. I do not like the idea of going in and then negotiating, as some people have suggested. I like to see what is in the contract, sign it and keep to it. That is much the safer plan. Once we are in, our action is very much limited.
  For that reason, I dislike the wholehearted demand by many people in this country that we should go in virtually on any terms. I think that that would be a sign of weakness in bargaining. It might well be that we should go in, but for heaven's sake do not let us declare ourselves too openly until we know the price we have to pay. It seems to me rather like sending a horse to a sale at which it is known there is likely to be only one bidder and letting it be known that one will sell that horse at any price.

  1247
  For this reason, I think that it would be unwise to support the Government Motion, and I therefore propose to abstain from voting.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened to the whole of this debate. We have had figures of speech about contracts and masters and servants and about horses and the momentum of cars going uphill. But we are dealing with a living political reality in the lives of people. To me, much of the debate has been an essay in political gerontology— in other words, in political senility.
  Why is the Tory Party hell-bent on going into the Common Market? What is so brilliant and new about this idea? Why does it fill some of my hon. Friends with the hope that this will save the world? Let me ask some questions about this matter on the general terms before I deal with the sad realities of British agriculture.
  When Monnet conceived the idea of the Common Market the idea was brilliant, but it was not new to all of us on this side of the House. Last week I asked Mansholt a question which should be of fundamental concern to the Opposition, namely, if we go into the Common Market can we build up our conception of social democracy and applied Socialism in Britain?
  Under the Common Market as conceived, under this technocracy—and do not let us pretend that there is any democracy about it; the thing is not working yet; I have taken the trouble to look at it—
  Sir C. Osborne: What did Dr. Mansholt say to you?
  Mr. Davies: I did not get an answer.
  Mr. Holt: The answer is, "Yes".
  Mr. Davies: The answer is not"Yes". It is no good the Liberal Party squawking from behind me that the answer is "Yes". The Liberal Party knows well enough that we would not be able, under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, to plan our industry in the way that we wish to plan it and in accordance with the policy outlined in our pamphlet "Let us Face the Future". I do not propose to argue about that because it is a fact about the relationship of the Treaty of Rome to any planning in any separate country.
  Mr. Diamond: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, because my hon. Friend allowed me to do so.
  Mr. Diamond: I am grateful for this reciprocity. Does my hon. Friend agree that a report in the Daily Herald of what took place is fair when it says that a unanimous resolution was passed by the Socialist parties of the Six appealing to the British Labour Party to join the Common Market, saying,
  "On the basis of ten years' experience the Socialist parties can affirm that building a European community provides no obstacle to Socialist aims."
  Mr. Davies: The first inaccuracy in that statement is that the Common Market has been working for ten years.
  Mr. Diamond: The Coal and Steel Community and other Communities have.
  Mr. Davies: I am discussing the Common Market. The hidden barb in that was that it was a reference to the Coal and Steel Community and the so-called Schuman Plan. We are talking of the Treaty of Rome.
  How many of my Socialist colleagues in Europe are in power? Because of the situation in Germany, the Social Democrat Party there is prepared in certain circumstances—I was over there not so long ago —to forgo some of its Socialist concepts of the public ownership of industry and to work within the Government in some form of coalition. The most virile Social Democrat Party in Europe is the British Labour Party. That virility will be destroyed if we go into the Treaty of Rome and the Common Market as it is at present conceived.
  Other interesting statements have been made. We are sometimes told that the markets in the Commonwealth are diminishing and that we are not getting our share. If we are not getting our share, it is not because the markets are falling off. The fact is that they have expanded, in some cases by 100 per cent. or more, but under Conservative Governments British industry has not had the energy to capture its share of those markets.
  Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Member—
  Mr. Davies: I cannot give way any more. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I must be brief. The hon. Member interrupts everybody irrelevantly from day to day and must not interrupt me now.
  To take another viewpoint of the concept of the Common Market, the British Press, the House of Commons and the Government have not taken enough notice of the Cairo Conference of last summer, when the Afro-Asian nations met at Cairo, with United Nations representatives present. The conference discussed the position of the under-privileged nations in relation to the advanced countries of the world. After constructive discussion, supported also by representatives of the United Nations and others, a resolution was unanimously passed regretting the tendency in the world today towards regional economic pacts and customs unions such as the Common Market as at present conceived. This fact has not been well brought out in British newspapers.
  That resolution was moved at the United Nations. In reply to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwick (Sir J. Barlow), who asked what alternatives are to be offered, one of the constructive jobs of the United Nations is to make a world study of the underprivileged areas and the alternatives to regional pacts and customs unions such as the Common Market.
  Let me point out a fact which technical man. is forgetting. I do not want to bore the House with masses of quotations. I want to get the principle and the logic of the quotations. To pitch facts back and forth across the Floor of the House is like fighting with pigs' bladders —not arriving at any conclusion, not hurting anybody, but simply setting one fact against another without coming to any basic conclusion. That is no use in this type of debate. I apologise, however, for giving a fact which it is essential for technical man to realise.
  For example, in the most advanced country in the world—the United States of America—in every jet aircraft that is built, 92 per cent. of the chromium, 97 per cent. of the nickel, 76 per cent. of the aluminium, 35 per cent. of the copper and 88 per cent. of the cobalt has to be imported. In other words, the industrial machine of the United States of America
  1250
  would be subjected to a heavy strain if the steady flow of strategic and other raw materials from the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America were cut off or reduced.
  That applies equally to Europe. Western man, as well as American man, depends for his standard of life on the tropical oils, greases and fats of the under-privileged areas, where, as Eisenhower described it, the revolution of awakening expectations is taking place.
  Our progress and technical progress in our selling of goods and our high standards are due to the fact that underprivileged man in Africa. South-East Asia and Latin America has been selling us these vital raw materials like aluminium, zinc, rubber, copra and others at prices which do not give him a fair return. I hope that hon. Members will accept 'this argument without further development of it, because the House of Commons has plenty of grey matter when it wants to use it.
  We could, therefore, establish a Common Market, we could establish a first-clast technical system of society or highly mechanised industry, but if the underprivileged areas of the world suddenly awaken to the fact that they are being sold down the river concerning the prices of their raw materials we would have a vastly greater problem in the world than the problem of the standard of life of the Six or the standard of life of Britain. This is the great question that should be worked through the United Nations on the lines of the Cairo Conference, the findings of which I beg hon. Members to read in the Library. The facts of that conference have been hidden from the country for a long while.
  I turn now to agriculture, with which my constituency is also concerned. Today, we heard the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. When we asked a specific question about the Milk Marketing Board, we had a shifty answer. We were not given the proper reply. There was the usual double-talk and double-thinking to which the country has become accustomed.
  With all due respect to the Conservative Party, at the last General Election masses of Union Jacks were flying. Farmers' meetings in my constituency had Union Jacks as big as Big Ben as

  1251
  a sign of loyalty. Now, we are old-fashioned if we try to build up the concept of the Commonwealth playing its part. Look, for example, at the Table of the House of Commons and Mr. Speaker's Chair, the latter given to the House by Australia and the Table by Canada as symbols of the great unity of the British people and the part they were to play in building civilisation after 1945.
  What about that concept now? That has gone. We hear the mighty English Tory Party crying, "Our glory has departed. Unless we join the Six we are ruined." In the name of heaven, what is the matter with them? They know that this is the biggest "twist" ever perpetrated on the British people. Are we to be told 'that the only way in which the British people can save their souls is by joining the Common Market? Tory Members know that this is wrong.
  The British farmer is getting nothing out of this. As for the small farmer, this was what we were told by the Daily Telegraph of 8th October. In answer to the question:
  "How will the annual review system work for the British farmer if Britain joins?"
  Dr. Sicco Mansholt replied:
  "It is the Council which fixes the policies each year … To make sure that we act on the right information"—
  listen to the technocrats—
  "we have a great number of expert groups, working groups, study groups, assisted by scientists."
  Hon. Members should go into the Library and read this. Talk about Parkinson's Law! Talk about government from Whitehall and farming from Whitehall—
  Mr. Holt: But the hon. Member is in favour of that.
  Mr. Davies: If the Liberal Party talks like this it will decrease its representation overnight.
  We are told that if there is hardship anywhere a working party will be set up. Imagine Dr. Mansholt coming from Brussels because there is hardship in Leek. We should have to wait about five weeks for the papers to be translated into whatever international language we are to use. The working party would come among the small hill farmers and
  1252
  their problems, and the documents would take five or six weeks to be prepared and translated. We might be allowed an opportunity to discuss them here, but then they would be sent to some organisation in London. By the time it comes to doing anything in Leek they will be turning my poor tenant farmers out for back rent.
  The whole concept is a technocrat's concept; it is a completely technocratical concept which undermines the chances of democracy growing. As has been pointed out in a bulletin by the farmers —the richest jewel in the Tory crown, but thank goodness the farmers are waking up a bit—
  "It is clear"—
  says the National Farmers Union— What is the hon. Member asking me?
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I was asking the hon. Gentleman if he meant that my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), who is beside me, was the brightest jewel in the Tory crown.
  Mr. Davies: I will tell the hon. Member outside.
  The National Farmers' Union said:
  "It is clear that the proposals of the Six are weighted unduly by reference to the cereals position—the only commodity group in which there are target and intervention prices at present. The output of cereals in the United Kingdom accounts for 9 per cent. of our total farm sales. Inevitably, therefore, there must be a question mark against the outlook for meat, milk, eggs poultry and wool, which comprise 65 per cent. of our total farm sales. This, of course, deals only with the livestock range. It leaves aside such products as sugar beet, potatoes and horticulture."
  I make my last point, about horticulture. How silent the leaders of the Government have been about the position of our horticulture, although 35 per cent. of the people in the industry will probably be ruined if we go into the Common Market as it is conceived at present.
  Here I go along with my hon. Friends. They know where I stand on this matter. I do not think that this is a creative idea. It is giving opportunities for international monopolies to be more powerful than Parliaments. As for the vote tonight, I will with alacrity, and with absolutely no reservation whatsoever, support my right hon. Friend on this issue, that we ask the Government, if

  1253
  they are going in, not to be harsh, but to keep all the pledges to the Commonwealth, to the farmers, and also to our friends of the European Free Trade Association.
  Those pledges were made. Up to now, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has worked hard on these negotiations, he has gained nothing towards the real concepts of those pledges; and if we go in alone, then our power will be less than that of any other nation inside the Common Market. I hope that tonight some Members on the other side of the House will at least have the courage of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich and abstain from voting, or go into the Lobby and ask for those pledges to be maintained for the British people.
  8.4 p.m.
  Viscount Lambton: I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), but that, in a sense, would be somewhat difficult, for though he has a delightful, discursive way of speaking, his speeches resemble a paperchase, going in many directions, so that it is rather difficult to know which one he really intends one to follow.
  All hon. Members will sympathise with me in speaking so late in a debate which has lasted two days, because by now so many points have already been covered that it is difficult to try to break fresh and new ground. I therefore do not intend to hold the House for very long, but, at the same time, I should like to try to add one or two things which seem to me to have been omitted and have not been presented to us.
  The Conservative Party was regaled at Llandudno with a great speech by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I did not myself have the fortune to be there, but those who were there told me that it really was a fine oration: the figures were well presented, and he got tremendous applause. One of the things which moved his audience most was the figures of our trade and how they have changed, and how, for the first time, our trade with Europe is greater now than our trade with the Commonwealth.
  This was very interesting, but what I would draw to the attention of the
  1254
  House and various speakers is what we see when we divide up the figures. The inevitable meaning conveyed by the figures is that our exports to the economic union of Europe are now greater than our exports to the Commonwealth. I have tried to get the very latest figures, and the ones I have got today are from the Board of Trade, dated 7th November. During the months January to September, 1962, our total exports to the Commonwealth have been 31·4 per cent. Our total exports to Western Europe are 35·6 per cent. These are the figures which are always produced as showing why it is inevitable that we must go into Europe. But let us break those figures down and find how they are actually constituted.
  If we do that we see that E.F.T.A. takes up 135 per cent. and the E.E.C. takes up only 18·9 per cent. In other words, 81 ·1 per cent. of our exports are still to countries outside the European economic union.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: I was at the conference, and my right hon Friend, giving the figures, referred to the whole of Western Europe and made it perfectly clear that he was talking about the enlarged Community.
  Viscount Lambton: I am glad to hear it. I am only too pleased that my hon. Friend has endorsed the accuracy of the figures which I am giving.
  I think it important that we should study these figures and remember tonight, when we go to vote, that what we are faced with, if we do not go into the Economic Community, is shutting out of the markets of the world only under 20 per cent. I am very glad my hon. Friend has given credence to a fact I had not fully explained.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my noble Friend clarify one point? He says that what is at stake is the possibility of being shut out of the markets of the world. Will he not confirm this fact, that if we stay out of the European Economic Community no additional tariff beyond the external tariff of the Community to which we are now subject will be imposed, and, therefore, the only extent to which there will be any shutting out is that we shall have the same tariff as now against us, of about 17 per cent.?
  Viscount Lambton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for this, but I was trying to look at the matter from the blackest and darkest point of view, putting all the arguments against it. I have no doubt that our trade will continue to grow with the economic union whether we are in or not.
  I turn this discussion now to asking my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal one or two questions in his absence. They concern the terms on which we are going into Europe. Like other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, I stand very much in the middle of the argument. I believe that if we can get the right terms we should go into Europe. I believe that ultimately Europe will need us as much as we need her, and that we can eventually get in; but nothing is worse than making no terms and having no sticking point.
  I should like to be told tonight just what this sticking point is. It seemed to me yesterday that my right hon. Friend for the first time made one sticking point. He said yesterday, referring to E.F.T.A.
  "The third part of the obligation: is 'and thus enable them all to participate from the same date in an integrated European market.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1962: Vol. 666, c. 996.]
  Is this a pledge that my right hon. Friend has made? I see my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shaking his head.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): I must make it clear that I was addresing that gesture not to my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), but to somebody else.
  Viscount Lambton: To whom was my hon. Friend addressing it?
  Mr. Smithers: To somebody else.
  Viscount Lambton: Then one can only presume that my hon. Friend was denying something to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
  To return to what I was saying, does this mean what I have suggested? I should like an answer later tonight. Apart from shaking his head, perhaps my hon. Friend will make a note of this. It is a very plain promise, very forcibly
  1256
  expressed indeed, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend intends to stick to it. Does he mean by this that we shall not participate in the European (economic union unless all the other E.F.T.A. countries are included in it? Is that what he is saying? If not, what is the meaning of the phrase? It is of the utmost importance, and I hope that my hon. Friend will Clear the point up tonight.
  I hope to make a debating speech and deal solely with what the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday. However, if one is discussing (the real implications of the Common Market, it is impossible to find anything in his speech about which to talk, because all the real implications and the really great issues were avoided. What did my right hon. Friend talk about when he came to the great problem of the Commonwealth with all its implications land all 'the sacrifices that it entailed? He talked about tea, coffee and cocoa. It was a sort of spinsters' debate on the greatest issue of our time, and that is not good enough.
  What are the other great issues? What about the future of the Commonwealth? What is to happen to Australia and New Zealand if we place penalties upon them? None of these matters was discussed. I see the Minister of Agriculture laughing. What is amusing about the future of New Zealand and Australia? It seems to me that in this debate the greatest issues have been totally and absolutely avoided. What about temperate foodstuffs? What about their entrance into (this country? What about the effect of the rise in food prices and the rise in the cost of living?
  Also very important, what effect will it all have on our economy when we turn from the grain producing countries of the Commonwealth to France? What effect will that have on our shipping and invisible earnings? These are the great issues, and they have been totally neglected. We talk about subjects which are normally suitable only for ladies' tea parties. Is this the right thing to do?
  Turning to agriculture, are we to accept the present terms? If we do, I have no doubt that we shall undermine the stability of British agriculture. At the moment, one might describe British agriculture as equalitarian, with the small farmers carried by the big farmers

  1257
  and the middling men carried by the efficient. If we go into Europe this equal-itarian structure will totally disappear, and What will emerge will foe a nation of, on 'the one tend, exceedingly rich farmers and, on the other, bankrupt farmers. It will foe an agriculture of "two nations". Do we really particularly desire to do that, and if not, why do we not have arguments from the Government to prove that it will not be so? Why do we not have genuine assurances?
  Why did not the Minister of Agriculture make plain what our attitude to this was? Are we going into Europe at any price, and shall we be contributing a levy to the poorer countries and neglecting the poorer farms here? Shall we be letting the money go out of agriculture and ruining small districts in order to promote the prosperity of other districts at the same time as the great grain fields of France are undermining our position? These are the questions to which I should like answers. I cannot help thinking that the House is not getting enough information and that we are being fobbed off.
  Then there is a subject of the utmost importance, which cannot be stressed too much. President Kennedy has proposed talks next year on tariff reform throughout the world. Hon. Members on both sides have spoken about the advantages of this—and there are great advantages. Why do we not wait and see what tariffs can be reduced? What is the hurry? If tariffs can be reduced all round the world, what is the need to go into the Common Market? Why spoil our Commonwealth connections if it is unnecessary to do so? These are the questions I put to my right hon. Friend, and I hope to be given a reply tonight.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Taverne: I had some sympathy with the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) when he said that he regretted having to speak at the end of a two-day debate. But my approach to the Common Market is somewhat different from his. I approach it in much the same spirit and from much the same premises as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), and that is as
  1258
  an internationalist, and it is from that point of view that I want to look at some of the terms being negotiated.
  As an internationalist, I favour any move which is some advance towards a world government. I do not pretend that there is any great prospect of world government in my lifetime. Nevertheless, I believe that working towards a world government and towards a lessening of the forces of nationalism is the only attitude which makes sense in international affairs today.
  The first duty of anyone who is an internationalist is to support the United Nations in every possible way, to foster respect for its authority and to strengthen and extend its activities in different ways—disarmament agencies, technical aid and a hundred other different ways. But I do not think that any internationalist can really suppose that the next move towards a world government will be a sudden handing over of national sovereignty by all the 108 member States overnight. I see the trend towards world government coming by stages. This may be slow, but it seems to me to be the only way.
  What are these stages? As I see it, the only way in which this can develop is by a series of regional associations where individual national sovereignty would be merged or qualified. There would be different associations with different characters. It seems to me extremely likely that the example of Europe will be followed elsewhere.
  It is, of course, perfectly true, and I concede this at once to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock that these new associations may develop a new kind of nationalism of their own which may divide the world. This may happen, but I should have thought that the reasonable prospect was not one of new nationalism with the same strength as the old but rather of new groups in which many countries with strong traditions of their own would emerge, so that the final nationalism that would result would be very much less forceful and less virulent than the nationalism of the past. I agree, of course, that the attitude of these new associations to each other is vitally important. But if, in fact, the first of these new associations—that of Europe—turns out to be outward-looking and not one which seeks to deepen the

  1259
  divisions of the world, this would obviously be a major step towards world government.
  From that point of view, it seems to me that two points follow. The first is that it is quite illogical to be in favour, in principle, of handing over national sovereignty and yet to shrink from the prospect of doing so when faced with it in a particular case. The second point that emerges is that it is of very great importance indeed to consider what kind of association it is to which one may have to hand over part of one's national sovereignty. Looked at from that point of view, there are two considerations. The first is, how does Europe stand— what are the reasonable prospects of development in Europe as far as international trade and aid are concerned in relation to under-developed countries? The second is, what is the likely political development of this new association?
  With regard to long-term prospects in Europe, it seems to me that the record so far is not discouraging but one which holds out reasonable hopes that some sort of liberal trade policy will be followed. I should like to give a few examples. First, as regards imports of the Six from outside the Community, the figures between 1950 and 1962 certainly tend to show that the prospects of increased international trade are very much enhanced. In 1950 their imports from outside the Six were 7 per cent. higher than ours. In 1962 they were 85 per cent. higher than ours.
  One can also look at it from a different angle. If joining the Common Market and its development meant that, in general the encouraging developments of trade between East and West were nullified, this would be very grave. But between 1958 and 1961 the trade between the Six and Communist countries increased by 60 per cent.—from 57 million dollars to 90 million dollars. Then again, the offer to reduce external tariffs by 20 per cent. of manufactured goods, made in anticipation of negotiations with G.A.T.T., is surely an encouraging sign which should lead one to have high hopes of a liberal trade policy in the future from the Six.
  Next, I want to look at the question of aid. While it is true that trade is, in a sense, more important than aid, never-
  1260
  theless the volume of aid shows again the attitude to be found among the Six. I think that it is unjust to pretend that, somehow or other, our attitude to aid is more outward-looking, because Germany's contribution to both the Indian and Pakistani five-year plans has been greater than ours, and France's flow of funds to under-developed countries has been half as much again as ours.
  These facts are important because they lead one to suppose, quite reasonably, that the long-term prospects of international trade and of an enlightened attitude by the Six towards the underdeveloped nations are good. It is, of course, true, as a number of my hon. Friends who have recently visited the Far East have told me, that countries there, particularly India and Pakistan, are profoundly disturbed by the present trend of negotiations, and I hope that the negotiators on this will prove themselves to be as firm as the Lord Privy Seal said they were.
  Nevertheless, from the long-term point of view, the record is encouraging. What hope have we in this country of solving by ourselves the problem of manufactured exports from the countries of Asia? What hope have we of doing it without the co-operation of the Six? I should have thought that hon. Friends who are Members of Parliament for Lancashire constituencies would not be too sanguine of Britain solving this problem by herself.
  Now I turn to political development. It is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock said, that there is in certain quarters in Europe an attitude which does not augur well. Certain leading figures show far more intransigence towards the problems of East and West than many hon. Members of this House would like to see. Undoubtedly certain quarters in Europe are almost as suspicious of the United Nations as, occasionally, certain members of Her Majesty's Government seem to be in their speeches. But the question is surely whether one can say that this is likely to be the attitude of the European Economic Community in the future—and surely that depends on who is in the Community.
  A number of speakers in this debate have referred to our obligations towards the E.F.T.A. countries. I want to put

  1261
  the case in a slightly different way. We heard from the Lord Privy Seal of the definite undertakings he has given and the recent agreement and statements that have been made. Let us also remember that under the original E.F.T.A. Convention we have undertaken the abolition of tariffs on certain imports from the E.F.T.A. countries by 1970. Unless they are accommodated or our obligations waived, joining the Community will mean a breach of that undertaking.
  However, it is not from the point of view of obligations only that we should approach this matter. Nor should it be from the point of view of what has been said in the past. It is perhaps ironic to remember that when the E.F.T.A. Agreement was signed Viscount Amory, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the whole purpose was to facilitate negotiations with the E.E.C. so that we could carry on these negotiations as a group. But it is not from the point of view of obligations that I want to look at this matter now.
  Almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that it is extremely important from the point of view of ourselves and of the political development of E.E.C. that Norway and Denmark should get full membership and that some sort of accommodation should be reached for our other partners, because Norway and Denmark would be invaluable members.
  They both have a record of internationalism second to none. They are firm supporters of the United Nations and would strengthen the democratic and progressive forces inside the Community. With them as members alongside a Britain with the right approach, it is almost inconceivable that this new association of peoples should have an attitude as intransigent as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock feared, and one as hostile towards the outside world and as much in favour of deep divisions as one or two of my other hon. Friends fear. This surely is the test. If Norway and Denmark are admitted to full membership, that will show that the attitude of the Six is not so firmly exclusive as has sometimes been feared.
  The terms of our membership are obviously vitally important, and in the circumstances perhaps it is to be regretted that the Government have been rather too clever about this. What they
  1262
  have done is to weaken their bargaining position by saying all too clearly that entry into Europe plays a vital part in their electoral strategy.
  I would not for a moment say that party politics is not something which a party is entitled to play. To some extent, it is the lifeblood of democracy. However, there are certain issues in which it is very dangerous. What are the consequences of making entry into Europe part of one's electoral strategy? When it becomes plain to everybody concerned that the Government see this as a vital road to victory, then at the same time they make it plain that they will not allow these negotiations to fail in any circumstances and that entry is to be achieved whatever the terms. Yet party politics has been played. I do not accuse the Lord Privy Seal, but it has been played by other members of the Administration. I quote part of the Prime Minister's speech at the Llandudno Conference.
  "I cannot help wondering whether success in the negotiations would be as gratifying to Mr. Gaitskell as failure. As you know, Mr. Khrushchev is against the whole thing."
  Why did he say that? What did that mean? It was absolutely plain that the Prime Minister was saying that the Leader of the Opposition, who has spent a great deal of his political life resisting trends towards neutralism, adopted his attitude and was inspired in his attitude because of the Kremlin. That is the only interpretation of those remarks, and I defy any hon. Member opposite to give any other interpretation.
  Mr. Maddan: I agree with practically all that the hon. Gentleman says, but earlier an hon. Member opposite said that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Russia—what-ever he is called—Mr. Khrushchev and our own Prime Minister were all of one view about the consequences.
  Mr. Taverne: That is not at all what the Prime Minister said. He wondered whether my right hon. Friend hoped that the negotiations would fail. He said:
  "As you know, Mr. Khrushchev is against the whole thing."
  The only possible meaning of that sentence is that my right hon. Friend's attitude is dictated by the position of Mr. Khrushchev.

  1263
  Is it surprising that in those circumstances people have gained the impression that entry to Europe is a political game and that essentially it is the trump card which can be played by the Government in order to win the election? If that is the attitude, of course it affects the bargaining position, and it is not surprising that there has been this new toughness in Europe.
  It is all the more tragic when the issues at stake are so enormous, because if we get an outward-looking Europe—and I do not shrink from the idea of political union because I do not see how this body can be really effective in its role towards the outside world unless there is cohesion and coherence—showing the spirit of the Treaty of Rome which, among other things, says that membership is open to any European country, it can be the most encouraging development in politics in the twentieth century, and it may well be a firm step on the road towards world government.
  8.35 p.m
  Mr. John Eden: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) began his speech by feeling rather sorry for himself at having to speak at so late a stage in a two-day debate. Quite frankly, I feel greater sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal than I feel for myself at his having to wind up this two-day debate, because it must be a formidable undertaking. I have changed my opening remarks so many times to try to answer points raised by previous speakers that I shudder to think how my right hon. Friend will tackle the problem. I am grateful that it is his problem and not mine.
  I do not mean to be offensive by turning away from the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln, but I was very interested in the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). Like him, I find it is impossible to ignore the significant changes which have been taking place in our trade. He perhaps would not lay quite such emphasis on these figures as I do, but he produced figures which showed that our trade with the Commonwealth has been declining whilst our trade with Western Europe has been increasing.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that my hon. Friend has it slightly wrong, and for the sake of the record we ought to get it right. I think that the correct way of putting it is that the proportion of trade conducted with the Commonwealth has been declining while that with Europe has been increasing, but in absolute terms our trade with the Commonwealth has been increasing, as has, also, our trade with Europe.
  Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend is correct. In spite of the fact that our trade with the Commonwealth has been increasing, our trade with Western Europe has been increasing at a much more rapid rate, and it is not just the figures in themselves which are important. What I think are significant, and certainly the figures to which I attach great importance, are the starting points of our trade with the Commonwealth and our trade with Europe. The proportion of our trade with the Commonwealth has fallen from about 50 per cent. to the figure my noble Friend mentioned, 31 per cent., and the proportion of our trade with Europe has risen from about 23 per cent., again to the figure given by my noble Friend, 32 per cent. This is really a very significant change-over indeed, and we cannot overlook this fact, because what has been happening is that not only the pattern but the nature of our trade has been changing, and this change which we have been experiencing has been the experience to a great extent of the Commonwealth as well.
  The share of Commonwealth trade with the United Kingdom has fallen, whilst the share of Commonwealth trade with markets other than the United Kingdom has been rising. This is principally in the direction of the United States of America and of Western Europe, and it is not by chance that this has taken place. It is because these two markets represent in the world the highest standards of living, and our trade to these two markets, the United States of America and Western Europe, has been rising at a faster rate than our trade with any other part of the world, as has the trade of the Commonwealth countries in the same direction.
  This is because the higher standards of living of the more highly-industrialised countries are proving to be more attractive and more satisfactory markets for

  1265
  manufacturing industry and for the suppliers of basic raw materials than are primary producing countries, and it is a change which we cannot ignore. It is one which I find extremely significant. It seems to indicate to me that our greatest hope of assisting the developing countries of the Commonwealth, about which a number of hon. Members have spoken in the course of this debate, is by not only increasing our trade with them, but by maintaining the rate of increase in our trade with the highly-industrialised countries.
  I agree that we should do all we possibly can to foster and encourage the raising of the standards of living of the developing countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth, and I believe that this can be done by a number of important means. The most important of them perhaps is by trading with them not only in raw materials, but in what is becoming of increasing importance to them, their manufactured products.
  One aspect of this which has not been touched on so far is that we should try to buy from these countries in the Commonwealth manufactured products which we can then marry into a more sophisticated finished product in this country, which subsequently this country would export. In other words, component parts of our own finally manufactured products could well be manufactured in some of the developing Commonwealth countries. If they were, it would be greatly to our advantage, and very much to theirs.
  We must seriously apply our minds to putting into practice many more positive Commonwealth policies than we have been doing in the recent past. Some hon. Members have spoken of the urgent need for us to consider alternatives. It is not alternatives to the Common Market that we should consider at this time; what we should be concentrating on is our preparations for the changes which are likely to be brought about as a result of our membership of the Common Market, and also our preparations to foster the industrial development of Commonwealth countries. Many of these Commonwealth countries are in great need of British capital, and the assistance of skilled technologists. They quite rightly turn to us for these goods, and I hope that they will continue to do so.
  1266
  A number of changes are taking place in this country, and no doubt they will gather in momentum and significance as our possible membership of the new Community approaches. Looking back over some past figures, it appears to me that British industry has always been stimulated by competition. British management and British workers are not afraid of competition. They are fully prepared to meet the challenge. I do not believe that anybody in this country whose views are of any significance at all is afraid of our joining the Common Market because of the likely increase in competition in terms of trade. Again, the figures in this respect are quite significant. Our trade with Commonwealth countries has been falling at a faster rate in those countries in which the preferences are highest, and where there are few preferences, such as in Ghana and Nigeria, our trade has been increasing.
  This is a curious phenomenon. It is part of the explanation why we have been doing quite well in competing against Europe, even though we have had to operate against its barrier, and also why we have competed successfully in the United States of America. In some way, the stimulant of competition which these barriers provide encourages British industry to become much more efficient and therefore much more competitive and, as a result, much more attractive to the markets into which we are trying to gain entry.
  In this context it would be quite wrong for us to seek to preserve indefinitely our established industries, just because they are historical industries. I fully recognise the immense changes which this step means and, in many instances, the hardship that it must bring in human terms. But I am sure that, in the long run, it is vital for us to press ahead more vigorously with the establishment of new industries—and we should welcome investment and changes. Changes in industry have been taking place throughout our history; this is nothing new. What will be new is the pace at which the changes are going to be virtually forced upon us.
  In a speech a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that we have a small reserve of labour. About 4 per

  1267
  cent. of United Kingdom labour is engaged in agriculture, whereas in some European countries of the Six the proportion is as much as 25 per cent. While they have a substantial reserve of labour, so have we. We are discovering this now, for whenever a machine is not operating to its full capacity or when there are more men manning it than are required for its efficient operation, we have idle reserves of labour on which to draw.
  In the North-East, Merseyside, Northern Ireland, Stockton and other areas there is a regrettably high degree of unemployment. There are reserves of labour waiting to be tapped, to be drawn on, diverted and directed to the newly developing and expanding industries. Obviously we need a crash programme— a positive programme of retraining schemes—to enable these people, who are anxious to work, to acquire new skills so that they may apply their valuable commodity—the labour and skill which is at their finger tips—in that part of the economy which most requires it.
  Industry itself should be more dynamic in providing for these retraining programmes. I should like to see a number of substantial companies getting together and joining forces so that they can jointly organise some kind of retraining project which they, out of their own resources, would be prepared to underwrite.
  My main theme is that we have never feared competition and I am certain that, by and large, British industry is not afraid of it now. Apart from some of the other considerations I have mentioned, those parts of British industry which have hitherto been protected must now urgently prepare themselves for competition by studying the markets which are likely to become increasingly available to them in Europe and elsewhere and by devoting the major part of their management energy to reducing unit manufacturing costs. The degree of efficiency in British industry is the key to the economic aspects of our partnership in the Common Market.
  I am aware that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has a long speech to make and I hope that he will forgive me if I trespass slightly into his time. I do so to say a word about the political aspects. Originally, as I understand it, the main aim of the founders
  1268
  of the European movement was to try to bring France and Germany together. The raison d'etre of the European Coal and Steel Community was so to bind the economies of France and Germany so that they would never again be able to take politically separate paths. This process has been succeeding to a remarkable degree, but they seem to have been moving on to a more adventurous path since that original aim. This new aim has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members who have referred to it as the "concept of the third force".
  I am not altogether happy about this idea. I do not want to see a great and powerful unit rising in Europe as a rival to the United States and the Soviet Union. More important than rivalling the United States is that we should maintain the closest possible association and links in Europe with America. I hope, therefore, that the third force concept will change, and I strongly believe that it is already becoming past history. President Kennedy has assisted this in his new trade proposals.
  With the advent of the United Kingdom and other countries as members of me Common Market this process away from the third force concept will be still further accelerated, and with our partnership—if that comes about—the whole nature of the Common Market itself will change. We shall then be dealing with a totally different structure from the one confronting us at the moment. That is why it is inevitable that quite a number of necessary steps which we shall ultimately be required to take will have to be negotiated after we have joined when we see the differing circumstances of which we shall then be a part.
  The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) mentioned that he wanted to see us as part of a wider outward-looking Community, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and others who have said that the mere confrontation of ourselves with the Common Market negotiators has resulted in a change of outlook. Professor Hallstein himself on 17th September at Strasbourg, when saying some very right things about the importance of the Commonwealth, recognised that the view taken of the Community by history would depend in very large part on the

  1269
  success with which its internal development corresponds with its European, Atlantic and world-wide responsibilities. He said:
  "The background of our development is not only wider than the Europe of the Community; it is wider than Europe itself."
  This gives us some hope for the future. I think we shall be nearer to the original Free Trade Area than we might ever have thought possible.
  One question concerns the development of the political institutions. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has stressed that we must allow the political institutions to develop and to evolve. We must take the pragmatic approach. If so, why is it so necessary to have a completely separate treaty for the political union of Europe? I am not completely clear about what will be the main topics of this political treaty, but I hope that when it is considered it will not be too rigid, because I agree with my right hon. Friend and I should like to see these institutions develop naturally over a time.
  Naturally, we would wish to create effective means of controlling permanent officials. France has been accustomed to Government by officialdom. We do not take kindly to that in this country, and rightly so. We have suffered some experience in international organisations of the power of the permanent officials. The United Nations Organisation is a good example. Although we are active members and pay our bills regularly we do not have a strong say in what takes place, and much of the work is initiated by permanent officials.
  During the course of my experiences with the Council of Europe, Western European Union, and now with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I have met many of those active in this movement. I recognise the enthusiasm and spirit in which they are embarking on it and I find it extremely infectious. I hope that they too will see this Common Market as a stage on the road to the much closer co-operation of free peoples throughout the world.
  I supported Her Majesty's Government in the Lobby when they decided to enter these negotiations. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am anxious to reserve my position and to wait and see what the final picture is when the terms have been produced. I am sure that many diffi-
  1270
  culties lie ahead. Perhaps not the least difficulty will be to evaluate the terms when they are finally brought to us the ability accurately to foresee the prospect of greater gains in the future, albeit under changed conditions, which may well have to be bought at the price of temporary setbacks at present. This will be the most difficult aspect for many of us to judge. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of most hon. Members when I say that we are glad to have someone of the skill and pertinacity of my right hon. Friend to guide us in these matters.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I think that this debate for the last two days has justified what was said about it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) this afternoon—that it has been practical, constructive and detailed and has not been a striking of general philosophical attitudes for or against the Market.
  There has still been some misrepresentation, even on the Government Front Bench, about the position of the Opposition on the subject. Perhaps I should first make it clear what our attitude is not. We are emphatically not against the European Economic Community or against the greater unity which has been achieved in Europe in the past few years. We have welcomed it, and we have welcomed it clearly. The first sentence of our policy statement, issued by the National Executive Committee of the party and overwhelmingly accepted by the Labour Party conference at Brighton. reads:
  "The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes that the coming together of the six nations which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry is in the context of Western Europe a step of great significance."
  This is our view. No one in any part of the House will under-rate the work which has been done to guard against the danger of further conflict between France and Germany, which twice in our lifetime has plunged the world into war. We all welcome what they have achieved and what they may achieve. Some time ago I criticised the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the period of his negotiations, for failing to realise what was inspiring the Six and driving them forward. I said that he was approaching

  1271
  these problems with the posture of a greengrocer. But the question, of course, is not what we feel about the Six. It is whether and on what terms we can join the Six.
  The second thing which I have to say is that none of us has said—and if any of us had done so it would have been a complete denial of the whole development of our policy on this issue—that we are against Britain going in. We reject the two extreme points of view— that we must go in at any cost, which is one view, or that we must stay out whatever the terms. Our document makes it clear, and my right hon. Friend repeated it yesterday. I hope that there is no doubt where we stand on this issue. Our position is that if we can get the terms, then we go in.
  The third thing which I must say— and it is perhaps a pity that I need say it, but our position has been misrepresented so much—is that our attitude is not based on national sovereignty. We are not clinging like woad-painted aboriginal Britons to outmoded concepts of national sovereignty. In our first debate in August, 1961, I said:
  "The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1667.]
  That has been our attitude right through.
  Of course we should be willing to surrender national sovereignty to create an effective system of world government for the outlawry of war. We should surrender it gladly for the sake of a comprehensive disarmament agreement. We have made it clear that we would surrender our rights to our so-called independent nuclear deterrent as part of an international treaty preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. This jibe, which has frequently been thrown at us, particularly in the Press, is too cheap. It certainly would not lie in the mouths of right hon. Gentleman opposite to talk about sovereignty after their unequivocal refusal to accept the option clause for the reference of international disputes to the International Court at The Hague. It would not be for them to talk about sovereignty.
  1272
  So much for what we are not saying. Now for what we are saying and what our position really is. We say that we should go in if, and only if, the five conditions which we have laid down are achieved in negotiations. My right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that he feels that these terms could still be obtained, and, as he said, we hope that they are obtained. But we must equally say that on the negotiations so far, on the outline which we have been given, on he terms which were so flatly and brutally put to the Commonwealth Conference, we are nowhere near securing the minimum on any one of the five issues which we have raised. The negotiations in Brussels are one long record of surrender.
  The White Paper of August, which was set against the clear and specific pledges made by the Prime Minister and all his colleagues, was a humiliation for this country. Let us be clear about it. If the situation looked bad at the time of the August White Paper, it has got a good deal worse since. Since Llandudno, the Six have toughened their attitude still further.
  We read the accounts of what happened at Llandudno—Ministers of the Crown stationed on the "prom", glad-handing bewildered delegates to manoeuvre them into supporting entry into the Common Market. What a role for them. There was the last minute flood of Central Office propaganda. There were the buttons which were issued marked "Yes". "Yes" to what? Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will tell us. [Interruption.]I might have guessed that it would be quite impossible to explain to hon. Members opposite the workings of party democracy. It would be like trying to explain the principles of vegetarianism to a tribe of cannibals. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. He was democratically elected to his position by the Marquess of Salisbury, and he lost the confidence of that electoral college within six weeks. I shall not mention the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).
  I hope that the Lord Privy Seal, at least—perhaps he is a little more serious —will tell us what these buttons marked "Yes" meant. Was it "Yes" to entry on any terms? Was it "Yes" to the

  1273
  terms so far negotiated? We were told yesterday that they were only provisional. I do not suppose that anyone really knew at Llandudno what he was saying "Yes" to. They just said "Yes" because they were told to do so.
  The impression created, not least by the Prime Minister—this is the serious aspect of it—was of a Government party falling over itself to get into Europe at almost any price. I should sympathise with the Lord Privy Seal in the impossible negotiating position into which he has been put as a consequence were it not for the fact that he was one of the main organisers of the demonstration. He went along and addressed the agents and told them all about it, telling them to say "Yes".
  Our charge is that the Government began to negotiate at a time of economic crisis in July, 1961, in such a way that the impression was given that we had no alternative way out of economic crisis except entry into Europe. Our charge is that this posture has been maintained throughout. At all times since then the whole range of Ministers' speeches in the country, particularly those of the Prime Minister stressing the political and cold war aspects of his approach, have given the idea that we are determined to go in at virtually any price. How can the Lord Privy Seal negotiate on that basis? No one could negotiate the purchase or sale of a chip shop on a basis like that.
  I come now to the five conditions. I shall not repeat all that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. As regards the E.F.T.A. I say only this. We think —we hope—that we got from the Lord Privy Seal yesterday a clear repetition of the pledge. We take it from what he said—the Lord Privy Seal will make it clear if I misrepresent him—that Britain will not enter the Common Market or make any commitment or irrevocable step in that direction unless and until—I stress the word "until" because there is an important question of timing—our E.F.T.A. partners are satisfied that their legitimate interests have been met in their own bilateral negotiations whether for full membership or associate membership. I should like the Lord Privy Seal to tell us if we have got that right.
  1274
  Secondly, on economic planning, I am not going to repeat all the anxieties we have expressed in previous debates, but we are concerned about three things. First, the distribution of industry. We are anxious—I hope that we are wrong about this—lest the system that we have today of location certificates, inducements and all the rest, inadequate though it is and even more inadequately implemented by the Government, will be inoperable under the Treaty of Rome. I hope we shall be told about this. There is no power, as far as I can see, left to our Government under the Treaty of Rome to prevent take-overs by foreign interests which the Government might consider undesirable. I do not want to raise unnecessary bogies. It is only too easy here. But is it possible, under the Treaty of Rome, for the firm of Krupps, which should not have been allowed to raise its ugly head again in Germany anyhow, to come here and take over a vital British steel or engineering firm without any power of intervention by the Government? If that is so, I should be even more worried.
  The next point concerns our anxieties about our balance of payments. We are genuinely concerned that some of the terms of the Treaty of Rome make it impossible for any Government—Tory, Labour or any other kind—to take the action necessary if we should get into balance of payments difficulties, particularly when there is free movement of capital, and, perhaps, at a very tricky time, soon after we enter the Market, if some of our Sterling Area partners should decide—which I hope they will not do—that we have written them off and want to cash their sterling into some other currency.
  We have been told that we can nationalise steel and that coal will remain nationalised, but there is all the difference in the world between the form of public ownership and the substance of it—the right to nationalise and the right to use nationalisation as an instrument of national planning. That is what we want to know. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us? Is it a fact that the Six have objected to the structure of the National Coal Board, and that we may be forced back to setting district against district in some move to stimulate competition? Is it a fact that even the Steel Board, that

  1275
  shadowy and useless substitute for national ownership which this Government set up, will have to go if we join the Common Market? I was worried when I read a few weeks ago that Dr. Erhard, who has been a good friend towards Britain's entry, said at Russel-heim on 15th August last:
  "A nationally planned economy is incompatible with membership of the Common Market."
  Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will tell us. I wonder whether members of a Tory Government would be able to follow a Tory planning policy. We are not very sure. Could they, without challenge, impose the 7 per cent. Bank Rate midway between General Elections, which is a vital element in their economic planning? We got it for four years; enough deflation, enough elbow room to make reflationary handouts look respectable in the twelve months before an election.
  Thirdly, I come to agriculture. Neither the Lord Privy Seal nor the Minister of Agriculture has achieved a fraction of what, in June, they regarded as their minimum terms. The August breakdown was bad enough, but last week's was even worse. Let us be quite clear about this. What we are up against here is not the Treaty of Rome; it is the agricultural policy and structure agreed upon last February. I cannot find any enthusiasm for this Common Market agricultural structure even among strong supporters of the Common Market. I do not think that anyone can regard this as anything but a monstrosity. This agricultural system is not a system of free trade but of market rigging and manipulation dependent upon entirely untried methods and untried men. It can fairly be said that the industrial part of the Treaty of Rome is, if we like, free trade over a limited area, and there is nothing to stop it being outward looking. But the agricultural system—this is not free trade. It is mercantilism on a European scale. How does the Liberal Party feel about it? I must tell its members that the inspiration of the agricultural system of the Common Market is not Adam Smith or Cobden, or any of their heroes. It is pure Schacht. Last June, the Minister of Agriculture proclaimed in ringing tones all he was going to demand in the negotiations. I will not quote what he said; it would not be kind. He said three
  1276
  times that we must get a period of adjustment and that deficiency payments would continue. He made those remarks in columns 596 and 597.
  What is the position now? There is very great doubt about the production grants. It is very doubtful whether we shall be allowed even to have hill farming subsidies and the rest unless they are agreed on for the whole European area. It is virtually certain that fertiliser subsidies will go. The Minister of Agriculture entirely failed to answer our questions about whether even the marketing board system could remain. What did he tell us? He said that there would be room for marketing boards. Of course there will be room, but are there going to be marketing boards? Is the right hon. Gentleman banging the table at Brussels and saying, "There are going to be marketing boards or else"? This is the way in which he should be negotiating.
  There will be no guaranteed markets and no deficiency payments and not even a period of transitional assistance. The right hon. Gentleman may say a lot about his little consolation prize. They have given him his annual review. But there is no guarantee that action will follow it. He was very vague about this. He is committed to the proposition, because he said on 6th June that a review without action is meaningless. He also said:
  "An annual review is not an end in itself." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 606.]
  He told us then all the grave things which would follow the review.
  I put this to the Lord Privy Seal and to the Minister of Agriculture. Suppose that farm incomes were to fall between one little review and the next. Would action follow? The Lord Privy Seal yesterday made a great deal in the Commonwealth context about this concept of the "reasonable price" for foodstuffs, whatever that may mean. But suppose that a "reasonable price" is fixed for these agricultural commodities at a level which, as the Government hope, will mean some continuance of imports from the outside world. Suppose we get that reasonable price and suppose that the Minister of Agriculture's annual review shows that farming incomes are below a reasonable level,

  1277
  what will happen? Will prices be raised? Obviously, he hopes so. But what happens if they are raised to what the Lord Privy Seal considers to be an unreasonable level?
  This is the whole problem. We are trying to run an agricultural policy on the basis of a single price, and we cannot do it. The whole basis of our agricultural policy for the past fifteen years has been that, for this country apart from Europe, there is no reasonable price, no single price which allows in a fair proportion of imports from the Commonwealth and elsewhere and at the same time provides adequate standards for the farming community in this country.
  For fifteen years we have operated a two-price system—a higher price for British farmers with a lower price for imports from the Commonwealth. We have bridged the two prices—'under the Labour Government by guaranteed markets and under the Conservative Government by deficiency payments. The essence of these negotiations is that the two-price system must go. We must have a single price system, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that it cannot work. He has not even secured interim arrangements for cushioning the shock.
  This brings me to the problem of the Commonwealth. This has been very fully dealt with in the debate and I shall not go over the facts so clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. GaitskeM) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Our Amendment, which shows a great deal more courage than the Government's Motion because, after Llandudno, they have gone right back to their resolution of August, 1961, says that
  "…the terms so far provisionally negotiated do not satisfy either these conditions"—
  that is, our five points—
  "or the binding pledges given by Her Majesty's Government."
  Can right hon. Members opposite deny that they have gone back on every pledge that they have given about the Commonwealth?
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend referred to possible elections. Let us be clear about what Ministers said on this
  1278
  subject before the last election, the arguments with which they won their votes. The Prime Minister said:
  "I do not believe that this House would ever agree to our entering arrangements which, as a matter of principle, would prevent our treating the great range of imports from the Commonwealth at least as favourably as those from the European countries."
  Yet the arrangement that the Lord Privy Seal has made is one of outright discrimination in favour of Europe and against the Commonwealth. No hon. Member can deny this. The Prime Minister went on:
  "We must remain free to continue to grant to this great volume of imports the preferential arrangements we have built up over the last twenty-five years."
  Are we now free to do what the Prime Minister said?
  Or let us take the Minister of Defence, when he was President of the Board of Trade. He said:
  "We cannot enter into a Customs union because that would mean that we should have to put up tariffs, where no tariffs exist today, against a whole range of Commonwealth goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 37–155.]
  That was the Minister of Defence. Or what about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was at the Board of Trade, who said:
  "As the House is aware, we have given a clear undertaking to the Commonwealth countries to maintain their position in our markets for foodstuffs, drink and tobacco."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 793.]
  Does the Lord Privy Seal think that we have maintained their position in our markets for foodstuffs, drink and tobacco?
  Again, let us take the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said only a few months before the last election:
  "I cannot conceive that any Government of this country would put forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of Commonwealth free entry. It would be wrong for us and for the whole free world to adopt a policy of new duties on foodstuffs and raw materials, many of which come from underdeveloped countries, at present entering a major market duty-free."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1381.]
  That is a clear and solemn pledge made by a Minister of the Crown and that was the kind of guff that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were talking at the last election. That is what they got their votes for saying.

  1279
  Of course, there was a more recent pledge by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at his party's conference last year, and he repeated it in similar terms in June this year. This was the theme of the party opposite that we would not—we could not—surrender the principle of free entry for Commonwealth foodstuffs and raw materials; we could not dismantle preferences.
  That was where the Lord Privy Seal started from in his negotiations. The preference horse, however, fell at the first fence. So the Government backed another. They backed comparable outlets as the way out. If Commonwealth countries were to lose some of their market here, they would be compensated by an equivalent increase in their sales to Europe. This was the theme of the Lord Privy Seal's speech of 10th October, 1961, paragraph 45.
  That horse went down, too. Now we hear nothing about comparable outlets. Then we backed commodity agreements. That is fine. We on this side have always pressed for commodity agreements. We took the initiative when we were the Government against fairly strong American opposition. We insisted on the drafting of Chapter VI of the Havana Charter on inter-governmental commodity agreements. I had a lot to do with the first drafting of the International Wheat Agreement. As late as last February, however, the present Government were voting against commodity agreements at the G.A.T.T. conference in Geneva.
  We on this side want commodity agreements. There is no guarantee, however, that we shall get them. Merely to say that we want them will not give them to us. Other countries are involved besides the Six; there is the United States. Certainly there is no prospect of getting commodity agreements before the negotiations are supposed to reach finality. If that is so, if we have whittled down these solemn pledges made by the Prime Minister— which I quoted before the right hon. Gentleman was able to join us, as he has now done—and there is no more than a vague hope for commodity agreements, why are we dismantling our defences before we get them? Why give away the card of preferences before we are sure of getting these?
  1280
  As I have reminded the House before, commodity agreements do not solve the problems. The Government are still involved in the International Sugar Agreement, but everybody agreed that that agreement did not provide the guarantees required by West Indian and other sugar producers. On top of that we had to put the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Lord Privy Seal has never told us whether we shall be able to carry on with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement if we join the Treaty of Rome. Has he negotiated this yet? Is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement one of the fish that he has landed safe and dry on to the bank? There are not many of them, but we hope that he has got this one.
  Where do the Commonwealth negotiations stands? We have been promised —this was the great thing offered to us yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal—a reasonable price policy. The Six have generously said that their price policy will be reasonable. The idea is that if the price for wheat, dairy produce and other commodities is low enough, there will be a margin for third countries to export into Europe—and, of course Commonwealth countries will be able to scramble for their share of this. But how low is such a reasonable price? On a single price system—I come back to the point I was making about the in-operability of a system of this kind— when the price is low enough, if it is reasonable enough for the Lord Privy Seal's definition, to allow a continuance of Commonwealth imports, the Minister of Agriculture will have apoplexy, because it is far too low to meet the requirements of the farmers. He is counting on a high price. He told us so in June.
  The Lord Privy Seal has secured his negotiating triumph, but all he has got, after twelve months of negotiation, and after the solemn pledges I have read from the Prime Minister just now, is a form of words that they will allow us to pursue a reasonable price policy. Did he expect the Six to say they would be unreasonable about the price policy? Has he got so much? A brilliant negotiator always says he will be reasonable. The Chinese have just asked India to stop resisting aggression and to start negotiating reasonable terms. Would any hon. Member, buying a second-hand

  1281
  car, or a house, would one of the growing number of hon. Members involved in mergers and take-over struggles, drop his guard and dismantle his defences in return for a promise by his negotiating partner that he will be reasonable about the price he was going to be paid? Of course they would not. Not one of us would do that in his private life. But the right hon. Gentleman would. He did. In the Yorkshire phrase, "They saw him coming."
  I hope he will tell us tonight what would be a reasonable price for wheat, because everybody who knows these figures knows perfectly well that if we get a price for wheat somewhere near the European price this will be as much as 12½ per cent. above the British farmer's price, and it would mean an increase of anything between £10 and £13 per ton—and the right hon. Gentleman said it was inconceivable that this House could ever agree to scrapping the free entry of Commonwealth products.
  So with all this uncertainty, with nothing at all secure for the permanent basis after 1970, and with virtually nothing for the transitional period up to 1970, why, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, why give away his one negotiating card and agree to scrap the preference system and to scrap free entry till he has got something in return? This is not negotiation. This is unilateral disarmament.
  The same applies to the whole question of Asian manufactured exports: give away the principle and try to salve a few reassuring words about the future. I understand that the Hong Kong talks are starting tomorrow and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about them. These words about exports have no gold backing. The right way to ensure gold backing for them is to hold on to one's negotiating card till promises are matched by performance.
  Independent foreign policy I shall refer to only very briefly. It was dealt with by my right hon. Friend. We are very worried about the Government's ambivalence on this. It is not only causing concern in this country but it may lead to grave charges of bad faith in Europe if we go into a federation which is moving quickly to political union and then, after we have got there, we start dragging our feet over political union.
  1282
  The Government have blown hot and cold. On the eve of the Conservative Party Conference the Prime Minister's pamphlet—an extraordinary thing to do on the eve of a conference—played it down; but after his speech which followed that "Yes" he played it up, but there is no doubt in the minds of many of our European friends that to join the Common Market does mean a commitment towards federation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I have already quoted, and who spent the best years of his life negotiating in Europe, was never in any doubt. A few months before the election he said that
  "…we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal, political federation in Europe, including ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.]
  The Times,in a leader on 18th October, regarded it as axiomatic that joining the Common Market would mean some form of European Government, and it said:
  "With the power to formulate a common foreign policy this in turn will have to be supported by a common strategy."
  Is the House really ready to surrender the right to our independent foreign policy?
  The mere fact that we were not consulted over Cuba does not mean that an independent foreign policy for Britain is already dead. As I argued last week, that was merely a measure of where the Government have brought this country. We have a rôle to play in issues going far beyond Europe. In the past we have looked at the problems—African and Asian problems, becoming more important every day—not through European eyes but through eyes whose vision has been sharpened by years of active partnership in the greatest multi-racial system in the world. That is what is at risk now.
  Before I conclude I want to refer to one myth which has been brought out, that of the declining Commonwealth. Commonwealth imports are rising. It is our ability to hold our market there which has been at fault. From 1953 to 1960 Australia increased her imports to us by 83 per cent., but Britain's exports to Australia rose by only 22 per cent. India increased her imports to us by 57 per cent., but our exports to her rose by only 32 per cent., despite the fact that

  1283
  loans in her case were tied to purchases in this country. Pakistan increased her imports to us by 86 per cent., while Britain's exports to her increased by only 22 per cent. The fault lies not in the Commonwealth but in ourselves.
  That is why if the terms are unacceptable to us we have a real job to do in mounting a determined export drive to the Commonwealth. We must have a link with other Governments at governmental level in their Commonwealth development plans and must by every means open to a modern government recast our industrial development so that we get less expansion in the soft-centre industries and more in the hard-centre industries which are capable of making goods which the Commonwealth wants and for which so often Commonwealth countries turn to Germany, Japan and the United States.
  The other thing that we have to do if the terms are unacceptable is to look at trade problems not on a narrow European basis but on an Atlantic basis— indeed, on a free world basis. I commend to the House the report by Mr. Herter and Mr. Clayton published a year ago in the United States. If we could have something on those lines bringing in the Commonwealth and Latin America—the whole free world—we should be on the right lines. We hear about the economic value of a market of 200 million people. What about a market provided by 1,200 million people?
  I hope that, in viewing the future, the Government will realise that one card that we have in our hands if Europe turns us down, if the terms are unacceptable, as that we have still to go to G.A.T.T. Do not let us forget that, because the agriculture proposals of the Six are absolutely contrary to the whole letter and spirit of G.A.T.T. and can go through only if they have the support of ourselves and others.
  Finally—perhaps I should refer to this —the challenge of the European negotiations was the theme of the Prime Minister's speech at Llandudno. We read it with interest. He said, "We are to be the leaders of change. We must make the best use of our brains and of the traditional skill of our people." How could he say that when skilled craftsmen
  1284
  are unemployed in increasing numbers, when school leavers in wide areas of the country are unable to get jobs which will enable them to be trained for skill, and many of them cannot even get jobs at all, when scientists are emigrating in droves to America and when world class scientists are seeking jobs at the employment exchanges?
  We must accept change. We have said that. I said it at the T.U.C. conference this year. We have stressed it on this side of the House in every economic debate in the last few years. We have heard before from the right hon. Gentleman about change. We were heartened five years ago to hear his speech about the "wind of change" in Africa. What have the Government done about the "wind of change" in Africa?—Arms to South Africa, the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, Northern Rhodesia, Katanga, and Pilate washing his hands over Portuguese atrocities in Angola and Mozambique. [Interruption.] This has everything to do with the Common Market.
  No one will deny that the change at home, to which the Prime Minister referred, is relevant to the Common Market. Change at home means more than nostalgic perorations about how bad unemployment used to be in Stockton under the Tories. In any case, Stockton opted for its change in 1945 when it threw the Prime Minister out. But, no, the right hon. Gentleman tells us—I quote him—"As a nation we are too set in our ways. We are too apt to cling to old privileges. We are too apt to fear new methods. We are often too unwilling to abandon old practices which have outlived their usefulness." That is true—such as appointing one's nephews' and in-laws to Government posts. That may not matter in this Government. I do not think it does. I do not think it either raises or lowers the level of the average quality of the Government. But it matters when it is happening in British industry or when qualified young men are being held back by the prevalence of industrial nepotism.
  The Prime Minister calls for am attack on privilege. There was no sign of an attack on privilege in the Gracious Speech; on fiscal privilege where a favoured few, by one legal means or another, are able to evade their fair share of taxation—the farce of capital gains.

  1285
  Are the Government going to change what a Tory delegate at Llandudno called this "property developing plutocracy ", this stop-go system, red light after 'the election and green light in the last twelve months?
  The Prime Minister's indictment of our economic and social system is the most telling indictment that I have read of Tory society and Tory freedom. This is Britain alter eleven years of Tory Government more than half of it, God forgive us, under the right hon. Gentleman. We all of us know that the change that we need is a change that must come in this country, in our industry. We agree about that. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is no more dangerous illusion than the thought that entry into Europe is going to be a gimmick solving all our economic problems, giving us back our lost economic dynamic.
  All of us know that that dynamic will come only from our own efforts in industry and our policies in this House. If we make the changes we have nothing to fear whether.inside or outside Europe, but, if we fail, the only choice is whether we are to be a backwater inside Europe or outside Europe. Change we need, and here we agree, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that the first prerequisite is that a change must be made in the leadership given to this country.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): This debate was described, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as an interim debate in these negotiations. It has covered a great deal of general ground. I hope that the House will feel that it has been given a considerable amount of information and that we can counter the charge either that the House of Commons is being kept in the dark or that the people of this country have not been given a detailed account of the negotiations or heard a full discussion about them.
  We have come to the conclusion of the debate with the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Those who heard his speech on foreign affairs in the debate on the Address last week may, perhaps, have noticed a considerable contrast between
  1286
  that and his speech tonight, but then, of course, last week was before the election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] The frivolity of the right hon. Gentleman's approach tonight is hardly worthy of what he has described as one of the greatest issues of the day.
  The right hon. Gentleman decided to describe the position of the Labour Party. What we have heard in the debate has been a number of speeches describing the position of the Labour Party. First of all, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader, and then that of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) last night—a quite different speech from that of the right hon Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) this afternoon and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman tonight. What the House must realise is that all the speeches, with the exception of that of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, have followed the same pattern—the pattern of saying what a magnificent conception the European Economic Community is, and of then going on to say that they disapprove of its commercial policy, they disapprove of its agricultural policy, they wish to have nothing to do with it politically, and, finally, putting forward alternative arrangements which they say they would much prefer. How, then, can hon. Members opposite, in all honesty, support their Amendment, in which they say that they want to go into the European Community?
  The value of the debate has been that a large number of hon. Members have been able to make clear the importance which they attach to many of these great issues and, in particular, points for the future negotiations. Quite what the right hon. Member for Huyton expects to gain from so much criticism of matters which have not yet been negotiated, I cannot understand, especially since the right hon. Member for Belper was urging us not to hurry unduly in these negotiations and to take our time about them. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Huyton would confine his criticisms to matters which have been negotiated.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have emphasised points which are of great value, and that is as it should be, and the countries of Europe, the Commission and those negotiating must take notice

  1287
  of the views which the House has expressed and realise how essential it is that the arrangements we negotiate should be acceptable to Parliament. Right hon. and hon. Members have emphasised the importance of the transitional arrangements, the phasing out, the individual commodity arrangements— which have still to be negotiated —the Commonwealth arrangements for New Zealand and the Asian members, the alternative arrangements to association, the importance of dried and canned fruit to Australia, and many other matters.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton referred to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and to the Conservative Party Conference. There must be no misunderstanding about these two conferences. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers said clearly that the decision rests with the United Kingdom. They made clear the points of importance to them and they will make their final judgment when the picture is complete. They have had many opportunities themselves of discussing these matters with Ministers of the Six and these conversations have been of the greatest value in the negotiations. I have set out the whole position following the Commonwealth Conference and the members of the Community must be fully aware of the importance of it. But let there be no mistake, either, about the conference at Llandudno.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton said that the Government were determined to go in at any price and that the Conservative Party Conference endorsed that view. Nothing could be further from the truth and he has no justification for saying it. The Government will adhere to their pledges and about that I wish to say something more later.
  Members of the public had said that they wished to hear a discussion about the background issues to these negotiations—the reasons as to why we should or should not become members of the Community. In the party conferences there was full discussion. The Prime Minister, in his speech at Llandudno, and in his pamphlet, set out the broad issues, and quite rightly so. What the Llandudno conference did was to show that there is a desire by the majority of
  1288
  the Conservative Party to play its part in Europe if it is possible. What that conference also did was to show that there is a will to do so provided proper arrangements can be made.
  If there are any in Europe who doubted the will for success, those doubts must have been dispelled. At the same time, there must be no doubt about the requirements for success in these negotiations. I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and others by saying that there has been no whittling down of the Government's pledges, that they must be met if these negotiations are to be successful, and that they can only be met if the wild is there from all those taking part in the negotiations.
  Mr. H. Wilson: What about free entry?
  Mr. Heath: I will deal with that in a moment.
  This is an interim debate and as such it places anybody who is negotiating in a peculiar position, to say the least. As the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, we are here to be criticised. I have no objection to that. We are completely vulnerable to criticism, because one cannot, in the middle of negotiations, very often explain the reasons why particular steps have been taken because of the influence on further stages of the negotiations.
  Perhaps it is worth noticing, in passing, that those with whom we are negotiating —and the hon. Member for Leeds, East said that he wished to do everything to strengthen our hand—are not being pressed by their Parliaments. In fact, none of them has been pressed to give a detailed account of these negotiations, or to explain its negotiating position, or to say what steps it proposes to take. I have no objection to this debate, but those Who are criticising the negotiating position might recall that.
  Of course, it is easy for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Huyton to deal with this. All they have to say is, "Look how much better we would have done it!". It is easy to say, "Look how tough we would have been if we had been there! Look how tough we have been in every other international

  1289
  difficulty which has arisen over the past eight years! Look how persuasive we would have been if we had been there! Just look at the success of our mission to Brussels with our Socialist colleagues!". The meeting almost broke up in disorder. They are no longer on speaking terms. The Socialists do not come to London for their meetings. That is the persuasion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Of course, it was not what he said. He has said it before. It was the way that he said it. He knows perfectly well that that is true and it is true of so many things that he says, and we have often seen it in the past. The words on the paper are one thing, but it is the way that he says them and the emotion which lies behind them—and he knows it and we have often seen it. He knows that if he had made the opening speech in these negotiations as he spoke at Brussels, the negotiations themselves would never have begun.
  The right hon. Gentleman now says that he detects signs of firmness in us over agriculture. If this is an attempt to drive a wedge between ourselves and the Commonwealth by implying that we are prepared to stand up for our own interests, but not for those of the Commonwealth, there could not be a more mischievous statement by the right hon. Gentleman. He will not find very much support for that among the Commonwealth representatives in Brussels. When the history of these negotiations comes to be written, I have no fears about the verdict on the way the British negotiators have conducted these negotiations in the interests of Britain, the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.
  But, of course, one can expect this and it is all in the day's work. During the early years of the last century, Sir James Stephen was asked how he got on with Whig Ministers. He replied:
  "You may write off the first joint of your fingers for them, and then you may write off the second joint, and all that they will say of you is, 'What a remarkably short-fingered man the fellow is' ".
  The right hon. Gentleman asked a question about capital movements. We have discussed this with the Commission. We discussed it in the context of the economic union.
  1290
  The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) asked how we had covered roughly two-thirds of the negotiations. I must tell her that we have covered the whole of the economic union arrangements, in addition to the whole of the African, West Indian and dependent Commonwealth arrangements, as well as almost all the Asian arrangements and little less than half of the old Commonwealth arrangements. The remainder and our own agriculture have to be done. Article 67 of the Treaty provides for the progressive abolition between members of restrictions on the movement of capital so far as is necessary to ensure the functioning of the Market.
  Two directives have been issued so far. We are satisfied that to comply with the two directives our present methods will need to be altered only in respect of a few items. No major points of principle are involved in the ground we have covered. After the accession to the Community, if that comes about, we should then have a voice in the timing and scope of any further measures of liberalisation as far as capital measures are concerned.
  Perhaps I might now turn to the points raised by several right hon. and hon. Members. They were many raised by the right hon. Member for Belper this afternoon. At one stage he said, "Let us abandon this idea of being a supplicant", and I think that the right hon. Gentleman said the same thing. Perhaps there is a linguistic misunderstanding here. Both the right hon. Gentlemen, having been to Brussels and heard a great deal of talk about suppliant and suppleant,may not realise that suppliant is not a supplicant, but is a deputy who is acting—[Interruption.]If that is not the case, I accept it, but it is the only possible explanation of how the right hon. Gentleman could ever make such a suggestion.
  Mr. H. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Heath: No, I will not give way.
  The right hon. Member for Belper asked about the deadline and the timing and said, "Do not worry about the timetable". There has been no deadline, and there will be no deadline, but I must again point out to the right hon.

  1291
  Gentleman that there are important matters of timing in this.
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can really discount uncertainty as much as he has done. It is of great importance to industry here, and to the Commonwealth and Europe. At the same time, this is a rapidly developing Community, and until the negotiations are completed we cannot play a part in its development. It is, therefore, of great importance that, commensurate with thoroughness, we should bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion as speedily as possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked that no attempt should be made to put across an outline as to the final negotiations. That will certainly not be the case, because we are now negotiating all the details required for a final settlement.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about voting rights. These can only be settled at the end, when the pattern of full membership is seen, and that involves all the E.F.T.A. obligations. It is not yet the appropriate time to have preliminary discussions, but, as regards the right hon. Gentleman's question about E.F.T.A., I repeat that we adhere to the E.F.T.A. pledges which are clearly set out in the London communique, and in the Geneva communique of July last year.
  There were a number of agricultural points. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 1957 Act. We have already stated there that it is to be maintained for the life of this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman rather trailed his coat by asking, "Does this involve amendment?" The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition revealed his interest in any election pointers which he may be able to discern in this. I do not intend to be drawn into this matter, nor to say what sort of amendments might be required to come into effect after the life of this Parliament in accordance with any changes which we negotiate within the common agricultural policy.
  There was repeated the question about the Milk Marketing Board. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture dealt with these boards this afternoon and said that in principle these are not incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. The Government believe in the useful
  1292
  functioning of these boards, but we cannot go further than that in defining their precise role in the common agricultural policy until the regulations governing liquid milk have been drafted, discussed, and negotiated.
  The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) put forward a number of constructive suggestions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). These are valuable in the context of the negotiations, especially about the transitional period, and also in the way in which the transitional period should later be handled.
  There were also a number of questions about the levies. This is a complicated matter, governed by Articles 200 and 201 of the Treaty. The House will not expect me to go into the complicated legal aspects of this matter at the moment, but the regulation provides that the proceeds shall be the property of the Community in the Common Market stage. There are other arrangements in the transitional period. These proceeds will, with other resources, be available for appropriation. We have fully accepted this.
  The question of the relationship between the various sources of revenue and the expenditure of the Community, and the proportions to be borne between the various members, remains to be worked out. It is governed by the procedures of the Treaty. It would be a brave man who tried to forecast now what the financial arrangements of the Community—its budget—would look like in 1970. Therefore, I cannot forecast that or comment upon it.
  Many Commonwealth points were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) emphasised, in his very vivid description, the position of New Zealand and Australia. Many hon. Members have raised the question of New Zealand. This is to be negotiated in this phase of the negotiations, but, as I explained yesterday, it will come after the general arrangements have been negotiated, so that it may be seen what the additional requirements of New Zealand are.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that there should be a policy of building up Euro-Africa. With great respect to him and his knowledge of these matters,

  1293
  the concept of Euro-Africa, as such, is not one which appeals to many African countries, including the Commonwealth countries. On the other hand, through Association there is the possibility of widening the association of many countries in Africa.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) asked whether we are negotiating for the Commonwealth as a whole or only for its dependencies. We are negotiating for trading arrangements in the United Kingdom as a member of the European Economic Community, for the dependencies and for the independent countries of the Commonwealth, although where there is provision for trade agreements these will later be negotiated direct between the Commonwealth countries and the enlarged Community.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether association had been considered for Commonwealth countries. Yes—but none of the Commonwealth countries has asked for association under Article 238 of the Treaty, to which I presume my hon. Friend was referring. It is, however, being considered by one, Cyprus, because she is not eligible for association under Part IV, being a European country.
  Perhaps I may now say something about the comments upon the terms so far negotiated. These have not been discussed in very great detail, and it is notable that none of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has put forward any specific alternative arrangements to deal with these particular problems.
  Let me take up, first, the question of the renegotiation of the Treaty. It is the attitude of some—I think it is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Huyton—that the first thing we should have done when we applied for membership of the Community was to apply for the book of rules and tell them that we would rewrite it, after which we would be prepared to join the Community. The hon. Member for Penistone took that view. There has never been a possibility of renegotiating the Treaty of Rome. The position is that one applies for membership and negotiates special provisions under protocols. It has never been a possibility, in the judgment of the E.F.T.A. countries, to renegotiate the Treaty of Rome.
  1294
  In paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Paris statement I said that we accepted the Treaty of Rome and wished to negotiate only protocols. It is, therefore, somewhat unusual that at this stage it should be said that we are not making this plain. Similarly, in Paris—paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Paris statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Free entry."] I shall deal with free entry. The pledges of the Government to the Commonwealth are set out in the Motion passed on 3rd August last year—to safeguard the special interests of the Commonwealth.
  What we are doing in these negotiations is finding ways of safeguarding those interests commensurate with the Treaty of Rome. This is, in some ways, a most important point, because the right hon. Gentleman is asking for things which are not compatible with the Treaty of Rome. These were not the pledges. The pledges in these negotiations are to safeguard the special interests of the Commonwealth, agriculture and E.F.T.A.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell rose—
  Mr. Heath: I cannot give way at this time.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he deal with one point? What about the Moroccan type of agreement which allows the free entry of goods from Morocco and Tunis into France? Could not that have been applied to the Commonwealth as far as we are concerned?
  Mr. Heath: The "Morocco protocol" is designed and set out in the protocol of those countries which are to move on to associate membership of the Community. It may well be that in certain cases the Moroccan protocol is suitable and will be negotiated, but it is not suitable for those countries which are not able or which do not wish to move on to associate membership. There are many points in these negotiations to be examined in this way.
  It was stated that we asked for association for all the Commonwealth. I would point out that we deliberately did so, although we already had been told that certain countries, such as India, did not

  1295
  wish to have it. We did it to keep it open right across the front so that all could see the details of the new Convention. When it became dear that India did not wish it we did not go on arguing for it across the board. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Nigeria?"] Nigeria has had the offer of it. Only after the offer was made did she decide that she did not want it.
  Many other points have been raised, but time does not permit me to deal with them. Proposals for alternative arrangements were made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East, first that there should be a general conference to deal with the reduction of industrial tariffs. That will happen under the Kennedy Round. Secondly, that there should be a conference to open up all the industrial markets to cheap goods from the developing countries and to their raw materials and foodstuffs. The fact is that they want higher prices for their raw materials and foodstuffs and not lower ones. We have had the Geneva conference on textiles which has dealt with this question. Thirdly, that we should have a world commodity agreement arranged between the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. It seems that the hon. Member for Leeds, East is prepared, in a general sense, to accept something which has already been agreed in a detailed sense.
  There is also the political aspect of this and, again, there is little time to deal with this matter. However, it is in some ways most important because of the difference in the sort of Europe we want to see. We want to see a Europe with a strong group of countries as members, with the neutral countries associated with it and with its connections through the world, through the Commonwealth and through the associated countries of the other members of the Community.
  We want it to have power and influence because we believe that the voice of Europe should be heard in the councils of the world. It was the remarkable maiden speech of my hon. Friend for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) which underlined this point. It is the achievement of a wider Europe in this sense, working more and more closely together—despite the difficulties of coordinating foreign policies—which we want to see. It is because there is this aspect, in addition to the economic aspects which we have so often discussed, that we wish to work for success in these negotiations.
  Question put,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided:Ayes 319, Noes 221.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Brewis, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SlrWalter

  Crawley, Aidan

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Allason, James

  Brooman-White, R.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Curran, Charles

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bryan, Paul

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Buck, Antony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Barber, Anthony

  Bullard, Denys

  Dance, James

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Barter, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Batsford, Brian

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Bell, Ronald

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Doughty, Charles

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cary, Sir Robert

  du Cann, Edward

  Bidgood, John C.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Biffen, John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Eden, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Emery, Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooke, Robert

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cooper, A. E.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bossom, Clive

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Farey-jones, F. W.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Cordle, John

  Farr, John

  Box, Donald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Boyle, Sir James

  Coulson, Michael

  Forrest, George

  Braine, Bernard

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Foster, John

  Fraser,Rt.Hon.Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

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

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Freeth, Denzil

  Longbottom, Charles

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Gammans, Lady

  Longden, Gilbert

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Gardner, Edward

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Roots, William

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Russell, Ronald

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  St. Clair, M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaren, Martin

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gough, Frederick

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Shepherd, William

  Gresham Cooke, R.

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

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

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Smithers, Peter

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Gurden, Harold

  Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macpherson.Rt.Hon.Niall(Dumfries)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maddan, Martin

  Speir, Rupert

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mar am, Major Sir Frank

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Stodart, J. A.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Marten, Neil

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hastings, Stephen

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hay, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Talbot, John E.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, Ray

  Tapsell, Peter

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hendry, Forbes

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

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Mills, Stratton

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Teellng, Sir William

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Temple, John M.

  Hobson, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Morgan, William

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, John

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hollingworth, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Holt, Arthur

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hooson, H. E.

  Neave, Airey

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Alan

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Turner, Colin

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  van straubenzee, W. R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  James, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Partridge, E.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wade, Donald

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Peel, John

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Walder, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Pickthorn, sir Kenneth

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Webster, David

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pitman, Sir James

  Whitelaw, William

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Kirk, Peter

  Pott, Percivall

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lambton, Viscount

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Leavey, J. A.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woollam, John

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Pym, Francis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ramsden, James

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rees, Hugh

  Mr. Finlay.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Awbery, Stan

  Benson, Sir George

  Ainsley, William

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Blackburn, F.

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Blyton, William

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  1298

  1299

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. w. (Leics.S.W.)

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bowles, Frank

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Boyden, James

  Hoy, James H.

  Price, J. T. (Westh ughton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Probert, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hunter, A. E.

  Rankin, John

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D-

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Redhead, E. c.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rhodes, H.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Callaghan, James

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jeger, George

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Collick, Precy

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ross, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Cronin, John

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kelley, Richard

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Small, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ledger, Ron

  Snow, Julian

  Deer, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Diamond, John

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Steele, Thomas

  Dodds, Norman

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stonehouse, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stones, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McCann, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Edelman, Maurice

  MacDermot, Niall

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Evans, Albert

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taverne, D.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Finch, Harold

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Manuel, Archie

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mapp, Charles

  Thornton, Ernest

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marsh, Richard

  Timmons, John

  Forman, J. c.

  Mason, Roy

  Tomney, Frank

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Warbey, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, Tudor

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Milne, Edward

  Weitzman, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, william (Walsall, N.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Monslow, Walter

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moody, A. S.

  Whitlock William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Morris, John

  Wigg, George

  Grey, Charles

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilkins, W.A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams LI. (Abertillery)

  Gunter, Ray

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oram, A. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hannan, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willis, E. G. (Edinbrugh, E.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Owen, Will

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Padley, W. E.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Healey, Denis

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Parker, John

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Parkin, B. T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Short and

  Holman, Percy

  Peart, Frederick

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms its decision of 3rd August, 1961, and urges Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to bring the negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

    PROCEDURE
    Select Committee appointed to consider any matters which may be referred to them by the House relating to the procedure in the public business of the House:
    Mr. John Arbuthnot, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. George Brown, Mr. Grimond, Sir Lionel Heald, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Iain Macleod, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, Sir Samuel Storey, Mr. George Wigg, and Mr. W. R. Williams:
    Power to send for persons, papers and records:
    Power to report from time to time:
    Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

    CONSOLIDATION, &c, BILLS
    Lords Message [6th November] communicating the Resolution,That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Consolidation Bills (whether public or private), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Lords Message considered accordingly.
    Resolved,
    That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    DECEASED SERVICE MEN (BURIAL)
    Motion made, and Question proposed.That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill]
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Mason: I have been prompted to raise again this evening the problem of bringing deceased Service men home for burial because a most distressing case was brought to my attention during the Recess, the case of Private Walton, who was killed in Germany on 31st August. Private Walton left in Germany a wife and a ten-month-old child, and his wife was expecting another child. His mother at home had been widowed earlier in the year, and she had with her five children.
    Obviously, no money was immediately available for the mother to fly to her
    1302
    son's funeral in Germany. The relatives inquired, but, of course, they received from the War Office the usual statement that there were no public funds available for the purpose, no funds either to fly the body back from Germany to Britain or to fly any of the immediate relatives from the United Kingdom to be present at the funeral service.
    The grief-stricken young widow, with her ten-month-old baby and expecting another child, was left standing virtually alone at the graveside. At home there were distressed relatives aching to be by her side but financially unable to do so.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War must know that this question has been raised many times in this House. Indeed, it has been raised in the past few months by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has a most distressing case to deal with even at this moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) had another distressing case to deal with a short time ago when Trooper Chambers was killed in Germany. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have also raised the question with the War Office and the other Service Ministries many times. We think that it is time that the policy was changed.
    The Under-Secretary will no doubt remember that at the height of this most distressing episode, on 5th September, 1962, one of our local papers in Yorkshire—the Sheffield Telegraph—published what was a memorandum to the War Office. Indeed, it was so entitled, and the other heading was "Try a Little Humanity". I wish to quote the opening paragraphs:
    "This morning the death of a Yorkshire private in Germany once again brings disrepute on the Army, whose hide-bound attitude to the funeral and the man's family must distress servicemen's folk and bring despair to Army recruiting offices everywhere.
    Let us be frank about it. The case of Private Eric Walton, of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, is just one in a succession that have stirred public shame and indignation."
    Not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of many hon. Members of this House, this is a policy of meanness and

    1303
    of callous indifference on the part of the War Office. It is a heartbreak policy, and what is more, it is discriminatory, as I hope to prove as I go along.
    There are many compassionate cases. Indeed, thousands are brought home from all the various stations abroad, many of whom come here because they are seriously ill or seriously injured. They are flown home and receive treatment and immediately they are better and fit to go back in the line, they do so. The War Office flies them home and gives them treatment when they are seriously ill or seriously injured in order to get them back into the line again; but, immediately they are dead, their numbers are rubbed out in the War Office, which immediately forgets them as if they had never served at all. I think that this is most despicable, and that it is time the policy was changed.
    Indeed, the War Office is not only inhuman, but inefficient as well. This accident took place on 31st August, and even today we have not yet received any inquiry report about the accident, in spite of my letter to the War Office. We have not yet received any report on how this accident took place and who was responsible. As I have said, this is nothing new; it has been raised many times in the House. There have been Adjournment debates over the past ten years, and many Questions from both sides of the House. There is growing concern among hon. Members. I could understand that some years ago refusal to alter this system was warranted, but it is not warranted now. The shortage of troopships, transport costs and other things probably made it administratively difficult to make the change, but this is not so now.
    My first question is: is it possible to do what I suggest? British United Airways, under contract to the Ministry to carry our troops for trooping purposes, is making 314 flights a month to and from Germany. There are about thirteen other charter flights by independent airlines each month. Therefore, about 327 flights a month are going in and out of Germany. Over 10,000 troops a month are carried.
    During the last twelve months, 534 soldiers have been flown from Germany
    1304
    to the United Kingdom because they were ill or injured. Some of them were stretcher cases, so it is obvious that the aircraft are equipped to take either stretchers or coffins. To bring all these people home would cost the War Office about £16,000 a year. During the same period, 2,358 soldiers have been flown home for compassionate reasons. This would cost about £70,000. This is laudable and I applaud the efforts of the War Office for thinking of those seriously ill and those who wish to come home urgently for compassionate reasons.
    During 1961, fifty-nine British soldiers died in Germany. To have brought them all home and to have allowed them to be buried in their own country would have cost the War Office £3,500 at the most. This is a trifling sum compared with the annual expenditure on the maintenance of the British Army of the Rhine.
    Those of us conversant with these matters know that regular flights of R.A.F. Transport Command go to all the stations of the Middle East and Far East. Twenty-three Britannias, 11 Comets and 48 Hastings are on a regular shuttle service to Cyprus, El Adem, Aden, Gan and Singapore. During the last twelve months 950 Service men have been flown home in R.A.F. aircraft from the Middle East and Far East because of illness or serious injury. During the same period, 35 Service men have died in the Middle East and 31 in the Far East. These, too, could have been flown home in R.A.F. aircraft. The cost could have gone on the Air Ministry Vote, although I appreciate that that Department is not strictly responsible. The responsibility is that of the Secretary of State for War. The cost of this would have been £9,000 at the most.
    The Minister has admitted to me in Questions that to have brought all deceased soldiers home from every station in the world would have cost £15,000 in twelve months. The Minister's reply is in my dossier if he wishes to peruse it at the conclusion of the debate. This is a trifling sum compared with the £1,721 million a year spent on defence. All that I wish is that we have a Minister at the War Office who has the guts and courage to effect this change. I submit that it is feasible and cheap.

    1305
    Secondly, is not this practice discriminatory. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has been finding this out recently. We all know that it is discriminatory. Families of wealth can bring their sons or husbands home. They have the choice of a family grave, a local cemetery or cremation if they wish. In the case of Private Walton's family, because of their circumstances, that was out of the question. This is true of the majority of cases. Discrimination, therefore, results. This kills the principle that the War Office has always enunciated that soldiers all prefer to be buried by their comrades in arms. This is absolute bunkum. The truth is that because families cannot afford to bring their sons and husbands home, there is no choice.
    Administrative difficulty is another reason that the War Office has trotted out. On the contrary, it is administratively easier to do what I suggest, because at every station abroad arrangements and procedures are laid down so that as soon as a Service man dies, his body is placed in a coffin. It is just as easy for him to be placed in a coffin prepared for transport. Once the coffin is on the aircraft, the job is completed for the station abroad. The man's family and effects have to come home, so they might as well come at the same time.
    That is done by many countries. We lag far behind in this respect. In the United Kingdom, transport to a home town can be just as simply arranged, and it is occasionally done, because every time a family of wealth wishes to bring its son or husband home, it is done. The Minister knows, as do all the Service Ministers, that those who have the cash can get their sons or husbands home. Administratively, therefore, there is no grave digging to arrange, no funeral ceremony, no arrangements for families to worry about, no Questions in the House or Adjournment debates and fewer inquiries. Consequently, for the War Office and other Service Departments it would be administratively easier. I should imagine that civil servants in every Service Ministry hope that the present policy will quickly change. In total, therefore, the present policy is outdated, mean and discriminatory. I have
    1306
    proved that to change it is feasible and cheap.
    Many countries are doing what I suggest. They fly all their deceased Service men, their widows and effects home immediately. Belgium does it. France brought home all her Service men who were killed in Algeria. The Netherlands is changing its policy in this way and Portugal does it for most of her Service men abroad. It is an indictment and a shame on this House, and on the War Office in particular, that we are not starting to change our mind.
    If the War Office is not prepared to do this, there are other bodies who would shame it into doing so. British United Airways, is doing quite well on the charter operations of trooping between the United Kingdom and Germany. In 1959, its group trading profit was £1,145,369. In 1960, it had nearly doubled, due in the main to trooping, to £2,065,565. The 1961 profits are due to be declared any day and they are bound to show an increase. B.U.A. has a good steady contract, which, obviously, will continue for a number of years. Trooping under the contract from the War Office is mainly responsible for these profits.
    What a fine public gesture it would be if British United Airways would bear the cost. The cost to the War Office would be £3,500 a year, but to B.U.A., running its own services, the cost would probably be much less. What a small percentage of the profits it would be. If the company wished to do it, it could. Last year, fifty-nine soldiers died in Germany, or approximately one per week. B.U.A. has 314 flights per month in and out of Germany. What it amounts to is that in those 314 flights, room would be needed for about four coffins per month. Indeed, it is not worth arguing about.
    I would also suggest that the arms manufacturers might help if they so wished because of the many Service contracts on which they thrive. If one of them gave £1,500 as a gesture to the Services it would be sufficient to fly home the bodies of all the deceased Service men who had expressed a wish to be buried at home.
    The War Office has always argued in the past that soldiers do not wish it, that they prefer to be buried where they have

    1307
    served, near their comrades in arms. I challenge the Minister to hold a referendum among members of Her Majesty's Forces, and, if he wishes, he can include in the referendum the fact that they should pay for it themselves. It would represent the payment of 1d. per month —indeed of only ¾d. per month. It could be done. It would cost the soldier a farthing a week to have this facility. But the War Office in its meanness will not pay that amount.
    If the Minister took a referendum among the men in the three Services he would find that the majority would be willing, indeed anxious, even if they had to pay for it themselves, to have their bodies flown home and buried either in family graves or in their local cemeteries. I hope that the War Office will relent. But if no announcement of a complete change is forthcoming, I hope at least that serious and sympathetic consideration will be given to effecting a change in this heartbreaking, miserly and discriminatory policy.
    10.32 p.m.
    Mr. Clive Bossom: As the practice of long standing is not to bring home a soldier's body in peace time, I suggest that my hon. Friend might consider allowing two relatives to attend a funeral at public expense, especially in a country like Germany.
    Having been a Regular soldier after the war and served in the Middle East and Far East, I realise the many problems there are in this matter, especially in tropical climates, and also that the local health authority regulations state that one must bury a body within twenty-four hours. I was stationed in Hong Kong and Singapore and there I know that exhumation is not permitted in one case until after four years and in the other until after five years. In such circumstances, I have always thought that the Government should pay for the cremation of a soldier's body and should return the ashes to the next of kin free of charge.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look sympathetically into these two suggestions.
    10.33 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I realise that other hon. Members have an interest in
    1308
    this subject, but I think that in the time available it would be best if I attempted to state the Government's position in reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
    The hon. Member addressed his complaint to me as representing the War Office and he had occasion to accuse the War Office of inhumanity. I think I should point out at the very outset that the practice which we follow in these matters is one common to all three Services and that what I have to say about our policy and the future of our policy in this regard applies equally to all three Service Departments.
    Perhaps I had better begin by making clear what happens in the sad event of a Service man dying abroad. When this happens the funeral, according to present arrangements, is carried out at public expense by the Service authority under whom the man in question has come and burial is in a Service cemetery, if there is one there, or, failing that, in a reservation in a civilian cemetery belonging to the Service and set aside for that purpose.
    I do not believe that anyone who like myself has attended a military funeral— and I am sure other hon. Members have —would dispute what a moving, impressive and altogether fitting ceremony it can be. The House might wish me to pay tribute to the work of the War Graves Commission, on which hon. Members are represented, for what it does in the way of maintenance of the graves of our soldiers abroad.
    I do not dispute that there are strong feelings about this subject on the lines which the hon. Member for Barnsley offered tonight. I do not dispute that these genuinely sincere feelings are held. What we have to consider in the light of those feelings, but equally in the face of the difficulties in satisfying them, is: what is the right course for the Services to pursue in this matter of repatriation? I have been through all this very carefully, not only in the light of the hon. Member's representations but of others made to me orally and in writing; it might help the House if I try to fill in a little of the background, which is complex and not quite so simple as he made out.
    I have found that there is quite a different approach in this matter as be-members of the three Services. For

    1309
    example, I am advised toy the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force that few of the next-of-kin of their people ask for repatriation. The War Office gets many more requests, yet if one analyses the requests and the figures one finds that in only a minority of cases do the next-of-kin of those affected as for repatriation; according to the figures I have it is about one-third. It seems that in the 245 cases, which is the extent of this in the three Services in the last year, the majority of next-of-kin accepted the present policy.
    Mr. Denis Howell: They had no choice.
    Mr. Ramsden: I have been trying to analyse and think over, so as to explain to the House, the main reason which has been put forward by spokesmen of successive Governments—not all of this party—in favour of this policy of burial abroad. The principal and first argument always offered, on which successive Governments have stood, is that it has been the tradition of the Services that it is in every way a proper and fitting thing that those who have died or been killed in the service of their country abroad should be buried by their fellow Service men near where they have been serving and have died.
    I have asked myself: what is the force of this argument on which Governments have successively stood? It seems an argument which gives weight to a tradition and to the sense of corporateness and comradeship in a fighting service. I think that this is an argument which has more force in relation to Regular forces than it has in relation to forces in which there is a large element of National Service. This, perhaps, is the explanation why the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Service, which, for some time now, have had no National Service men have been more prepared to accept this policy than the Army where the National Service element persists. It is reasonable for a Regular soldier and his family to accept this practice as, so to speak, part of his terms of service, part of the professional conditions into Which he enters as part of his Service life, just as civilians in the overseas services—this applies equally to them—accept the fact that if they die
    1310
    abroad they are buried there and do not have the benefit of repatriation.
    It is well, when we are thinking about what the future of our policy should be, to bear in mind that soon the Army will be an all-Regular Army again. We should take account of this, and take account of the fact that before the war, when we had an all-Regular Army, complaints of this nature were few, before we make up our minds to consider changing this policy.
    Mr. Mason: It was impossible to do it then.
    Mr. Ramsden: I will deal with the points made by the hon. Member, the first of which was that owing to the increasing air movement of troops and air trooping it should be much easier now to achieve repatriation. I can only tell him that I have been into this and that it is not as easy as he made it appear in his speech.
    Mr. Howell: The Americans do it.
    Mr. Ramsden: The Americans use their own freighters, their own Service freighters. We use air trooping companies, and I am advised that there would be considerable difficulty in renegotiating contracts with them to provide for the carriage of freight. Their arrangements with us cover the carriage of personnel and the baggage attending the personnel, and in the case of having to transport coffins the difficulties of making arrangements are considerable.
    The hon. Member said that the present policy was discriminatory and that it introduces one law for the rich and one law for the poor. I point out to him that no matter who it is, we are always at pains to discourage the next-of-kin from making any effort in the direction of repatriation and to convince them of the reasonableness of what we advise —that their deceased relatives should be buried abroad. We cannot help it if our advice over what is the sensible course is turned down. We give that advice, and if people neglect it to pay more for that facility we can do nothing about it.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George rose—
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Lady must allow me to conclude my speech.
    The hon. Member talked mainly about Germany, but he will accept that whatever we did would have to be fairly applied between one theatre and another, and there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster said, considerable practical difficulties about trying to implement a policy of repatriation in the Far East and in tropical countries.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Everybody else does it.
    Mr. Ramsden: Facilities for the treatment of bodies by undertakers, which I need not discuss, are necessary in these hot climates, and such arrangements are beyond the scope of what it is possible for us to achieve with our forces at present.
    I believe that for these reasons, and for other very good reasons into which I have not time to go, we ought to stand on our present policy over repatriation. But I have been looking at what it might be possible for us to do to make things easier for relatives. Without giving the House or the hon. Member any commitment—because I must consult my colleagues over this and it has to be examined—I can undertake to look at the
    1312
    possibilities of cremation and the repatriation of ashes.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister will get into religious trouble.
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member has put his finger on it. All these things have their difficulties. But we will examine this, and I will undertake to look at the possibility of making some arrangements for the next-of-kin to attend funerals in Germany. I have already spoken of the difficulties in tropical countries, where the time factor is the main difficulty. But I undertake to look at the position in Germany.
    I hope that the hon. Member is convinced that we have taken this matter seriously and that we shall see what we can do to help. It is a very difficult question. I can make no promise, but on the lines and within the limitations—
    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 a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Betting Shops
  Betting Shops
  Plays (Censorship)
  Plays (Censorship)
  Public Meetings, Trafalgar Square
  Public Meetings, Trafalgar Square
  Police (Retirement)
  Police (Retirement)
  Flag Days (Young Collectors)
  Flag Days (Young Collectors)
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  Fireworks, Metropolitan Police District (Offences)
  Fireworks, Metropolitan Police District (Offences)
EDUCATION
  G.C.E. Results
  G.C.E. Results
  New School, Alvechurch
  New School, Alvechurch
  Technical College Teachers
  Technical College Teachers
  School Building Programmes
  School Building Programmes
  College of Further Education, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  College of Further Education, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Pupils (Grants)
  Pupils (Grants)
  Handicapped Children (Independent Schools)
  Handicapped Children (Independent Schools)
  Schools, Dearne Valley (Size of Classes)
  Schools, Dearne Valley (Size of Classes)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Development Districts, North-East
  Development Districts, North-East
  MINISTER OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE (SPEECH)
  JOHN VASSALL (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  JOHN VASSALL (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
MALTA
  Bailey's of Malta Ltd. (Inquiry)
  Bailey's of Malta Ltd. (Inquiry)
  Pakistan (Flood Relief)
  Pakistan (Flood Relief)
  REFUGEES
  REFUGEES
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
EMPLOYMENT
  Isle of Sheppey
  Isle of Sheppey
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old-Age Pensions
  Old-Age Pensions
SCOTLAND
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Hospitals (Maternity Beds)
  Hospitals (Maternity Beds)
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Uncertificated Teachers
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  House of Commons Accommodation, Bridge Street Site
  House of Commons Accommodation, Bridge Street Site

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield
The Marquess of Sligo (L. Monteagle)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

LIGHTING OF HANGER LANE UNDERPASS
2.36 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they contemplate improving the lighting of the Hanger Lane underpass in the interests of public safety.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, experience so far does not, in my right honourable friend's opinion, indicate that the lighting of the underpass is defective or in any way dangerous. Arrangements are being made for the walls and ceiling to be cleaned at shorter intervals than hitherto so that their capacity to reflect the light is not diminished by soot and grime.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that if on a bright day you go into this underpass and there is anything
380
in front of you, you cannot possibly see it? The vehicles using the underpass are not required to use tail lights or anything like that and it is extremely dangerous.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I always think that optical analysis, as a driver sees it, of lighting of this kind is a very subjective matter. I do not think I can add to the fact that there is nothing in experience, either in the accident record or in volume of complaints, or anything like that, which indicates the situation is out of hand.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope I can be forgiven for putting a further supplementary. It is quite impossible on a bright day when you go into that underpass to see whether there is anything in front of you or not.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, surely the subjective reaction is the most important factor in the event of an accident.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course it varies. All I can say is that I have listened with interest to what my noble friend has said, but he appears, so far as we are aware, to be in a very small minority in this matter because, apart from his own, so far only one other complaint has reached us.

TRAFFIC AT MARLOW
2.38 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they contemplate making a motorway to avoid Marlow and the existing bridge.]
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords. The present A.404 through Marlow is a classified road for which the County Councils of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire are the highway authority. They have made no proposals to my right honourable friend for the construction of a motorway there.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that the fact that Her Majesty was not

381
able to use Marlow Bridge on a certain occasion which he knows all about indicates that the road is not really as good as it might and ought to be?
LORD CHESHAM: I am fully aware of the situation in Marlow and some of the suggestions which are to be considered for curing it, but the motorway to Which the noble Earl's Question refers is not one of them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the two highway authorities to which the noble Lord has referred have been invited to make any representations or suggestions to the Ministry as to how to overcome this rather deplorable state of affairs when the existing bridge will not carry the traffic and there is no real way round for the traffic to go?
LORD CHESHAM: The answer to that is, Yes, my Lords, they have.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask whether they have been invited to make representations and have failed to do so? Is the House to understand that as the purport of the noble Lord's reply?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, that is not the purport of my reply. I think I must confine my reply to the Question and not deal with the whole subject of the bridge and the road at Marlow. The provision of a motorway is not in anyone's mind, for a variety of reasons. I will try to help the noble Lord by saying that other alternatives are under very active consideration at the moment by the Councils, who have held talks following certain suggestions put by the Minister.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me that that reply will give a great deal of satisfaction to those who are interested in this for no reason other than the proper dispersal of traffic?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to clear up a point? Is this merely a Question of words. We were talking about a motorway. Has he answered "No" to a motorway but "Maybe, yes" about a by-pass?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Question addressed itself specifically to a motorway, which I endeavour to answer by saying, firmly, "No". I am at the moment trying to stop our discussion from spreading into consideration of the whole question. I can certainly say to my noble friend that the word "No", while applying to a motorway, definitely does not apply to a by-pass.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give any indication of when a decision will be reached? So many things seem to be under consideration for months and years.
LORD CHESHAM: That is so, and, as the noble Earl is doubtless well aware, the considerations are bedevilled in this particular instance by the complete inability of all the bodies who are very interested in this matter to agree on what ought to be done. But I can say definitely the matter is moving forward. I cannot say when something will be done; nor could I say, if it were decided what should be done, when it could be fitted into the programme. But it is certainly a great deal nearer than it has been in the past
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether nothing will be done until all the bodies agree?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not say that. I intended to indicate that the problem is extremely complicated; no more than that. My right honourable friend has said he will consult with the various bodies who are very interested in this not unimportant matter before a decision is reached. But if we waited till everyone agreed, nothing would ever be done.

DAILY TRAVEL INTO LONDON AND OFFICE LOCATION
LORD CONESFORD: 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 they will give their estimate—

(a) of the number of persons entering and leaving the county of London daily for the purpose of work; and

383

(b) of the increase expected when tenants have been found for all the office buildings already erected, or now in course of construction, or for the erection of which planning permission has already been given.]

LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, some 1,340,000 people now travel daily to and from work in the central area of London, which is roughly the area bounded by the main railway termini. I regret that figures are not available for the County of London as a whole. New offices in the central area are expected to provide employment for some 80,000 additional people, most of whom will travel into, and out of, the area daily.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that answer and ask him two questions? In the location of offices do Her Majesty's Government take into consideration the amount of travel likely to result; and is it their intention to increase without limit the numbers of those compelled to travel into and out of London daily?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the question of the location and other factors affecting new offices in London is a very complex one which raises a good many other issues besides the load on the transport system. Naturally Her Majesty's Government have that very much in mind amongst other considerations, but as I think my noble friend knows, the whole matter is being looked at very closely by my right honourable friends.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if I give him proper notice and put down a Question, he will be able to say what arrangements are being made to provide vehicles for the travel of those extra 80,000 people?
LORD CHESHAM: If the noble Lord is good enough to put down such a Question, I will certainly do my utmost to answer him.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, have the Government any estimate of the effect this increase of 80,000 will have in an increase in cars coming into the centre of London?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to form a balanced
384
judgment on what the choice of the traveller may be in the future. I do not think I can say anything more sensible than to tell the noble Lord that the number of people who come in by car—or should I say by private vehicle, because it includes motor cycles and cycles—is something of the order of 10 per cent.

THE CITIZEN AND THE ADMINISTRATION
LORD SILKIN: 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 they have now considered the Whyatt REPORT on the Citizen and the Administration and whether they will make a statement.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the organisation known as Justice made two proposals: first, that the Council on Tribunals should survey the area in which there is at present no right of appeal against a discretionary decision made by or on behalf of a Minister, with a view to providing a right of appeal in such cases to an independent tribunal; and secondly, that a Parliamentary Commissioner should be appointed to investigate cases of alleged maladministration. The Government consider that there are serious objections in principle to both proposals and that it would not be possible to reconcile them with the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. They believe that any substantial extension of the system of reference to tribunals would lead to inflexibility and delay in administration, and that the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business. In the Government's view there is already adequate provision under our constitutional and Parliamentary practice for the redress of any genuine complaint of maladministration, in particular by means of the citizen's right of access to Members of Parliament.
In their examination of the REPORT the Government have themselves undertaken detailed review of the extent to which persons aggrieved can appeal against discretionary decisions. This

385
review has disclosed a few instances in which provision for appeal might with advantage be introduced as an additional safeguard to the person affected by the decision, and these are being examined in greater detail.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord tell us when we may expect to get the result of these deliberations? Evidently it is accepted that there is some need for some improvement in procedure. Before I personally carry the matter further I should be glad to know what the Government are actually doing, and when.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think when the noble Lord studies my Answer he will see that the question of providing a further appeal in certain instances is now under examination, and no doubt when the result of that examination is known a decision will have to be arrived at as to what legislation should be introduced to remedy the matter.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if I may respectfully say so, I followed that reply and have no need to study it. My question was: when may we expect to get the result of these inquiries?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot at the moment give the noble Lord any information upon that point.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord recognise that there is a serious objection in principle to allowing injustices to continue to be committed, particularly in that field which concerns the Government where the Minister disclaims the power to intervene? Is the noble and learned Lord not aware that there are cases, sometimes attaching to nationalised industry, where it has been quite impossible to get redress?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad to give consideration to any cases which the noble Lord brings to my notice. But the whole subject has been reviewed, and the result of the review is the Answer that I have given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.51 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships' House that, in view of the number of speakers in this afternoon's debate, dinners will be available: but I should be grateful if your Lordships would inform the Refreshment Department if you wish to partake thereof.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE. HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to children and young persons and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Lord President (Viscount Hailsham), the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Attlee,

E. Dundee,

E. Home,

E. Listowel,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of HILLS-BOROUGH,

L. Amulree,

L. Conesford,

L. Hylton,

L. Layton,

L. Rea,

L. Wilmot of Selmeston.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMUTEE OF SELECTION
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Hall,

L. Amulree,

L. Ogmore,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President (Viscount Hailsham), and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of HILLS-BOROUGH,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Goschen,

V. Samuel,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Henderson,

L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor,

388

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Rea,

L. Saltoun,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President (Viscount Hailsham) and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Attlee,

E. Crawford,

E. De La Warr,

E. Dundee,

E. Home,

E. Iveagh,

E. Limerick,

E. Longford,

E. Lucan,

E. Munster,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Gage,

V. Goschen,

V. Hall,

V. Samuel,

V. Simonds,

V. Soulbury,

L. Airedale,

L. Amulree,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Bridges,

L. Burden,

L. Chorley,

L. Henderson,

L. Jessel,

L. Killearn,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Macpherson of Drumochter,

L. Mancroft,

389

L. Morrison of Lambeth,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Nathan,

L. Newton,

L. Ogmore,

L. Rea,

L. Reid,

L. Saltoun,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Sherwood,

L. Silkin,

B. Swanborough,

L. Wise,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to REPORT from time to time.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Munster,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Archibald,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Faringdon,

L. Shepherd,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion on the Order Paper standing in my name.
Moved, That the Personal Bills Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following,
390
with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Macclesfield,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Grantchester,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the seventh Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Iveagh,

E. Munster,

V. Soulbury,

L. Airedale,

L. Blackford,

L. Cawley,

L. Crawshaw,

L. Faringdon,

L. Goddard,

L. Hughes,

L. Jessel,

L. MacAndrew,

L. Meston,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Stonham,

L. Strang,

L. Taylor,

L. Terrington.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hail-sham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence

391
and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Lucan.

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree.

—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Message from the Commons: That they have appointed a Select Committee of Eleven Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider matters in relation to House of Lords Reform.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hail-sham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Said Message be taken into consideration forthwith and that the Lords following be named of the Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons:

Marquess of Salisbury,

Earl St. Aldwyn.

Earl of Swinton.

Earl of Kilmuir,

Viscount Colville of Culross,

Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough,

Earl of Listowel,

Lord Derwent.

Lord Rea,

Lord Morton of Henryton.

Lord Silkin.

Lord Morrison of Lambeth.

—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE) rose to move to resolve, That this House reaffirms its decision of August 3, 1961, in regard to the Common Market, and urges Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to bring the negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament. The noble Earl
392
said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Since your Lordships last debated this subject on August 1 and 2 of this year there have been a number of further Ministerial meetings; there has been the publication of a White Paper and there has been the Commonwealth Conference in September. It is natural that your Lordships wish to discuss the matter again now, and I have no doubt that you may desire to do so on further occasions as the Session proceeds.
The great majority of those who speak on this subject are under an obvious disability, which I think is well understood. There are a few people who think that we ought to join the Common Market without conditions, or at least without pre-conditions, in the same way as Germany and France joined it at the beginning—leaving everything undecided, to be done after and not before they had joined it. Those who hold that view would naturally vote in favour of any Resolution however it was framed. There are, I think, a larger number in this country who believe that it would be a mistake for Britain to join the Common Market, and naturally they are in no difficulty about opposing the proposal that we should do so, on whatever terms and on whatever conditions there may be. I think the great majority of people in this country in all Parties hold the view that it would be a good thing that Britain should join the Community if satisfactory terms are obtained with regard to the Commonwealth, agriculture, E.F.T.A., and so on.
The obvious disability we are always under in debating this subject, because we are debating not a positive proposal but a number of contingent ideas which may develop out of what is now being discussed, is that if we concentrate, if we put all our emphasis, upon the desirability of joining and on what a wonderful thing the Common Market might be, we may give the impression that we do not care about the conditions. On the other hand, if we put the whole of our emphasis upon the conditions, we may give the impression that we do not really think it would be a good thing to join. Therefore, we have to be careful what we say, how we express ourselves.
As there are eighteen of your Lordships who wish to say something on this debate I shall try to be short. I shall

393
say a few words first about India, Pakistan and Ceylon; then about the rest of the Colonies and Dependencies and the African and Caribbean sovereign members of the Commonwealth; then a word or two on the white Commonwealth, the old Dominions; then on agriculture and E.F.T.A. In doing so, I shall try if possible to put emphasis not so much on what has already been achieved in the negotiations, what has already been agreed on, but rather on what has not yet been agreed on, what still remains to be worked out before we can come to Parliament with a definite proposal, so that we may have some idea of the nature of the task which still lies in front of us. It is a task which will need great patience and diligence.
When we debated this question in August several of your Lordships expressed the hope that we should not have to hurry the negotiations, because at that time there was a Ministerial meeting which some newspapers had mistakenly supposed to have fixed a deadline on which the thing had to be settled. Those who spoke for the Government, of whom I happened to be one, had to explain to your Lordships that while delay in itself was not a good thing, this was too important a subject to be unduly hurried. I am sure that, whatever view your Lordships take, you will all agree that there is no one who possesses the virtues of patience and perseverance in more eminent degree than my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is in charge of these negotiations.
With regard to India and the other Asiatic parts of the Commonwealth, the shape of an eventual relationship between, not the present Community but an enlarged Community, and India, Pakistan and Ceylon can be, not completely but fairly well discerned now, because the Six had agreed before the August Recess that the enlarged Community should conclude comprehensive trade agreements with India and Pakistan by 1966 at the latest. This was the date which India had asked for. They had agreed that these agreements, which would be valid for a number of years, would then be renewable and that their aim would be to maintain and increase the foreign currency earnings of India and Pakistan. They would also be designed to facilitate the development
394
plans of these countries, and it was agreed that these objectives would be achieved by increasing mutual trade between the Community and these three Commonwealth countries.
We also said that we would make certain special transitional arrangements on behalf of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose main effect would be to retard the application as against those three countries of the common external tariff on goods entering Britain. Those transitional arrangements which we have envisaged would be of three varieties—into which I will not go in detail, because it was done by my right honourable friend in another place yesterday—covering cotton, textiles, jute and other manufactures.
Then the Prime Ministers of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, when they expressed concern during the Commonwealth Conference that their export earnings and investment in export industries might be adversely affected if there were a long gap between Britain's entry and the coming into force of the comprehensive trade agreements—a delay which might imperil their development plans—urged that the trade agreements should be concluded as soon as possible after Britain's entry and that, in the meantime, the common externals tariff should be suspended in trade. We have taken note of these points and we are now discussing them with the Community at Brussels.
As fox the African members of the Commonwealth, as your Lordships know the Community offered association, under Part Four of the Treaty of Rome, as an appropriate solution for most of the dependent territories of the Commonwealth, besides the independent African members. We have informed the Six that we think the dependent territories and the other Commonwealth countries, apart from the three independent African members, are likely to acccept this. The African countries of Tanganyika, Nigeria and Ghana stated at the Conference that they did not wish to accept it. We, of course, will respect that decision if they adhere to it. We do not want in any way to question their right to make this decision. We regret it because we feel that they are mistaken in supposing that associate membership would in any possible way affect their independence.
Since all the farmer French territories in Africa which are now independent have accepted associate membership without any feeling that they are compromising their independence, we feel it is a pity that this opportunity for co-operartion of African countries with each other in developing their future trade should be missed. Nevertheless we shall consider, and are now considering, with the Six what alternative arrangements would be possible to secure the economic interests of those Commonwealth countries who wish to decline association.
My Lords, I think we have realised throughout the last two or three years we have been discussing this question, ever since we brought in the E.F.T.A. Bill three and a half years ago, that the problem which would need most work in our negotiations would be that of the white Commonwealth, particularly in regard to temperate foodstuffs. In respect of temperate foodstuffs we have reached provisional agreement that the enlarged Community (the enlarged Community, of course, means the Community after we and those of our E.F.T.A. partners Who have applied for membership have joined) would take an early initiative to secure world-wide agreements for the principal agricultural products, and that the agreements would deal with the price and production policy to be followed by both the exporting and importing countries—stockpiling policy, minimum and maximum quantities—to enter into national trade, and special aspects of trade with underdeveloped countries. These world-wide agreements, it has been agreed, would be subject to revision every three years, and if it should not prove practicable to reach a world-wide agreement it has been agreed that the Community would then be prepared to make individual arrangements with those countries who wished to do so, and in particular with Commonwealth countries—that means in this context, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has also been decided that the enlarged Community should make an early declaration expressing its intention to define its price policy as soon as possible and to pursue a reasonable line in conformity with Articles 39 and 110 of the Treaty of Rome.
My Lords, all this is of vital importance, in our view, because if prices within the Six—or within the enlarged Community after we have joined—were to be fixed at levels which led to the production of surpluses, then it is obvious that the Community would not be able to import the commodities in question from outside, particularly from the white Commonwealth. That would create an impossible situation for its relations with primary producing countries. In the transitional period before we can conclude either world-wide or limited agreements, a framework has been worked out for the treatment which could be used in dealing with all individual commodities for which there would be an intra-Community preference. For instance, in the case of cereals the Six have told us that they intend to ensure that the operation of intra-Community preference (which is a means of giving a competitive advantage to suppliers within the Community of such a kind that cannot be set off by price reduction by exporters outside it) would not lead to a sudden or considerable alteration in trade patterns. We have agreed that imports into the United Kingdom of cereals which enjoy a tariff preference in the United Kingdom should benefit from an agreed application of intra-Community preference. But the precise application of this, the amount of the preference and the periods, is one of the things—and it is a very important thing—about which we have still to reach agreement at Brussels.
Of course, we have always put special emphasis on New Zealand, and this has been recognised by the Six, because New Zealand depends to a much greater degree than the others on selling here not only mutton and lamb, but also butter and other dairy products. So that the special problems of New Zealand do require very detailed consideration, and this has not been disputed; in fact, it has been agreed to by the members of the Community. As your Lordships may have seen, at the last Ministerial session the French said that they could not commit themselves to the principle of special arrangements, which had been agreed on by the Ministerial Conference, until these were more clearly defined. Therefore, I hope that we shall soon be able to get this done. Meanwhile, we recognise that New Zealand is the most dependent of all upon our market, and we

397
cannot conclude the negotiations without having made suitable arrangements for her.
My Lords, one of the subjects which arouses most feeling, and often uncertainty, in connection with these negotiations is, of course, our own agriculture. We have told the Six that we are ready to accept the common agricultural policy by 1970, recognising that this means a change from our system of producer subsidies to their method of permitting the agricultural population to earn a fair standard of living by regulation of the market. They, in their turn, have accepted our suggestion for an annual review of agriculture, after the British pattern. This review, as I think I told your Lordships some months ago, would be carried out by the European Economic Commission, but it would be open to any individual country to conduct a purely national review if it so wished, as, of course, we always do. If the Community review disclosed, for example, that all or part of the farming population was not obtaining a fair standard of living, then the Commission, either on its own initiative or at the request of a member State, would examine the situation and propose to the Council of Ministers remedial measures under the Treaty as might be necessary. This procedure, backed by our constant attention in the Council of Ministers to the conduct of Community policy, would, in my right honourable friend's belief, provide a valuable degree of assurance to our farmers.
But we still have to agree what should be done in the transitional period before 1970, between our accession to the Treaty of Rome, if we join, and the full Common Market stage. At a recent meeting, which your Lordships have probably also read about, they asked us to stop our system of deficiency payments to farmers as soon as we join, and to move at once to a technique of consumer subsidies, which in turn would be phased out between the date of our entry and 1970. My Lords, this is a proposal which in our view gives rise to very serious objections of policy and administration, and therefore we have not accepted it. It would mean creating a very large new bureaucracy to administer this temporary system for a very short time, and it seems unreason-
398
able to make two changes, two completely radical changes, of agricultural policy, instead of one, within a period of seven or eight years. We have made it clear that we must have a gradual changeover to the Community's system, as the Treaty of Rome specially provides for.
My Lords, I should just like to say a word now about E.F.T.A. Your Lordships may remember that I had to introduce the E.F.T.A. Bill into your Lordships' House between two and three years ago. I think your Lordships will remember that it was agreed and recognised then that the formation of this European Free Trade Association was not intended to be a rival to the European Economic Community, not a rival to the Common Market, but a means of eventually bringing us all into it; although we did consider that, if that object should fail, E.F.T.A. would still be a viable concern in itself. Our E.F.T.A. partners are all now either conducting or expecting to conduct their own negotiations with the Community. The Danish negotiations are furthest advanced, but the Governments of Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Austria have made their opening presentation to the Community, and Portugal hopes to do so very soon. These negotiations will certainly throw up complex problems, but our view is that when our arrangements are made the main hurdle will probably be over, and the way should be comparatively clear for the completion of the remaining negotiations. We must, of course, see that their legitimate requirements are met before we join.
I repeat again that these things are too important to be unduly hurried, but it does remain of great importance to the future of Europe that the present uncertainty should come to an end as early as possible. Meanwhile we are, of course, keeping in close contact with our partners in E.F.T.A., and, at the same time, we are maintaining the agreed momentum of tariff reductions between us. In fact, the Association is in a flourishing condition, and the individual member States are in a position to play a full part in the closer economic integration within Europe to which we all look forward.
My Lords, in every case, both our own and that of the E.F.T.A. countries, and in the case, perhaps, of every commodity and maybe of every Dominion, your Lordships will see that the type of solution may vary greatly from one case to another. But there are two features which are constant. We have always tried to work for arrangements which, in the long run, will enable Britain within the Community to work with the Commonwealth and with other countries, to build stable and mutually beneficial trading relationships within and outside Europe. We have also tried to ensure that, in moving towards long-term solutions, we provide adequate transitional safeguards against disruption resulting from the ending of current arrangements. We want to make sure that countries whose association with us has led to their present pattern of trade will not be damaged by our joining the Community.
We cannot resolve at one stroke every detail of all the problems of international trade and foodstuffs, world prices and trade between prosperous societies and poor ones: but what we can do is to establish certain principles and to confirm that, if we join the Community, we shall work together in a constructive spirit towards lasting solutions. And the further ahead we look the more necessary it is that our intentions should be expressed in general terms. You cannot realistically lay down precise tariff scales to come into operation in 1970, or anything of that kind.
My Lords, in the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is about to move, one of the conditions demanded is that Britain should have an independent foreign policy. I do not think it would be helpful to the debate if I tried to anticipate the noble Lord's Amendment before we hear what he has to say. The only general observation I should like to make, which the noble Lord may very likely have wished to develop himself, is this. Our foreign policy is already limited to a certain extent by our obligations towards NATO and towards the United Nations. Our obligations to both these bodies sometimes conflict rather sharply with what we might desire to do in some
400
respects; and I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, might agree with the view which is held by many of your Lordships: that in the long run it will not be possible to have a secure system of world peace and nuclear disarmament unless it is accompanied by some kind of world government. That would, of course, involve most severe limitations on foreign policy. Under those conditions one could hardly have what would in the past have been an independent foreign policy. But I will not pursue the point now: I will content myself with stating that I will wait and hear what the noble Lord has to say about it.
My Lords, I should like to conclude with a word about the nature of the Community. I myself think that the value of international Agreements of the kind we are trying to make now in Brussels must rest, in the last resort, not so much on the letter of the texts as upon the intention which is behind them, and that it is not only what you negotiate that matters. I think that is particularly true when you are negotiating arrangements which may have their main effect a great many years from now. The basic facts about the Community were apparent to all of us before our negotiations began in Brussels. With a population of 170 million and imports of about £7,000 million a year, the present Community is clearly going to play a major part in shaping the future course of world trade. If we join it, its influence will be even greater. We have always hoped, of course, that our joining it may influence it in what we believe to be the right direction.
I do not think the criticism sometimes made, particularly from interested quarters, such as those behind the Iron Curtain (where for political reasons they strongly desire to upset the Common Market project), that the Common Market is a rich man's club, can be really substantiated by the evidence. There is a great awareness in the present Community of the vital need to provide suitable and expanding markets for the primary products and industrial goods produced by the under-developed countries, and that is borne out by the Community's willingness, I think, in their negotiations with us, to conclude these comprehensive trade agreements which I have mentioned with India, Pakistan and

401
Ceylon, and to admit so many of our former dependencies as associates. The record of the Common Market countries where development trade is concerned has so far been a good one. They have a development fund which is growing steadily. Its figure has lately been raised from 580 million dollars to 708 million dollars for the next five years; and, of course, if Britain becomes a member, its joint capacity for helping the world in general will be increased. What is more, of course, as an importer we shall make a very great difference to its importance, because we are a much larger importer of goods than any other country now in the Common Market.
I think your Lordships will agree that one of the most unsatisfactory features of the under-developed countries and their economic position at the present time is that since 1954 there has been such a heavy decline in the price of primary products, on which they depend so much for their livelihood. It has fallen by an amount that is actually double all the aid which has been given to them by ourselves, the United States, Western Europe and everybody else. They have lost through the fall in commodity prices twice as much as they have received in aid from the richer countries. In addition to that, at the same time the price of manufactured products which we and others want to sell to them has been rising by almost as much as primary products have been falling. So it is no wonder that they have so much poverty and so many economic difficulties.
My Lords, the ultimate solution must lie not only in aid but, I would say, in world price agreements, which are very difficult things at which to arrive. It is difficult enough to arrive at price agreements when we are dealing with one industry in one country. I would ask your Lordships to agree that an enlarged E.E.C., as it would be if we and E.F.T.A. joined, would be in a far better position to promote such agreements than the EEC. in its present, more limited form. I think it can be said that, in pursuing the present negotiations, as he has done so assiduously for a year or more, the Lord Privy Seal is indirectly acting, not only for the Commonwealth but for the world as a whole. If the European Economic Community should become (which we do
402
not think it will) an organisation for establishing monopolies, keeping up high prices and keeping out foreign goods then it would not be of any help to the rest of the world. But if it can pursue, with our assistance, and that of others, a liberal trade policy based on fair world prices, then I think it may prove to be the strongest agency of our time in promoting the prosperity of the world and, what is even more important, the peace of the world. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether he proposes to make any reference to the very critical and special position of Hong Kong, which is even more serious than that of New Zealand? When the matter was raised two days ago, the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to hold out hope that the Government would say something about it to-day. It is not a question of primary products: it is a question of markets for manufactured goods.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think I had better say anything about that now, my Lords. I do not know whether my noble friend is speaking in the debate. If not, I am sure my noble friend the Leader of the House will take note of what the noble Viscount has said.
Moved to resolve, That this House reaffirms its decision of 3rd August, 1961, in regard to the Common Market, and urges Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to bring the negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to move, as an Amendment to the Resolution, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert instead:
"would support the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community provided that guarantees safeguarding British agriculture, the vital interests of the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Area countries are obtained and that Great Britain retains her present freedom to conduct her own foreign policy and to use public ownership and economic planning to ensure social progress within the United Kingdom: it regrets however that the terms so far provisionally negotiated do not satisfy either these conditions or the binding pledges given by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to negotiate terms which secure these essential conditions and fulfil the Government's own pledges."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to begin by expressing apologies on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Alexander of HILLS-BOROUGH, for not being able to be present at this stage of the proceedings, though he hopes to be present to wind up the debate from this side of the House.
This is the third time we have debated this vital question and, as the noble Earl has said, no doubt we shall be debating it from time to time possibly for some year or more ahead. In the course of these debates we have heard a considerable variety of opinions as to the desirability or otherwise of our entering the Common Market. As the noble Earl said, there have been some who would enter it unconditionally. On the other extreme there are some who would not enter it at any price. But I think most of us, and certainly I in particular, have been prepared to join the Common Market if the conditions were satisfactory, and I have myself said so in two debates in which I wound up on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House. But to-day, as I understand it, there is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of joining the Common Market. Both the Motion on the Government side and the Amendment from this side of the House express the desirability of joining the Common Market. It is no longer an issue, certainly not as between Parties—indeed, the differences were not strictly Party differences at any time. There have been differences on the other side of the House and differences on my side Of the House, and I imagine that to some extent these differences still remain. But from the point of view of the Amendment which we are moving this afternoon, we are assuming that if conditions can be satisfied then we shall be prepared to join.
The noble Earl remarked that there was a very big difference between putting the whole of the emphasis on conditions (and thereby, I take it, implying that those who want to put the emphasis on the conditions were not keen on joining and were rather against it) and on not emphasising conditions. I would remind the House of what it is exactly that we are being asked to do this afternoon by the Government. The noble Earl did
404
not read out the terms of the Resolution of August 3, 1961, which we are being asked to reaffirm and perhaps he will allow me to remedy that omission. It is important, when we are being asked to reaffirm decisions, to be very clear in our minds what the Resolution was. This was the Resolution:
"That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom—
and I take that to mean, among other things, agriculture—
"of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree."
My Lords, if that is not an approval to enter the Common Market or to negotiate subject to conditions very firmly laid down, I do not know what is. I suggest therefore that it does not lie in the mouth of the noble Earl to criticise the Amendment on the grounds that we are putting down conditions which—with two exceptions, which I will face up to frankly—are exactly the same in tone and in strength as in the Resolution passed by this House in August, 1961.
Now one question which occurs to me is: Why are we being asked to reaffirm this decision? This is a decision authorising the Government to negotiate. Why do they come to this House to-day and ask us to reaffirm? Have they any doubts about it?
A NOBLE LORD: So that we can have a debate.
LORD SILKIN: Is it only to have a debate? We have had other debates without asking for affirmations. We had one last August. The noble Earl, Lord Home, opened that debate. He did not ask us to reaffirm the decision then. I wonder why this House is being asked to do it to-day. It may be the Government have fallen into certain difficulties. They have since had the Commonwealth Conference of Prime Ministers. There has been the White Paper. We have had further information—although it must be apparent

405
to every noble Lord here that this information is rather sketchy and very difficult to analyse and grasp—which tends to indicate that, up to this moment, things are not going too well with the negotiations. This, I say, justifies part of the Amendment we are putting forward. Be that as it may, I personally do not seriously complain that the Government should be given a fresh shot in the arm in order to strengthen themselves in the very difficult negotiations they have to come through.
Now I want to say further, in case it is suggested that the Amendment which I am moving is a destructive one, that that is not in the spirit in which it is moved. May I quote the first sentence of the statement on the Common Market made by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party at its Conference last month? This is what they said:
"The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes the coming together of the Six nations, which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry, is, in the context of Western Europe, a step of great significance. It is aware that the influence of this new community on the world will grow and that it will be able to play, for good or ill, a far larger part in the shape of events in the 1960's and 1970's than its individual member States could hope to play alone."
These are not the words of a body which is antagonistic to the idea of the Common Market. Of course, if one wants to make play with what follows, there are conditions laid down and certain reservations made—and that is very natural—and these conditions and reservations are, by and large, in the Amendment which is on the Paper. I have said that the noble Earl had his marching orders last August and clearly there was not much need for him to come to the House except with a peg on which to hang a debate. Only yesterday we approved the gracious Speech, and the gracious Speech referred to the discussions on the Common Market. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what the gracious Speech says:
"My Ministers recognise the great political and economic importance of the development of the European Communities and the opportunities which British accession to these Communities would bring. In close consultation with the other members of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association, and having full regard for those interests in the United Kingdom which are particularly
406
concerned, they will use every effort to bring the current negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament."
Here again, even in the gracious Speech, we have a clear recognition that three of the terms incorporated in our Amendment have to be approved before we can enter the Common Market.
I should like to say a word about the conditions contained in my Amendment. First of all, I would ask: Do the Government still stand by these conditions which they themselves have laid down? I am referring to these three conditions and not to the other two with which I will deal in a moment. Do the Government still stand by these conditions?—because the impression has been created abroad that the Government are determined to enter the Common Market whatever the conditions may be, whether they can get satisfaction on agriculture, the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. or not. In statements made by Her Majesty's Government and in speeches made by Ministers the conditions seem to be whittled down. They have become less important Chan they were at the time when we passed this Resolution in August, 1961. I should like to have an assurance that the Government still stand by this policy, and that if they cannot get satisfactory conditions on the points which they themselves have laid down they will not enter the Common Market. I hope that we may have a clear answer to that without any equivocation at all.
The first condition is the guarantees safeguarding British agriculture. I do not need to say a great deal about this. The noble Earl dealt with this, but I do not think that anyone who followed him, however optimistic he might be, could get the feeling that British agriculture is really being safeguarded under the terms so far negotiated. I have said before and say again that I am certainly not wedded to the present method of assisting British agriculture. I think that it is the best way, but I should be prepared, as I am sure would my friends, to consider any alternative which would safeguard agriculture. There is no doubt at all that there is a conflict about the availability of agriculture from France and other countries in the Six and our agricultural products, and that one of the battles which is going on is due to the desire on the part of France to restrict

407
the sale of British agricultural products inside the Common Market. The effect of this must be that there will be a reduction in the output of agriculture in this country. That has to be recognised and reconciled before we can pretend that the interests of British agriculture have been safeguarded.
I have heard what the noble Earl said. I gather that we are being asked to break off subsidies immediately we sign the agreement to enter the Community and we have to do the best we can somehow for British agriculture. That is not good enough. I would say that up to the present no one could pretend that British agriculture is being safeguarded.
There has been a good deal of controversy about whether entry into the European Community is compatible at all with the continuation of the Commonwealth, certainly in its present form. When we consider this, I think that we have to take into account the fact that entry into the Common Market is not merely for the purpose of the economic advantages that we are going to get, but that, as everybody recognises, certain political consequences must flow. The effect on the Commonwealth depends very much upon what are these political consequences, and we have to be extremely careful that nothing that is done as a result of our entering the Community affects our relations with the Commonwealth.
We have heard what has been proposed so far. I quite agree that we are not in a position to put great pressure on the African countries who are not prepared to be associated with the Community, but the fact remains that, following the Prime Ministers' Conference, no member of the Commonwealth is satisfied with what we are doing. They may all be unreasonable and, if that is so, it may well be that at the end of the day we shall have to make up our own minds in our own interests about what we are going to do. But, make no mistake about it, if we are entering into the Community against the wishes of the whole of the Commonwealth, it is virtually the end of the Commonwealth. It is only a matter of time. And if, as it may well turn out to be under the present position,
408
the interests of the Commonwealth are going to be seriously jeopardised, that will only accelerate the rate at which the Commonwealth may disintegrate. So no one can pretend at the present moment that the negotiations are satisfactory from this point of view, and we are perfectly right in insisting that the interests of the Commonwealth should be secured.
The third condition is in regard to E.F.T.A. Here we entered into a solemn contract. The noble Earl says that we did net go into it in competition with the European Community. I do not want to chop words with him. I rather thought that, on the whole, that was the idea. We were establishing the Seven as against the Six and, if it was not possible for us to go into the Community for one reason or another, here was the Seven, who would operate in competition with the Six. But I do not want to press that too hard. What I would say is that there was a bargain, a clear understanding, that we should not go in unless the E.F.T.A. countries were allowed to come in as well. The noble Earl has suggested that we should go in first and then, to use his own words——
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I did not say that we should go in first. I said that when we had completed our negotiations, it would then be easier for them to negotiate. But that does not mean that we should go in without them.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, does that mean that we should complete our negotiations but not go in until the other E.F.T.A. countries have been accepted? If it means that, we may have to wait a very long time until the negotiations with the other E.F.T.A. countries have been completed. If the noble Earl means that—and no doubt the noble Viscount who is going to reply can tell us whether that is the idea—I should have thought that that was a very unsatisfactory arrangement. It means holding the whole thing in suspense. If we come to an understanding, then we sit back and wait, saying that this comes into operation only when the other E.F.T.A. countries have been admitted. I shall be happy to hear what the noble and learned Viscount has to say on it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If the noble Lord would look at the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in another place yesterday, he will find it precisely stated.
LORD SILKIN: I am afraid that I have had to read some very long speeches since this morning, and I have not been able to get round to that. But if that point is clarified, all I can say is that this is one of the conditions that has been laid down for our joining; and if it is accepted, well and good: I need not dwell further on it. Obviously there is a need for some such condition, because, as I understand it, considerable difficulties are being raised by the existing Community about the admission of at least three of the seven—namely, Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, they being neutral countries. The point made is that these are neutral countries, and that if, as is the intention, some political association is contemplated, they will not be able to join in.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Would the noble Lord like me to quote what the Lord Privy Seal said in another place yesterday?
LORD SILKIN: Certainly.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is a ministerial statement, and I think I am in order in quoting it. Mr. Heath said, in dealing with an interruption [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 666, (No. 7) col. 996.]
"That was what I thought I had very clearly described. If the right honourable gentleman wishes, I will read the actual undertaking:
'The members of E.F.T.A. should coordinate their actions and remain united throughout the negotiations.'
"That is the first obligation. It means full consultation. The second obligation is that,
'E.F.T.A. would be maintained at least until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out in negotiations to meet the various legitimate interests of all the members of E.F.T.A.'
"The third part of the obligation is:
'and thus enable them all to participate from the same date in an integrated European market'
"I said firmly that the Government adhere to these. I do not quite see what purpose the right honourable gentleman seeks to achieve by constantly in public casting doubts on the obligations which we have accepted."
LORD SILKIN: On the face of it, that sounds very satisfactory, and that
410
part of my Amendment should be accepted.
I want now to come to the specific question which the noble Earl put to me about retaining our present freedom to conduct our own foreign policy. I think that, to a certain extent, the noble Earl himself gave the reply. Under the Treaty of Rome, of course, there is no question that we do retain such freedom as we have. I agree with the noble Earl that we have sacrificed a certain amount of our sovereignty on foreign affairs—NATO, our membership of the United Nations and so on—and we do so every time we enter into an international agreement. But there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which requires us to make any sacrifice of sovereignty in relation to our foreign policy. But all the time it is implicit in our entering the Community that there will be discussions of some form on political unity: indeed, I believe that discussions have already taken place, and there has been some argument as to whether we ought to join in even before we actually join the Community, or at least go in as observers. So that this is a reality; it is not something that may come about in the end.
What we seek to do in this Amendment is to safeguard the position that by joining the Community we are not ipso facto making any sacrifice in our freedom to maintain our own foreign policy. The noble Earl referred to a subject which is dear to the heart of myself and my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Longford—namely, the setting up of a World Authority. I should not have thought that the most direct way of setting up a Would Authority was through entry into the European community; nor should I think, at this moment of time, that those who are mainly responsible for decisions as to foreign policy in the European Community are exactly the kind of people Who would be most likely to further the interests of world government. Be that as it may, I think it is a perfectly legitimate safeguard to put in that by going into the Community we are not thereby as a matter of course, sacrificing our freedom to conduct our own foreign policy.
The fifth condition is that we retain freedom to use public ownership and

411
our own economic methods. There, again, obviously there will be some interference with our economic position, and the Treaty of Rome actually puts forward certain respects in which we have to comply and which will involve even some effect on British commercial law. All that we understand, and if we go in we have to accept it. But what we desire to safeguard is that if we go in under the Treaty of Rome it will be possible for the Commission to give way to us as to the extent to which we shall nationalise, for instance, water or steel or any other undertaking. That we must reserve the freedom to do, as we think right. We have our own obligations to our own people. We have to deal with unemployment, and we have to deal with many other problems which may involve some kind of action. I do not want to be unduly controversial in this speech, or to be advocating nationalisation or control, but we must have the freedom to do these things, whichever Government are in office, if it is thought that it is in the public interest. I take the view that the Treaty of Rome does not of itself prevent us from doing this; but it seems to me a very proper condition to bring in to ensure that it cannot possibly happen.
These are the reasons for the Amendment. I should have thought that it could quite well be accepted by the Government, if they genuinely intend to comply with the conditions which they themselves laid down. The other two conditions that have been inserted are, as I have said, not such as to stand in the way of acceptance of the Amendment. I believe that if the Government did accept the Amendment they would be giving a lead to the world. We could go forward, at any rate, as a united Parliament, and indicate to the Six that we are determined that, while we want to go in, we will not do so just under any conditions; that we certainly will not go in as humble petitioners, or go on our hands and knees to certain gentlemen in Europe and hope that they may take a lenient view of us and allow us to join.
I have attached perhaps the greatest importance to E.F.T.A. I am glad that the noble Earl appears to have given satisfactory assurances on this point. We have given our word, and our word must
412
be our bond. We once went to war for a scrap of paper, and I imagine that if the need should arise we might be prepared to do so again. We have given certain assurances to the Commonwealth and to agriculture, and they must be satisfied. I therefore submit to the House that if these conditions cannot be satisfied, if we are being compelled to go on our hands and knees and beg for entry into the Common Market, we must be prepared regretfully to withdraw and postpone our application to a more favourable condition. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("would support the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community provided that guarantees safeguarding British agriculture, the vital interests of the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Area countries are obtained and that Great Britain retains her present freedom to conduct her own foreign policy and to use public ownership and economic planning to ensure social progress within the United Kingdom: it regrets however that the terms so far provisionally negotiated do not satisfy either these conditions or the binding pledges given by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to negotiate terms which secure these essential conditions and fulfil the Government's own pledges.")—(Lord Silkin.)
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF AVON: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office for his opening account of the recent stages of this inevitably very tangled negotiation. I think he threw some valuable light on some dark places. Whatever other considerations are in the minds of the House this afternoon, we shall all, I think, be agreed that certainly not in our lifetimes has this House, and this Parliament as a whole, ever debated a subject of more significance to our country. Purely in the economic sphere, what we may shortly have to decide is more important than any decision since the repeal of the Corn Laws. On the political side, it can be more important than any decision we have taken in our history.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, tell us that he did not think Party politics had anything to do with this discussion. I am very glad to hear that. I had a little suspicion that it was

413
not perhaps exactly so, but I happily take his assurance that henceforth it will be so, because I think we are all agreed that, though Party politics have their advantages—and many of your Lordships, like myself, have spent a great deal of their life immersed in them, not, we think, to our particular disadvantage—there are occasions, and this is one of them, when issues far transcend the importance of Party politics; and, therefore, if we can all agree that they do not any more play a part in these grave decisions, so much the more likely is a wise decision by Parliament when the time comes.
When the Government decided last year to open negotiations with the Common Market they laid down, I think rightly, three conditions which had to be fulfilled in the economic sphere if we were to accept membership. They were to safeguard the interests of Commonwealth, of our own agriculture and of E.F.T.A. For my part, I agreed with those conditions a year ago and I agree with them now. Our negotiators have laboured manfully to secure the interpretation acceptable to us of the necessary terms. Whatever the final outcome of these negotiations with the Six, no reproach can possibly lie with Mr. Heath or Sir Pierson Dixon, or with any of their team of most able and efficient negotiators.
But I do not think it will handicap them and it should, on the contrary, assist them, if some of us explain why we think that the conditions which the Government laid down a year ago must be fulfilled if agreement is to be reached. The nation, I should judge, is on this topic divided, like Gaul, into three parts: those who would go into the Common Market whatever the terms, those who would not go into the Common Market whatever the terms, and those who want to see the terms before they decide whether to go into the Common Market or not. The last category I suspect to be the majority of the people of this country.
I must confess that, in balancing the pros and cons in the economic sphere, I regret the possibility, indeed the virtual certainty, of the end of the period of free entry for Commonwealth foodstuffs into this country, especially at the present time. I regret it not only for the Commonwealth countries, but also for
414
ourselves, because without question the people of this country have benefited—they sometimes forget how much—from this free entry of foodstuffs into this country. Since the war—and it is to the credit of the Labour Government—this free entry has been accompanied, or coupled, if you wish, with a system of support costs for our own agriculture which has indisputedly had one result: Cheaper food for our own people than for, I think, any other Western European nation.
There are two things to be said about these support costs, because I think there is some public misunderstanding about them. First, the system was not the result of clamour in the agricultural industry; it was a political decision taken by the Government of the day with the purpose of giving agriculture a fair return while also benefiting the nation through the modest prices of foodstuffs. It is quite true that that system has become expensive, particularly in recent years, and particularly for some items, and the consequent burden has fallen on the taxpayer. But if our nation's taxation is graded according to ability to pay, it is probably fairer and more satisfactory than a rise in the price of food which must be most hardly felt by the poorest in the community. In other words, if somebody has to pay more, better the tax-payer than the consumer of foodstuffs.
However, it is also fair to add that this rising cost of our existing system is in part due to causes which have nothing to do with the British farmer at all. They are due to the dumping habits of some countries who find it convenient for the moment to place in this country foodstuffs which they want to get rid of at what are uneconomic and uncompetitive prices. Sometimes, for what may be very good reasons, we do not react very promptly to this dumping process, which puts a higher charge on the Treasury in consequence. There are, I suggest, certain national as well as economic questions at stake when we consider our agricultural position in this country, which ought not to be overlooked.
Twice in our lifetime many of us have seen the production of our farms, together with the gallantry of our merchant seamen, standing between the people of this country and starvation. I

415
think it would be very rash indeed to found any policy on the assumption that such conditions could never come again, even in this nuclear age. Agricultural production cannot be improvised; it is still an essential line of our defence. With that in mind I say to the Government—and I think they will agree—that if we are to enter the Common Market then the transition from our system of support costs to one of protection against the outside world, including our own Commonwealth, and free imports from the Seven or the Nine, will at best result in a major upheaval, accompanied by rising prices. How much those prices will rise is debatable, but I should not myself be surprised if the increase were of the order of 10 to 12 per cent. In any event—and here is the point—sufficient time must be granted for the adjustment of this transformation, because it affects not only our own national life but also our present suppliers of foodstuffs in the Commonwealth and elsewhere.
I was glad therefore to read that the Lord Privy Seal has made a firm statement that we cannot agree to abandon our price support system of deficiency payments immediately upon entry into the Common Market. The idea that we should introduce a system of consumer subsidies to cushion this transition will appeal to no one in this country who has any memory at all. To do this we should have to re-create elaborate machinery, at a heavy cost, and revive, I suppose, the Ministry of Food and all the paraphernalia of paper that went with it, while our citizens would have to foot the bill both as consumers and as taxpayers. I agree with the Government's view that that is not good enough, and I am glad they regard it as unacceptable.
But, my Lords, while I support the attitude of the Government in rejecting this suggestion, I confess to being seriously troubled that it should have been put forward at all at this stage after a Whole year of negotiations. This experience strengthens my conviction—and not having responsibility to the Government I think I can state it—that some of the Six, notably our French neighbours, see in this plan a means to dispose of the food surpluses with which their rising agricultural production now
416
embarrasses them, and will embarrass them a great deal more in the future Of course, they are entitled to cherish this hope—there can be no complaint about that; but Britain has to look at the consequences.
According to the proposal of the Six as now stated, the levy on foodstuffs entering this country (this is what they wish) is to come into force on the very day of our entering the Common Market. The proceeds of this levy, as I understand it—and my noble friend will correct me when he winds up if I am wrong; but I think I am not—will belong to the Common Market and will be used to an increasing extent to promote Continental agriculture and agricultural exports. This would mean that we Should subsidise Continental exports not only to the British market but even to markets outside Europe, in direct competition with our Commonwealth partners. I cannot think of a more extravagant proposal than that we should have to pay over to others the proceeds of a levy on our food imports and, at the same time, pay large sums to make our prices acceptable to our own people. I am glad indeed that the Government are not prepared to accept this.
There may be, and probably there is, a case for revision of support costs. There may be, as the noble Lord said just now, a better system that can be devised: and if so, we should all welcome it. But many of us would be reluctant to see this system go unless the corresponding advantages are greater than they seem at present, and unless the safeguards for which the Government rightly asked a year ago are fully met.
My Lords, I think something must now be said about the consequences for the Commonwealth of our entry into the Common Market. They are varied and they are of much greater significance for some parts of the Commonwealth than for others. I was glad to hear what my noble friend said about New Zealand. There is no dispute that the hardest case of all is New Zealand, which has built up a prosperous and, as those of us who have seen it know, a highly intelligently directed and managed agricultural industry on the basis of free entry into this country. It would not be possible, I am sure, for a British Government to

417
accept terms, however attractive they might be for us in other respects, which would strike a death blow at the economy of this most brave and loyal community. We are all agreed about that. I am fully satisfied with what the Government said about it, but that leads me to mention one other matter, because I have seen it referred to and it would be good, I think, to get it out of the way, if possible in this connection. It must be remembered that New Zealand cannot, with the best will in the world, replace her market here in a short time anywhere else in the world. That is not because there is no shortage of foodstuffs—of course there is—but because of inability to pay or for reasons of taste—for many of these lands do not happen to want to take New Zealand lamb or enjoy it as much as we do.
I have been a little concerned to see some Press reports—I think inaccurate, but I had better mention them—that the French Government have recently—in fact, last week—made certain reservations since their earlier acquiescence in a general statement of a desire to meet the New Zealand position. My noble friend said something about that at the opening of his speech. I hope that it will be possible to make it plain that, despite this apparently new French reservation, the Government do not anticipate that it will delay or prevent negotiation of the New Zealand position as a special case. If we could be assured of that, I think we should all be gratified.
It would be invidious and take too long—many other noble Lords want to speak—to deal with other Commonwealth positions in detail, but the problem of India is one which I think deserves special thought and care. That country is under the menace of foreign aggression, and I fear that it is likely to continue to be so. I do not myself believe that the Communist Government of China occupied Tibet for the sake of the scenery, any more than Mussolini went into Albania in order to have a pleasant view. They were more concerned with the neighbours lying to the south of the countries they occupied, and Mao is likely to be a great deal more formidable than Mussolini. In those conditions India will have to meet the additional strain of more armaments now, and perhaps for some years to
418
come, and we therefore have to help her general economy as much as we can.
In this world, where Parliamentary democracies are becoming rarer almost every year, the Indian experiment is a courageous and remarkable one and we must be careful—and no doubt the Government will agree—that in our arrangements with the Six we do not take action which makes its survival economically more difficult. In that connection I was rather sorry to read last week what appeared to be the reply of the Six to a limited request put forward by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of India and Pakistan after the Commonwealth Conference. It appeared to be in its essentials rejected. What was asked for was that the tariff on manufactured goods and textiles should be suspended so far as it concerned India and Pakistan, pending a comprehensive agreement. I think the answer was "No" to that, but "Yes" to an early negotiation, and some concessions, too, about carpets and castor oil—useful, no doubt, but not enough, if I understood it aright, to meet the full requirements of the Indian trade. I hope we can still expect from the Six rather more help towards those countries now.
In these debates one is always adjured not to be carried away by sentiment. I am not sure that it is a good rebuke, because, after all, what is loyalty except sentiment? I confess to feeling unhappy at the reflection of what is going to happen—and even though we decide that the terms are satisfactory I think we ought to have these things in our minds—to some communities. I have in mind one in Australia, which I saw forty years ago, up the Murray River, where they were beginning to make settlements for ex-Servicemen to grow fruit. That has since developed into a very large industry, and 80 per cent. of their production comes here. What precisely will happen if that industry has to meet a tariff here and has also to meet Greek competition, Greece then being an associate of the Common Market and therefore getting in free of duty, as against the fact that Australia will have to pay duty? I know one will be told that one must not lay too much emphasis on these comparatively small individual cases when deciding great issues of this kind. Certainly that is true. But it is also true that one cannot entirely overlook these human considerations which affect our own people in another

419
part of the world. I am sure the Government will understand my saying that, and that they share very largely the sentiments I have been expressing.
There is one other consideration on the Commonwealth side. It was referred to by my noble friend in general terms. The last few years has seen a steady decline in the prices which the primary producers are getting for their products. On the short term, that is quite agreeable to the Treasury, but in the long term it is very bad business indeed, for it increases the imbalance between the richer countries and the poorer—because in the main the primary producers are also the poorer countries—and the last thing in the world we want to do is bring that about I confess that why I am troubled about the food production aspect of this Common Market business is because I do not think it will be an advantage to the world if, at the end of our negotiations, we find ourselves here taking food produced in the Six—for instance, accepting their surpluses—and having to ignore in consequence the exports of the primary producing countries; because we are now the only open market left to them in the world. These are very important considerations and in relation to these negotiations they sway me very much more than anything else. We must get a position in which the primary producers, Commonwealth and otherwise, have some opportunity of sending their production here, and not accept what amounts to an inward-looking arrangement where we all take in the foodstuffs of our own countries, which very soon could well be enough for the needs of the Six, the Seven or the Ten.
There is one other subject to which I want to refer before I close, and that is the question of federation in relation to the negotiations which are now taking place. As I understand it, there are two sets of negotiations about closer unity, if that is the right term, now in progress. One is the negotiations which deal with the Common Market; another is a separate set of negotiations into which we have undertaken to enter. Personally, I have always been in favour of the closest possible political collaboration between ourselves and the countries of Europe. Indeed, I bore some responsibility for the negotiations of 1954 which resulted in Germany coming into NATO, and extending the Brussels
420
Treaty, which the late Mr. Bevin had made, so that it covered Germany and Italy as well as the Allies. As a consequence, we now have a mutual assistance pact between the five Western European nations, and a threat to any of them affects each one of us equally. In the same negotiations we brought Western European Union into being, which has perhaps not had the results we hoped for at the time. Whose fault that is I do not know; the French blame us, but there may be quite different reasons.
In addition to the arrangements I have mentioned, the negotiations of 1954 resulted in the stationing of considerable forces of our troops in Europe. I mention all these things, not to recapitulate past history but to show that it is not true that those who may have doubts about present negotiations for closer political unity are now contemplating or in any way desire to turn their backs on Europe. The truth is we are already in Europe and we have special responsibilities for helping to promote friendly relations between the European Powers. There is no dispute about that. I know and accept that the Rome Treaty as it now stands does not entail any new political obligation; but at the same time I am equally aware that in the view of the promoters of the Treaty that document is only a step on the road to further integration. What some of us find it difficult to visualise is the form which this closer political unity can now be expected to take. How much closer can we get to each other, and what will the process entail for the authority of Parliament in this country?
It is neither a secret nor an exaggeration to say that most of those on the Continent of Europe who have been eager enthusiasts for the Common Market are also convinced believers in European federation. Only this Monday a meeting was held, I think in Brussels or perhaps in Paris, of the Socialist Parties of the Six to discuss methods to promote federation between their countries. Of course, they have every right to do this, but it does not seem to me that we can pretend it does not matter or that it would not be quite important to us if we joined the Common Market. Last week the Common Market Commission published a memorandum, which I have seen, which forecast the development of the E.E.C. during the next four

421
years. It is a very far-reaching document. They argue that it is contrary to reality to negotiate for economic union leaving political union to be discussed later. They say that progress towards economic union is progress towards political union. In other words, the E.E.C. is not, in their opinion, just an economic venture but a means of bringing about political integration through economic policy. I am not for the moment arguing whether this opinion is right or wrong. On that there can be any number of opinions. But what I am saying is that it is a confession of intent which we should be ostriches to ignore.
It was this same conception, ultimate federation, many of your Lordships will remember, that lay behind the proposals of 1950 for the creation of E.D.C. That was essentially a federal scheme that postulated a European Minister of Defence responsible to a European Parliament. There were other difficulties about that particular proposal; it had its critics on technical grounds. I remember a well instructed one referring to it as a "sludgy amalgam". But I think it is fair to say that the Government of which I was a member, Sir Winston Churchill's Government, did what it could to help this scheme forward by various forms of association with it. But even the many concessions we could make were not enough to mollify French opinion at that time about the scheme. How much difference our full membership would have made I do not know—that is arguable. What is certainly true—and this is what I want to leave in your Lordships' minds—is that one of the influences, probably the chief influence, which made it impossible for the Government of this country, whether Labour or Conservative, to join the E.D.C. was its federal implication.
I cannot accept that this country at any time betrays Europe if it declines to enter a European Federation. In considering this matter, I think we should be completely candid about the motives which cause us to have these reservations. What is it, above all else, that Britain has made her legacy to succeeding generations? Not, I think, her Armies, her Navies or her Air Force; not her victories on land or sea or in the air; not her commercial competence; not her industrial skill; but the art of self-government by a free people. That
422
has been our donation to what we may like to call Western civilisation so long as it survives. If that be so, that conception is mirrored in our Parliamentary life, where to-day any minority, even the smallest—even a minority of one—is entitled to, and indeed is certain to receive, the benign but most effective protection of the Chair. It is quite true that the method of Parliamentary government is not to-day, unfortunately, on an increase in the world. We may regret the fact; we cannot do much to alter it. But the existence of this trend should make us especially careful that the very essence of our national faith and conduct should be protected in any arrangements we come to.
It is not, I would say to my noble friends on the Government Benches, so far as I am concerned at any rate, to the conception of federation as such that I myself have such strong reservations—I have not. In certain circumstances, I can understand our welcoming it if geography made it possible. But we in this country have this faith and long attachment to Parliamentary institutions, as some of the Six have always had and all of them now practise. But we are bound to take account of the reality that the history of the three great Powers in the Six has, in this connection, been a varied one. Each of these countries has made brilliant contributions to the ideals of liberty and to their expression; but they have not all found it possible to practise the same continuing loyalty to Parliamentary institutions as we have in this country.
In these circumstances, it does not seem to me unreasonable or offensive to any country to ask that Her Majesty's Government should make their position clear before they embark upon negotiations which may lead to the acceptance of conditions intended by others to promote federation. This seems to me indispensable, if we have no intention of travelling the full way ourselves. If we do not make our position clear at the outset, the danger, as I see it, is that to which I referred in a speech in Yorkshire eighteen months ago. I was then speaking only of the Treaty of Rome. There are now two sets of negotiations. I said then that what we must not do is to join any organisation without a full understanding of its implications and then find

423
ourselves being swept further than we intended. To try to back out at a later stage would be to multiply the difficulties and dangers and result, not unjustifiably, in loud cries of Perfide Albion.
There is, therefore, in my judgment nothing to lose and much to be gained by a statement from the Government of where they stand in respect of federation with the Six, or the Nine, either as a development of the Treaty of Rome or as a result of the separate negotiations now contemplated. Better clarity now than recrimination a few years hence. In this connection I must add—I am sorry to see that the Lord Chancellor is not here—that I did not take any comfort at all from the Lord Chancellor's assurance, if I understood it aright, in his Bristol speech, that we are not finally committed by what one Parliament does, because another Parliament can undo it. That may be legally correct—I am sure it is, otherwise the Lord Chancellor would not have said it—but politically, it is a most unsound doctrine. At a time when much of the mischief in the world is being done by dictator Powers, large and small, because they go back at their own convenience on the engagements that they have earlier signed, this country's whole weight and effort—I am sure the Lord President when he winds up will agree—must be laid in favour of the observance of engagements and a refusal to accept that they can be revised except by the consent of the parties who sign them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but I think I should say now that I accept it.
THE EARL OF AVON: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am sorry that I have detained your Lordships so long, but if I have done nothing else by this speech I think that assurance is worth while, if I may say so. Now I should like to wind up what I have to say. Usually, in a negotiation that has lasted so long one can observe towards the end of the proceeding some yielding in the positions of both sides working towards an agreement. In this instance, what disturbs me a little is that, on the contrary, it would seem that
424
the Six have stiffened, rather than shown more accommodation in their position, especially in the last few weeks.
In the important matter of the date when the duty on the import of foodstuffs into this country should be imposed and our system of support costs transformed, Her Majesty's Government had asked, I think, fox a period of twelve to fifteen years for the transition. I thought that reasonable. They later agreed that the date should be put forward to 1970. I thought that a major concession by them, considering the importance of it to our agricultural industry and to the price of food in this country. Now we are being asked to agree that the duty should come into force on the date when the agreement becomes operative. That is clearly unacceptable, and I hope it will be noted as such outside this country, because it would not be possible for a Government of this country to sign on those terms, or to sign on terms which did not take account of the position of our E.F.T.A. partners, in respect of which I thought the undertaking given just now by my noble friend the Minister of State was fully satisfactory.
It is to be remembered that these conditions that the Government mentioned were all known to our fellow negotiators when the discussions were embarked upon. It is not so unreasonable that they should ask that they should be met, if they cannot be accepted despite all the efforts that have been made by the negotiators, the Government cannot, in my judgment, be blamed. They could be blamed only if, in an effort to secure agreement at almost any price, they allowed themselves to sacrifice the conditions that they themselves had announced as essential when the conversations began. If agreement is not reached, then many will regret the fact. But that does not, of course, mean that no other arrangements are at any time possible, or that this country's future, either economically or politically, would be in jeopardy as a result. I do not believe it. We have faced and overcome much greater hazards than that, and the real problems that confront our nation go much deeper than whether we enter or whether we stay out of the Common Market. Britain's future will finally

425
depend upon leadership and on the temper and determination of the British people. Salvation will not be found in concessions to placate others, if we know in our hearts that these are not fair, either to the Commonwealth or to our E.F.T.A. friends, or to ourselves.
4.40 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, we have just listened to a very remarkable speech. It confirms what I have often thought recently: that it is a pity we do not hear the noble Earl, Lord Avon, more often, because he has great experience and much to say. I think he made an admirable contribution to this debate both on the economic side and on the political side.
The division has been made between the people who were all for going into the Common Market on any terms, those who were hesitant and those who were dead against. I must confess that I have been one of those against, particularly from the long-term political view; because I am quite sure that it is impossible for us to enter into these economic arrangements without being pulled, sooner or later, into a political association, which I do not think is desirable. I am afraid that I shall be accused of being old-fashioned and out of date, but I still think that for this country a degree of flexibility is desirable. The Common Market means a great deal of rigidity—and I thank the noble Viscount the Lord President for the term. It will bring a rigidity into our foreign policy that we have never had before, because, although we have had temporary arrangements, or arrangements for particular purposes, such as defence, we have never before tied ourselves up so closely so that our whole economic life depends on the work of people other than ourselves.
The Question of sovereignty is often raised. I am one of those who believe that in a modern world one has to give up a great deal of sovereignty. I am prepared to give up sovereignty to the world, but not to a selected number of European countries. That is not giving up something for world security; it is giving something up to sectional interests. And we are entitled to look fairly closely at what those interests are.
Turning to the immediate position, I have a very great deal of sympathy with the Lord Privy Seal. He has had to go and negotiate under very unfavour-
426
able terms. Unfortunately, in this country the propaganda for entering the Common Market has been largely based on defeatism. We are told that unless we do it we are going to have a terrible time. That is no way to go into a negotiation. You ought to go into a negotiation on the basis that they have need of you, not just you of them. I think that has hampered the Lord Privy Seal all the time. Long-drawn-out negotiations are not good. My impression, from repeated reports, has been that we have not got much of what we wanted. But, inevitably, in long-drawn-out negotiations, when you meet with many negatives, you are apt to exaggerate the few positive things you get. For instance, there is the cup of tea—we shall be all right for tea. That is no doubt very satisfactory, particularly at this time of the day. But we cannot escape the fact of the serious injury to Commonwealth interests that might be sacrificed. Yet you are cheered because you get just one little thing.
I am afraid that during the course of this year the Government have set out to see whether it was desirable for us to go into the Common Market. They have come to pin their faith on it, and to put the whole of the Government behind success in the Common Market. That is again very weakening; and, as everybody knows, there are very wide divisions in this country, in all Parties. I would say that it was very strong in the Party opposite, in spite of (if I may borrow another word from the Lord President) the machine-made majorities available. Weil, we have our differences. That I admit freely—and I go beyond even the terms of this Amendment. But if we could get our Amendment put into force, and if we could get these conditions fulfilled, that would be something. So far as I can see, we are on the dangerous and slippery slopes of steadily giving up this and giving up that, driven back, until, at last, the Government prestige being so tied up with it, we shall go crawling in on almost any terms. And once we are in it will be very difficult to get out again.
I was very much struck with what the noble Earl was saying about the importance of the political outlook and of our conception of democracy. We are told that we have to accept the Treaty of

427
Rome. I have read the Treaty of Rome pretty carefully, and it expresses an outlook entirely different from our own. It may be that I am insular, but I value our Parliamentary outlook, an outlook which has extended throughout the Commonwealth. That is not the same position that holds on the Continent of Europe. No one of these principal countries in the Common Market has been very successful in running Parliamentary institutions: Germany, hardly any experience; Italy, very little; France, a swing between a dictatorship and more or less anarchic Parliament, and not very successfully.
As I read the Treaty of Rome, the Whole position means that we shall enter a federation which is composed in an entirely different way. I do not say it is the wrong way. But it is not our way. In this set-up it is the official who really puts up all the proposals; the whole of the planning is done by officials. It seems to me that the Ministers come in at a later stage—and if there is anything like a Federal Parliament, at a later stage still. I do not think that that is the way this country has developed, or wishes to develop. I am all for working in with our Continental friends. I was one of those who worked to build up NATO; I have worked for European integration. But that is a very different thing from bringing us into a close association which, I may say, is not one for defence, or even just for foreign policy.
The fact is that if the designs behind the Common Market are carried out, we are bound to be affected in every phase of our national life. There would be no national planning, except under the guidance of Continental planning—we shall not be able to deal with our own problems; we shall not be able to build up the country in the way we want to do, so far as I can see. I think we shall be subject to overall control and planning by others. That is my objection.
I do not think it is an up-to-date idea that we should be integrated with Europe. I am not allowed to mention history nowadays. It is forbidden by the Lord President——
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: History?
EARL ATTLEE: We must not talk about history. If you talk about a thou-
428
sand years of history you are out of date.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Mr. Ford said that.
EARL ATTLEE: But as a matter of fact the idea of an integrated Europe is historically looking backward, and not forward. The noble Viscount was looking at the Holy Roman Empire. We never belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, and we never belonged to the reactionary organisation after 1815. We have always looked outward, out to the New World; and to-day we look out to the New World, and to Asia and Africa. I think that integration with Europe is a step backward. By all means let us get the greatest possible agreement between the various continents, but I am afraid that if we join the Common Market we shall be joining not an outward-looking organisation, but an inward-looking organisation. I think that Germany, for instance, which has probably the most powerful influence in the organisation, will not escape from looking at what she thought she was going to gain, and what she has lost. I do not think we have a new look there. I think that by marrying into Europe we are marrying a whole family of ancient prejudices and ancient troubles, and I would much rather see an Atlantic organisation. I would much rather work for the world organisation.
In particular, I feed that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was perfectly right when he spoke of the danger of the advanced nations' getting advantage to themselves, and leaving the poorer peoples to get poorer and poorer. I believe that the way to get what is wanted is not by the method that is put forward in these present negotiations. I think it should be done by what we were trying to do—that is, by getting long-term contracts. I am all for getting stability of prices. I think that very largely this country did something for that, in getting long-term agreements with the agricultural community on farm prices. I should like to see something done in the world on that basis. I do not think you will get it in a European organisation; you will get it in a world organisation, and you will get something in the Commonwealth.
Frankly, I think that the Common Market is a step back and, so far as I

429
can see to-day, there is very little chance of our getting acceptance of the terms that we have sought. There is no sign that France is to give up her present attitude; in fact, I am not sure that France wants us there at all. I think de Gaulle is a very good European, provided that Europe is run by France; otherwise, France comes first. I do not blame him, but I do not think we should delude ourselves by imagining that we are going to get acceptance of the kind of proposals that have been put forward, and are even put forward in the Amendment. I do not think we shall get them. I should have liked to see during this year, while these negotiations were going on, some activity shown in organising our own resources, and in working in with the Commonwealth. It is suggested that there is no alternative to these negotiations. There is an alternative. I do not believe that this country is so down and out, as is suggested. I believe that we ourselves ought now to be making much more progress.
There is one final point which I can never make out—perhaps someone will tell me. I am told that we must go into the Common Market, because we are going to get wonderful advantages in great markets. Of course, they come into our market, too. So I do not see that argument. On the other hand, I am told that the real advantage of going into the Common Market is that it is going to stimulate by competition, and wake up our own people. But they cannot have it both ways. Either they are going to sleep in the Common Market, or they have got to wake up in it. I do not see how a Common Market, like a patent medicine, can do two entirely distinct things. I should like someone to tell me what they really expect is going to be the effect on British industry, because in the debate earlier we had an abundance of remarks in this House about the need for greater enterprise, better training of men and all the rest of industry. Is this going to stimulate by a cold wind of competition, or is it going to make it easy and let people sit down with a comfortable market at their doors? I should like to be told that.
Up to the present, I cannot say that I have been satisfied in the least by what has been said. I tried hard to read the admirable but extremely detailed state-
430
ment by the Lord Privy Seal in the Commons. I cannot say that he really satisfied me on any point with regard to the Common Market. He did not satisfy my doubts about British agriculture; he did not satisfy my doubts about the Commonwealth; nor even about E.F.T.A. In fact, at the present moment there is very little to decide on, because at intervals all through his speech the Lord Privy Seal told us that everything is provisional. Yet when asked, "Can you go back and get a different decision?" he said, "Oh, no! That has been settled already." When asked whether we can get some change in matters which we thought were hurting the Commonwealth, he said, "No, that has been settled." He could not hold out any hope of change in that, or any change in the Treaty of Rome, and I should be very hesitant of signing the Treaty of Rome, without some very big changes in its construction and in its provisions. I hope the Government will stand by the pledges they have made, and if they are prepared to do that, I cannot see why they cannot accept the Amendment.
4.58 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am not sure that this debate is taking place at a very happy moment in time, because I feel that all we can do in practice, at the present moment—and I think this applies generally to the great bulk of noble Lords on both sides o£ the House—is to wish the Government well in their great efforts to get into the Common Market on terms consonant with our honour and our interest. So I will not weary your Lordships, in the few moments that I shall speak, with any repetition of the arguments in favour of going in on reasonable terms. Of course, there must be reasonable terms, and there I certainly find myself in the same part of Gaul as that inhabited by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. And the question is, of course, what the reasonable terms are.
I think that I myself would go along with a great deal of what he said, except perhaps as regards agriculture; because there I think that my ultimate judgment might be tempered by the suspicion that we might not be able, if we did go in, to continue our present excellent system, whereby we import all our food free and pay out very large and ever-increasing subsidies and deficiency payments to the

431
farmers. We might not be able to do that in the future, although it is possible. Everybody will have his own ideas, but I should define "reasonable terms" as meaning the terms already negotiated, plus something rather more concrete as regards New Zealand, more definite as regards the trade of the Asian members of the Commonwealth, with voting formulæ—and this is important—not dissimilar from those now existing, and the whole having the necessary blessing of our partners in the European Free Trade Association and enabling us also, of course, to meet in a general way our pledges to our farmers. As I see it, the political and the economic case for our signing the Treaty on such basic conditions as these has now been established (I know I am not speaking for everybody here, but I know most noble Lords will feel this with me) beyond all reasonable doubt.
I have, however, to confess that I must shortly, very shortly, leave this Chamber, since I have a long-standing engagement to argue this very case with no less a person than the noble, if reluctant, Earl, Lord Sandwich, in that home of lost causes, the Oxford Union Society. Before setting out for this kind of gladiatorial contest, I should like very briefly to make two points; and in so doing I would ask the forgiveness of the House for going before hearing any comments by your Lordships to which they might conceivably give rise.
The first is a very simple one. Every fair-minded person in the countries with whom we are now negotiating must, and I think does, admit that it is far more difficult for this country than for any other European country to accept the institutions and the political implications of the Treaty of Rome. The reasons for this are firmly rooted, of course, in the history of the last 400 years. Throughout that period. England has sought to build up her strength in the outside world for the main purpose of defeating attempts by any one Power to achieve absolute mastery over the mainland of Europe. However, we must realise, I think, that at a time when half Europe is already occupied by a semi-European Power, this game is hardly possible, even if it were still desirable. Indeed, on the legitimate assumption—and I think it is a legitimate assumption
432
—that the E.E.C. is eventually going to be some kind of Power in its own right, this traditional policy of ours would be possible only if it involved an alliance with the Soviet Union; and that, after all, could mean that the whole of Europe, including these islands, would eventually come under Russian domination.
Now ours is naturally not the only traditional national policy which can no longer, as I see it, be pursued in this period of potential Communist world States and the hydrogen bomb; but it is deeply ingrained in our national consciousness and it has resulted, among other things, in our being far more dependent on imports, and thus on exports, than any other State in the world, I think I am right in saying, and in our possessing physical overseas links which, again, are entirely without precedent. However much we may, so to speak, see the European light, therefore, however logical joining the E.E.C. may appear to be, it is no good thinking that it is likely to be wildly popular in this country, where it is calculated, I am informed, that every family in three—I do not know if that is true: but, anyhow, a great proportion of families—has some relationship with some other family in what used to be called the old Commonwealth countries. Besides, we have not been mixed up, as the nations of the mainland have been mixed up, by conquest and counter-conquest. Our last conquest was nearly 900 years ago, and for about half the period since we have enjoyed what I believe (I may be wrong; the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will correct me if I am) no other country in the Free World has enjoyed—namely, a special, separate, independent, national religion.
It must surely therefore be tempting to some people on the mainland of Europe to say, or at any rate to think, "Now we have proud Albion where we want her, begging to come into a Europe she has for so long divided and even, sometimes, derided. Now we can see to it that, if she does come in, it will not be as the centre of an Empire but as a smallish offshore island with nothing much in the way of raw materials and with an industry that is becoming more and more out of date." Tempting, my Lords, but most unwise.

433
I would indeed say most earnestly to my European friends—and they perhaps know more than most people how much I have myself laboured in the general European cause—that it is not yet at all certain that the Government will be able to obtain the approval of the House of Commons, to say nothing of the nation, for our entry into the European Economic Community.
It is possible, for instance, that, from the point of view of what Europeans may well consider to be logic and justice, the United Kingdom is not justified in asking, shall we say, for any very special terms for New Zealand. But all I can say is that, in default of such special terms, and indeed of some consideration for our position as senior partner in a Commonwealth which we should like to bring as a whole into satisfactory relationship with the new Europe, I simply do not see the whole, great project going through. The last thing, I think, therefore, that my European friends should do, I would beg them to believe, is to create a sort of 1940 mentality among the British. This it is true—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would agree—might not be at all unpopular in this country. We think, and with reason, that we are at our best when we have our backs firmly against some wall: but it could be very dangerous, not only I think for Europe, but also possibly for the whole Western Alliance.
The other point that I should like to make in the two minutes that remain for me is one which arises naturally, I think, out of what the noble Earl. Lord Avon, said on the general political aspect, and as regards that problem which is commonly, if I think quite misleadingly, referred to as "sovereignty".
Everybody knows that if we come into the E.C.C. certain decisions in certain fields will be taken by what is called a "qualified majority vote" in the Council of Ministers, but not everybody knows that this particular majority is quite unlikely to be achieved unless there is substantial prior agreement between at any rate the larger Powers represented in the Community. If we come in, we shall, it is quite true, be joining a Customs Union in which all impediments to free trade will shortly be abolished, surrounded by a common external tariff
434
which we shall admittedly be unable to alter by ourselves. That is the main feature of the whole system, which does of course differentiate it from any other international system to which we now belong. It is a far-reaching obligation which we must indeed accept with open eyes if we propose to go into the Community at all.
But all the other objectives of the Treaty, all the common policies—agriculture, transport, social and so on; all those—will need to have such a qualified majority before they can become effective; and we have seen, my Lords, that such a majority can be obtained in practice only by intensive bargaining behind the scenes, first of all in the independent Commissions and then in the Council of Ministers itself, with the object of finding out what is in the general interest of the group as a whole and not only in the interests of one part of it. That is the object.
On the whole economic and social side of the thing, therefore, I do not think there is anything to be frightened about so far as this country is concerned. Nor is there any prospect, I think, of any loss of national face or of any real diminution of the powers of our great national Parliament. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, ought to be reassured on that. It is true that the Treaty of Rome contains provisions for the election by direct universal suffrage of what would be a sort of super-Parliament, and if this ever came about then, of course, the situation would be entirely changed: but under the Treaty of Rome we know that this can be held only with the consent of all the members. We cannot therefore, obviously, be driven into any kind of Federation except with our own consent.
It seems to be imagined, however, that, whatever may be the position under the Treaty of Rome itself, we should be in even graver danger of losing our national identity by entering into some form of European Political Union which may conceivably be in existence before we come into the Community itself—though we should hope not. It is indeed possible that such a Union may by then be in existence, but this is most unlikely. Everything points to the likelihood of our being able to take part in its formation after we enter—if we do.

435
But it will clearly be necessary to set up something in this field. You cannot have economic and social unity without trying to co-ordinate other things as well. As your Lordships are aware, three broad fields lie outside the scope of the present Treaty of Rome. These are culture, defence and foreign affairs. For getting agreement in these fields either some new institution must be created or the present institutions could be suitably adapted. On foreign affairs it is obvious that majority voting cannot be contemplated—or, if it were, we could not take part. But, on the other hand, it is really rather unnecessary to lay as much emphasis as the Opposition Amendment docs on the absolute necessity of our continuing to have a completely independent foreign policy. The whole point, if we go into the Community at all, is that the entire group should pursue a sensible and enlightened and, if humanly possible, an agreed foreign policy. Obviously, if we were to pursue mutually conflicting and antagonistic foreign policies the whole thing would inevitably come apart.
It is really the same with defence. I speak open to correction; it is a subject I do not know much about; but the same principles apply. Here the position is that once we come in there will be two members who possess nuclear weapons. They will not be major deterrents but they will be of a certain importance and in any case will have to be co-ordinated. In other words, the group will be forced to have a defence policy of some kind which will be peculiar to itself. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I cannot see why, in the absence of general disarmament, the Community should not eventually work out plans for a small but significant nuclear force, consisting perhaps largely of nuclear submarines. This force, while remaining in NATO and playing its part in the general Western strategic conception, would be immediately under the European Union in the same way as United States' nuclear forces are immediately under the control of the American Government. Whether any kind of majority voting—and it might be, some special kind of majority voting—should operate in the sphere of European defence would have to be considered. As regards culture, I
436
cannot see why the same sort of rules as now operate in the European Economic Community should not apply too.
My Lords, there is nothing which need frighten us in all these possibilities. On the contrary, they represent the great hope, the great vision, for the future. What is certain, I repeat, is that we are not going to be pushed into any Federation against our will. The word "Federation" ought indeed to be dropped as altogether misleading. The new Europe, as I see it, will never be a Federation on the American model. It will be a close and voluntary association of certain great States with long histories and separate cultures who are determined that, while preserving their national identities, they will, in this age of super-States, take certain major policy decisions in common for the benefit of all. It may be, and I hope it will be, that this association in the long run will develop into some kind of super-State. But if it does, it will not be the same kind of super-State as America or the Soviet Union or, possibly, eventually China. It will be an amalgam—and all the stronger for that—of continuing national entities which will ensure something that quite obviously might not otherwise be ensured: that the voices of Britain, France, yes, and of Germany and Italy, too, should not be suppressed, but should rather be strongly heard on all the issues of war and peace and generally in the great councils of the world.
5.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, much of the discussion this afternoon has been concerned with the economic advantages or disadvantages likely to accrue to this country if it joins the Common Market: but I do not propose myself to embark on that particular aspect of this great topic. If I venture to trouble your Lordships this afternoon, it is to ask two questions. They are very simple questions, but, I believe, extremely important ones. The first is: is Parliament to be consulted—and by "consulted" I mean consulted by vote—before the Treaty is signed? The second—and, to my mind, even more important—question is: is the country also to be consulted; and by that I mean, are the electors to be

437
asked to express their views at a General Election for or against the final terms to be obtained, before the Treaty is signed?
Those are my two questions, which I feel ought to be considered both by the Government itself and, indeed, by all of us without delay; and they are two. I am sure, to which we in Parliament are entitled to have a clear, unequivocal answer. There are, I'm sure, many noble Lords in all parts of the House who, like myself, have never taken a rigid attitude for or against our entering the Common Market because we feel in no position to do so until the Government have put before Parliament and the country the final results of their negotiations with the Rome Powers. But that does not mean that we do not feel extremely anxious about the political implications to the country of signing this Treaty.
As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, rightly emphasised this afternoon, the ultimate aim of those to whom the whole conception underlying the Treaty of Rome was due has always been a full-blooded Federation, political as well as economic, of Western Europe. There would no doubt be certain spheres of domestic administration which would be reserved to the constituent States, but there would also be, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, certain centralised organisations with considerable political power over wide areas of government in the Federation as a whole. That is the ultimate aim of a great many leaders in Europe to-day. And what is still worrying us is this. How far will the Government, by its signature of the Treaty of Rome, if it does sign, be laying the country open in principle, either legally or what is, I think, equally important, morally, to acceptance of this federal idea? The issues are so far-reaching that I am sure we may be forgiven if we continue to voice our anxieties.
We have heard a number of statements within recent months from distinguished supporters of Government policy, expressing views not, indeed, always identical with each other but all clearly aimed at reassuring us. There is one argument, if I understand it aright, to the effect that it does not greatly matter one way or the other what apparent ob-
438
ligations we undertake now; for Parliament is sovereign and it will be open at any time for future Parliaments to repudiate any obligations arising out of our signature of the Treaty of Rome if, in their view, these become unacceptable to the British people. My noble friend Lord Avon has dealt fully and conclusively with that argument and I do not think there is any need for me to say any more about it.
There is, however, another view which appears also to be widely held in important circles. This school of thought, as I understand it, makes no attempt to minimise the far-reaching nature of the obligations inherent in the signature of the Treaty of Rome, but it says that we need not really worry about them; for anything in the nature of closer political union is likely to be a very, very long way off. There is no need, it says, for us to bother our heads about them now. That reminds me of an agreeable story I was told many years ago of the negotiations between Lord Halifax and Mr. Gandhi over the future of India. According to this story, Mr. Gandhi had one day put forward a proposal which, it seemed to Lord Halifax, was likely to have pretty far-reaching implications for the future: and so he replied, after due consideration: "That, Mr. Gandhi, is clearly an extremely interesting and important proposal, but", he added "I feel bound to ask myself, looking into the future, what are the long-term implications. Where is it going to land us in the long run?" To which Mr. Gandhi replied, with a charm and diplomatic skill which must have delighted Lord Halifax, "Ah!, Your Excellency, when you ask me questions like that, I think of the words of your old English hymn: 'One step enough for me'."
That, I feel, is not unlike the present attitude of some members of the Government—judging by the Lord Privy Seal's speech yesterday in another place, "One step is enough for them". But is it enough for us? I feel that we can hardly take the country forward into an unknown future, and without any direct consultation with the people, with quite so easy minds as that. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister himself gave more definite assurances in his final speech at Llandudno. He possibly shares the view which was expounded in your Lordships' House by my noble

439
friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate in this House on August 2 of last year. On that occasion, as your Lordships will remember, my noble friend made it clear that in his view—he will correct me if I misunderstood him, but I read his speech with great care—any move towards closer political union would be outside the ambit of the present Treaty of Rome: and, to quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 234. col. 120]:
"… changes and additions outside the existing Treaty can be passed only if there is a unanimous vote in the Council."
He assumed, in effect, that when that point was reached we could always impose our veto or opt out, and that we were therefore completely safeguarded. But, my Lords, what bothers a great many of us is this. Can the Government, or anyone, be really so sure that we shall be in any position to make our own conditions about staying in or going out of a federal Europe when the time comes?
Look at the experience we have already had about going into the Common Market. Only a year ago all the emphasis was on the conditions of our entry. What Parliament was asked to do—all Parliament was asked to do—was to empower the Government to enter into negotiations with a view to finding out whether terms could be agreed which would be acceptable to our own interests and to those of our fellow members of the Commonwealth. It was made fully clear to us, at least as I understood it, that if the conditions were not satisfactory to us and the Commonwealth, we should not go on.
No doubt, as every one of us knows, the Lord Privy Seal has worked assiduously and with immense skill to get the best terms he can; and he is still doing so. His speech yesterday showed. I thought, what heroic efforts he is making in this direction. But in spite of what my noble friend Lord Dundee said earlier in the debate to-day, it is surely now becoming clearer and clearer to a great many of us that any conditions which the Government are likely to obtain are most unlikely to be as satisfactory as was hoped, either to other members of the Commonwealth or, indeed, in respect of agriculture in particular, to ourselves. Most of the
440
advocacy, therefore, in favour of our joining seems to be nowadays becoming more and more of a general character. There is no longer the same emphasis as there was last year on special essential conditions. What is said to us now is that we are to "turn our backs on the past". We are to gird ourselves for "a great adventure", and so on. And though my noble friend Lord Hailsham is reported as having said, in South Dorset this week, that no final decisions have yet been taken—and I am sure that we are all extremely glad to hear that—it looks more and more as if the Government had pretty well made up their minds to enter, unless the conditions made are absolutely intolerable, simply because they cannot afford to do anything else—because they have gone too far to go back.
And, mark this, my Lords. That may well be exactly the same position—in fact, it probably will be—when the stage of the federalisation of Europe is reached. Our whole economy will have been geared to the Community by then. We may well have gone too far, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, frankly recognised, to opt out. He quite honestly explained what might be involved and how far from any real independence our initial decision may carry us.
That being the position, I repeat that it is fair that I should ask my first question. Is Parliament to be consulted before the Treaty is signed, before this great step is taken? I have little doubt actually about the answer to that question. No doubt we shall be told that Parliament will be consulted. Well, that is quite right. And no doubt the Government will get a favourable vote from their majority in Parliament, just as they have had already a favourable vote from their Party Conference. But here I come to what I feel myself to be a far more important question. Is the country going to be consulted before the Treaty is signed? Are the British people as a whole to be asked what is their view before they are committed to this great adventure, which is going to affect, as the Government themselves emphasise, the whole future of this country? That, it may be noted, is not referred to at all in the Government Resolution to-day. Nowhere, so far as I can see, is there

441
any mention of the country. There is mention only of Parliament, and that surely, I feel, is a very strange thing.
Moreover, it seems to be assumed by most of the organs of the Press that support the Government that the Government will not refer this immensely important question to the electorate until after the Treaty of Rome has been signed. Indeed, the Sunday Times on October 7 evolved this ingenious but somewhat obscure theory—and I quote their words:
"The likeliest event is that the General Election will come after Britain has joined the Common Market. The British people will then know what they are voting about"—
though why, more than now, is not made very clear. The article went on to add:
"and it is far from certain that in such an Election a Government which had taken Britain into Europe, despite intense opposition"—
I ask the House to note those words—
"would be at a disadvantage."
Well, my Lords, of course, in one sense, it would not be at a disadvantage compared with now. For, whatever happened at the Election, even if it turned out that the majority of the country were strongly opposed to Britain's entry into Europe, it would be much too late for the majority of the country to do anything about it. The Treaty would have been signed. The country would have been pledged. The die would have been already cast.
That, my Lords, would be very skilful tactics, from a purely political point of view. But would it be, in any true sense of the word, democracy? After all, democracy mean's, to me at any rate, if it means anything at all, that the people shall rule. Can that possibly be twisted to mean that the people shall be consulted, but only after it is far too late for their views to have any effect at all? I know that there used to be a theory in the Labour Party in the years immediately following the last great war that once a Government was elected at a General Election it must be assumed that the British people had given them a free hand to do whatever they thought right.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If noble Lords will look at the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lam-
442
beth, at that time, I think they will find that he was a very strong supporter of that theory.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am thrilled with the speech that the noble Marquess is making; he is making a very fine speech. But if he will look at the document, Let us Face the Future, of 1945, he will find that we never passed a single major measure about which we had not consulted the people at the General Election. Every one of the major measures of the Government at that time was absolutely mandated by the people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The context, I think, in which these expressions of view were made was over the suspensory veto of your Lordships' House. I am quite certain that if the noble Viscount will look back he will find that there were members, and distinguished members, of his own Party who based the whole of their opposition to a veto in a Second Chamber on the grounds that once the people had elected the majority in the House of Commons that majority had a free hand until the succeeding General Election. I am not quite clear whether the Labour Party still hold that view. Recent pronouncements by Mr. Gaitskell make it rather doubtful.
But what I think is certain is that the Conservative Party have never accepted that view. On the contrary, they have always violently opposed it. I remember speaking in this very House as far back as 1948, when I was leading the Opposition during the debates on the Parliament Bill of that year, and using these words—not, I can assure noble Lords, from any intrinsic merits of their own, but merely as representing the official Conservative view at that time. This is what I said, as the spokeman of my Party [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 156, col. 456]:
"Every now and then … a measure comes" before Parliament for which the Government have no mandate … On the great majority of these measures the view of the public is well known. In that event no difficulty arises. There are, however, certain rare cases … where extremely controversial measures are introduced on which the view of the electorate is not known or where there is good reason to suppose that it is hostile to the proposed legislation."—
in fact, I may say in passing, almost exactly the present position. In that case, I said, stating the orthodox views

443
of my Party, Parliament must make every effort to ascertain the views of the people.
That, I have always understood, is one of the great basic principles of the Conservative Party. It is one of the chief things the Conservative Party have existed to conserve, up to now. If, therefore, the Government have it in mind (I do not know; perhaps we shall be told to-night) to depart from that principle—a comment in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, which had the air of almost OFFICIAL inspiration, seemed to indicate that the Prime Minister's mind was moving in that direction—then I would plead with them most earnestly to think again, to put their case before the people fairly and frankly before they sign the Treaty and to be bound by their decision.
Do not let them be led astray by the kind of specious arguments that are being bandied about to-day. There is the argument that all Parties are divided on this issue. There may, indeed, be varying opinions in all Parties on this issue, as on many others; but surely that is not a good reason for not allowing the people of this country to express any opinion at all. If the electors really are in favour of our entry into Europe—and that may well be; if they really think that the policy of the Government on this all-important issue is in the essential interests of this country, can anyone doubt, especially if the Government put it in the very forefront of their programme, that the electors will give Ministers a mandate to do what they think is proper in the matter?
Then there is the other argument, that the people would not understand (the issues involved. What a strange suggestion that is, from the quarter from which it comes! For, after all, the issues of the Common Market have been put to the vote once already, at the Conservative Conference at Llandudno; and I have never heard it suggested that the delegates there did not understand what it was all about. On the contrary, according to the Press they found it quite easy, after only quite a short debate, to come to conclusions—and we are told wise conclusions—and vote on them. Why, then, is it, except for some kind of Divine dispensation, that things
444
which appeared so simple to them should now be regarded as entirely beyond the comprehension of all the rest of their fellow countrymen? That is really asking a (great deal of our credulity. And, indeed, my Lords, it is not true (I say this in all humility) that the British people are incapable of coming to the right conclusion on complicated matters. In my experience the British people may not always understand ail the detailed technical arguments for or against a particular course: but their instinct is pretty sound.
Moreover—and I cannot stress this too strongly—if the Government do not consult the people on this supremely important issue, think what a precedent they sat. Supposing at some future time, not noble Lords opposite but some extremist Government were to come into power; and suppose that that Government were to put forward a proposal, say, to nationalise the banks, or to abolish altogether the Second Chamber—which is the only check, as we all know, against extreme action in our unwritten Constitution—or even something more far-reaching than that, one can imagine what shocked hands would be held up by the leaders of my own Party; what cries there would be that the people had never been consulted. And what would be the retort? "You never consulted the people before you signed the Treaty of Rome; and that was the most important decision of all; a decision which, by your own admission, was bound profoundly to affect the whole future of your country for countless years ahead." What reply should we have to that? None. By our own action we should have cut away the very foundations on which Parliamentary democracy rests. Indeed, to me, at any rate, the decision whether or not to submit this policy to the arbitrament of the people of Britain, with all the vital considerations involved, which have been stressed so well to-day, is as important a decision in its way as the decision whether or not to go into Europe.
No doubt it would be much easier, taking a short view, to accept the counsels of expediency, to sign first and consult the people after. But this is not the time for devices of that kind. It is much too serious for that. I hope, therefore,

445
that this House, at any rate, will make it very clear that they may approve the Treaty, or they may not approve the Treaty, but they will certainly not approve it until it has been shown at the polls that it has behind it the support of the British people, from whom, my Lords, we derive our very existence and whom, after all, we and the whole of this ancient Parliamentary system, of which we form part, only exist to serve.
5.41 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in view of its far-reaching implications, the Motion before the House looks needlessly dull. I wish the words "European Communities" had been used in it instead of "Common Market" which gives the impression that all that is involved is trading. As is obvious from the interest to-day, and from the speeches to which we have listened, very much more than trade is involved. I do not believe that this fact should be played down in the belief, which I think is mistaken, that opposition will be less. Nor do I believe that propaganda should exaggerate the advantages of membership by alleging that there is no alternative if this country is to survive as a prosperous people with any influence in the modern world. I do not share all the fears the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has voiced. I would, of course, agree that the building of confidence in working together is a necessary prerequisite to any move towards a federal or institutional political authority. But everything depends on the extent, the speed, the timing and the manner in which any transfer of powers is made.
Europe has always been the birthplace of new ideas and to-day, when so many changes are coming, whether we like it or not, the experimental nature, if I may so call it, of the new European institutions is its main attraction. We have to face the choice of building together in association of mind and experience in Europe or of taking an independent line, or of joining another group of Powers. I believe the first course of joining with our European friends is the right decision to make.
I am often asked by people in shops and offices what I think about this question, and whether I can give a reason easily understood why Britain should join. I would with respect and in all
446
modesty suggest to her Majesty's Government that they might make more use of the sort of answer I always give to this question. I remind my questioner that the purpose which prompted the Community idea was to make war impossible between France and Germany. Whatever else may be said about the Communities—and there is quite a lot to discuss, both of exciting possibilities and of latent dangers—this basic aim, taken up energetically by President de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer has, I believe, been achieved. I remember how I was struck some three or four years ago, on the first occasion when I listened to a Frenchman speaking on Franco-German relations, saying, "What we have in mind is nothing less than fusion".
So far so good. But that rapprochement alone is not enough, in my view, to assure the peace of Europe. With Great Britain outside the Community leading a group of smaller European countries, rivals of the Community, competing possibly for the adherence of new members from among the States of Eastern Europe, not to mention Africa, jealousies and new stresses in Europe are bound to arise again. In such circumstances who can say that the peace and co-operation, which is essential to Europe's survival, is assured? This reason, if frankly stated, might appeal to France and to de Gaulle and make the current negotiations in Brussels a good deal easier, for everyone realises that they are being dragged out by the Community Ministers. I am sure they are being prolonged because of a fear that our entry before further progress has been made in working the Community might presage dislocation rather than consolidation. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House will agree, I think, that a certain degree of rigidity, to which he referred so much yesterday, is often used as a protective screen, particularly in the hope of giving stability to a new institution. That I think is what we are experiencing in the negotiations in Brussels.
I do not think it necessary for me to comment on the details of the negotiations, upon which several noble Lords have already spoken. The Government's Motion speaks of negotiating a conclusion acceptable to Parliament. Perhaps we are apt to forget that the

447
negotiated terms have also to be accepted by the six Parliaments of the Community. This does not mean that I have no questions to raise with Her Majesty's Government. We are continually hearing of the "dynamism" of the Community. I think this is a little exaggerated, as it is one of the chief complaints of the Commission that they cannot get on with their job because they are kept so occupied negotiating with prospective members. Sometimes, no doubt for this reason, I regret to say that visiting delegations from some of the countries who wish to put a case for membership or association find some members of the Commission not as good tempered as they would like and expect, having regard to the fact that the Treaty of Rome is expressly declared to be an open Treaty, a Treaty that is open to all European countries who wish to join.
My Lords, the dynamism on the Continent is still largely the dynamism of its member States. The Commission have had to admit that they have, as yet, not been able to formulate a consistent philosophy either of full membership or of association. But what upsets me is that no one ever refers to E.F.T.A. as dynamic. It is regarded, certainly by the Six, as a great failure. In E.F.T.A. we have an opportunity to remove barriers more quickly and more easily than could be done in the Six, and I ask why, for instance, could not we have an E.F.T.A. pass assuring free movement in E.F.T.A. countries at once to all their citizens? If we made a little more progress in E.F.T.A. and showed a little more initiative I am sure the Community members would be more impressed. Incidentally, might not Yugoslavia have been courted instead of waiting for that country to put out feelers to the Six? Could we know a little more of what happened at the last E.F.T.A. Council of Ministers which met in Oslo?
While referring to E.F.T.A.—although this has already been touched on—I must mention the very serious concern felt at this moment in some of these countries. This has perhaps been increased because of the use we have been able to make of Western European Union to discuss some of the problems involved in our application for member-
448
ship of the Community. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government would not go back on their commitments, but I fear that when the negotiations in Brussels have been concluded—and this may not be before the spring of next year—our intentions regarding our commitments to the E.F.T.A. countries may be tested. The difficulties of a rapid expansion of the Community covering what is being called "the fringes of Europe" are already being canvassed. Members of the Commission stress in conversation the administrative difficulties in attempting to absorb too many countries at one time.
Our commitment to the E.F.T.A. countries is repeated in the Second Annual REPORT published by E.F.T.A. in July last. Briefly, as has already been said, this calls for satisfactory arrangements to meet the legitimate and the special interests of the other members of E.F.T.A. and to enable them all to participate from the same date in an integrated market. The question, of course, is: who is to be the judge of what is to be considered satisfactory? Some countries like Denmark and Norway, from E.F.T.A., and Ireland, from outside E.F.T.A., have applied for full membership of the Community. The rest of the E.F.T.A. countries have applied for associate membership. If an attempt is made by the Commission or by the Ministers of the Community countries to relegate some of these countries from full membership to association, or from association to some form of trade agreement, I think reactions in those countries will be sharp and bitter.
I should like the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to confirm that we support the applications which the E.F.T.A. countries have made after considering what would be satisfactory to them. I hope he will do this not only because we are formally committed to those countries but because we believe that a Europe consisting of small countries as well as of big countries will be a happier and a better Europe because of the contributions the small countries can make in the field of political development in which their record is better than that of most countries. In particular, I hope there will be no question of our suggesting to the E.F.T.A. Council that they might approve our

449
entry alone without waiting for decisions affecting other members, on the plea that our help would be more useful from within than with them outside the Community. I believe that such a course would be considered a betrayal of our friends and would damage our influence both in European groups as well as in the world. I think the sooner this is said strongly the more unlikely we are to be pushed into such a position.
My Lords, may I say just a few words on the Amendment? Frankly, the mentality behind it just baffles me. Surely the greatest need to restore something of Europe's diminished influence and prestige in the world is for Europe to try to learn to speak with one voice on matters of foreign policy. If this is not accepted the logical case is to oppose entry outright. Perhaps I may tell a story of an effort by a friend of mine during a recent Assembly Meeting. He strongly favours Britain's entry. He had the idea that opposition at the Labour Party Conference last month might be avoided or checked if he could persuade the Social Democratic Parties of the Six to send a message to the Labour Party Conference saying that they needed and would welcome the co-operation of the British Labour Party in building a Socialist Europe. He told me that he was not successful in persuading them to do this. He said that he received a reply from the Social Democrats whom he consulted that "they were not convinced that they wished to be married to such a frigid woman." I do not think I need add any comment to this expression of the feeling of their Continental colleagues towards the British Labour Party.
I should like just to raise very briefly a few other matters. Has there been any discussion yet on the subject of weighted voting in an enlarged Community? Import duties in accordance with the common tariff are payable at ports of entry. At present these ports are all situated on the Continent. If the boundary at which the common tariff applies is enlarged, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the position? Has any alteration, such as the institution of a common fund, been suggested by the Community? Can we have a report on the progress made by the Committee of Ministers of Education on the equivalence of degrees conferred by European
450
universities and of diplomas granted by technical institutes, to which I referred very briefly on Tuesday? I will not go on as there are so many other speakers on the list. I therefore close by wishing Her Majesty's Government success in the negotiations which I am afraid are still likely to prove difficult.
6.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, when I read the substance of the Amendment on the Order Paper I must confess I had some difficulty in understanding why Her Majesty's Government could not accept it. First, the Amendment deals with the provision of guarantees for British agriculture. Surely that is in accordance with the pledges that have already been given by many Ministers on many occasions. The next point in the Amendment is the preservation of the vital interests of E.F.T.A. That has been the subject of many pledges by the Ministers in Her Majesty's Government. Then we come to the retention of Britain's freedom to conduct foreign policy. Surely the freedom to conduct foreign policy is in accord with the statements and undertakings of Her Majesty's Government. Then we have the retention of the freedom to pursue economic planning and public ownership. Even though some of us do not entirely believe in public ownership, nevertheless there is not one of us in any Party on any side of your Lordships' House who would not believe in Parliament's having the right and freedom so to do if an elected Parliament so wished.
It was not till I reached the words of the Amendment
"it regrets however that the terms so far provisionally negotiated do not satisfy"
that I understood why Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. Because Her Majesty's Government, quite rightly, cannot accept something which is tantamount to censure. Nevertheless, the main provisions of the Amendment, for British agriculture, for E.F.T.A., for foreign policy, for freedom of economic planning and public ownership must gain the full support of Her Majesty's Government if the pledges given on many occasions are to mean anything at all.
I do not propose this afternoon to re-argue the case on economic or political

451
grounds for Britain's joining the Common Market. Your Lordships had a very full two-day debate on the subject at the beginning of August. But I think it is relevant to comment upon three events which have occurred since your Lordships debated it at the beginning of August. The three events—two of them have already been touched on this afternoon—are the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, the Conservative Party Conference, which has not been touched on this afternoon, and the present state of negotiations. To take the Prime Ministers' Conference first, I do not believe that anyone can be happy at the result, whether he be an ardent protagonist of entry into Europe, whether he be one who feels we should go in on terms if the terms axe acceptable, or whether he be one of those who feel we should not go in under any conditions at all. No one can be happy about a conference which results in fourteen Commonwealth Prime Ministers or senior Ministers voicing to varying degrees misgivings and reservations, and a conference at which some Commonwealth members have refused all association. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, does not look too happy at that. I do not think he could raise a smile even at the result of that Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
Dressed up, neutralised, what I call politically pasteurised Press comments and Press communiqués cannot hide the fact of the disappointment of the leaders who came to that conference. We are treated to constant reiterations that entry by Britain into the Common Market will in fact strengthen the Commonwealth. We are told that it will create new opportunities for expansion of Commonwealth trade. It seems to me rather like the parent who says to the child. "It is for your own good, my dear; you may not like it now but you will like it later on", or, alternatively, one who says "The Minister in Whitehall knows best what is good for Ottawa, what is good for Canberra, what is good for Delhi, what is good for Wellington". I repeat, none of us can be happy at that.
I share to the full the grave misgivings which have been expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and other noble Lords this afternoon. If the Com-
452
monwealth pleas for improved terms are not substantially conceded at Brussels and if they are abandoned, as I pray they will not be abandoned, by Her Majesty's Government, or whittled down by Her Majesty's Government as the price of entry, it will give a severe blow to Commonwealth political and economic unity now and in the future from which the Commonwealth might never recover.
For a brief moment I should like to come to the second of the three events which have occurred since your Lordships' debate in August: the Conservative Party Conference, a gathering not unknown to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I think it was a triumph for the Government and it was a clear case for congratulation to the Party organisers. It is a victory for loyalty to the leaders; it is a victory for Party unity; it is certainly a victory for brilliant presentation, the illusion of those who were critical that they are old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy isolationists as against the virile, ardent international youth; it was beautifully done. But whether it was really a victory for reason and consideration and for careful argument, whether it was a victory for public support and conviction, remains yet to be seen in the future.
The third event I should like to touch on for a moment is the present state of negotiations since your Lordships' debate at the beginning of August. There is no need for me to say more than a few words on this, because it has been spoken of by others who can speak with greater authority and greater power than I can myself. But it is clear that there were no concessions of importance being made to the Commonwealth or United Kingdom viewpoints in the recent meetings. Rather there seems to be a hardening of the attitude of the Six, and they seem to me increasingly aggressive in some directions in the declaration that Britain must toe the line if she wishes to enter. The latest demand, that we should at once scrap our agricultural price support system directly we sign for the remainder of the transitional period is, fortunately for us, a suggestion which first goes against the pledges of the 1957 Act, and, secondly, it is a suggestion which we have heard rejected fully by the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government.

453
To me, it is unthinkable that we should give that second thoughts. I wonder whether Ministers, who live, quite naturally, in the ministerial atmosphere and perhaps do not get round quite so much as others of us in humbler stations, realise that the man in the street is beginning to ask how much longer are the British view, the Commonwealth view, and British interests and Commonwealth interests to be pushed around from Committee room to Committee room in Brussels. That is a growing feeling in the public mind.
To-day, it looks as if negotiations may cease unless the Six give way on major questions or indeed, which to me is unthinkable, Her Majesty's Government reduce the level of sincerity of the pledges they have given. If so, as my noble friend Lord Avon said, there is no need for despair, there is no need for depression; Britain and the Commonwealth are greater than entry into Europe or refusal of entry into Europe. Character, tradition and determination are the qualities that are going to get us through if we are not in the Common Market. If we lack those qualities, it would not help us much to be in the Common Market. If we do not go into the Common Market, Britain and the Commonwealth will not be isolated. There is the illusion put about that if we do not enter the Common Market, we are, as it were, done for. Not a bit! It may be that if we do not go into the Common Market ourselves, the Commonwealth and our E.F.T.A. partners can hammer out bold and more attractive projects than immediately joining the Six, to which the Six would listen later with a somewhat different attitude of mind from that which we see displayed at the present time.
My plea to Her Majesty's Government is this. The Government must know the risk of failure of these negotiations. The risk is quite real that we shall not get the terms which can be accepted in fulfilment of the pledges given; and the Government should now start making clear to the country that we have a positive alternative course which can be followed, and they should show something of the authority and something of the same enthusiasm as we have heard for many months past and watched for
454
many months past displayed as regards our entry into Europe.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, obtained the agreement of Lord Avon that Party politics at present play no part in this issue. That is true for the moment. But if we look ahead at the conclusion of negotiations each one of us will have to decide for himself our pattern of political conduct. We shall face either pledges fulfilled or a position where we consider that pledges have not been fulfilled. Your Lordships' House is not an elected assembly, but nevertheless it is an authoritative body. Many Members of your Lordships' House individually play no small part in the political life of the country outside this House. Each one will be faced with the choice of acceptance of what can be taken as fulfilment of pledges, or resistance if those pledges are whittled down.
Therefore, I think it is the main task of those of us who feel that entry should not come about unless there is absolute fulfilment of pledges for agriculture, for Commonwealth and for our E.F.T.A. partners, to press for the fulfilment of what, yesterday, we felt the Government agreed with us upon—but to-day I hope I am wrong in feeling some doubts in my mind as to whether they are as firm as they were originally. My hope is that we, as Government supporters, shall not be confronted with that choice. But whether we are or whether we are not rests not with us but is in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers.
6.16 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made it perfectly clear, if it was not clear prima facie, that to vote for the Resolution before the House or to vote for the Amendment to it amounted to the same thing, in so far as we are voting to support the entry of this nation into the Common Market. I myself see no reason for this country to enter the Common Market. I believe that there is a third course open to us, an alternative to going in or staying out; that is, the Socialist alternative, which is generally neglected, ignored or, if mentioned at all, dealt with inadequately owing to lack of comprehension as to the principle that should be representative of the Socialist Movement.

455
That principle is diametrically opposed to the doctrine upon which all the argument so far, and throughout the various debates we have had, has been centred—the doctrine that we must export or perish. Capitalism is all right. We are given to understand that all capitalism wants is a wash-and-brush-up—a streamlining. There is nothing wrong with the principle as such. No demand is made for any change of an economic system.
"We must export or perish" is the background of all the discussion about entering the Common Market. We must sell more cars or more mousetraps to the world in order to exist. Perish, mark you!—not be inconvenienced, or compelled to adjust our tastes, to do without some things that we now think necessary, or be thrown back upon neglected resources. Civilisation has been defined as a limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities. But, believe it or not, we are alleged to be so dependent upon world trade, and upon world trade continuously expanding and increasing to our benefit in a scramble or rat-race round the world, that although we have, on the whole, an incomparable climate, good land and the best farming technique known, we should literally cease to exist if anything should happen to the expansion of the trade that is supposed to be backed by entry into the Common Market. No Socialist can accept that proposition.
I am not an expert, but I am aware of certain facts. As a Socialist myself, not using the language of capitalism all the time or accepting the assumptions of capitalism, or believing that working class interests lie in streamlining competitive industry so as to be able to share out money proceeds on a grand scale and call that Socialism, I beg to submit that the alternative proposition is right—that it is our duty, before we even think about foreign trade, to put first things first by making the best of our own resources in the production of food and other necessities. That, I think, is the correct Socialist attitude of mind on the subject.
From the Socialist point of view foreign trade is an extra, and always has been. We should not make ourselves dependent on it, thus leaving this country entirely subordinate to the
456
mechanical materialism of a vast high-powered factory system. When I note that such a body as the British Association for the Advancement of Science can spend time in debating whether or not Britain can feed herself, I am astonished at its being taken for granted so easily that it cannot do so; I am still more astonished when I hear people who claim to be Socialists fall, as they do, for capitalist jargon on this question.
The real and immediate question, however, is not that of feeding ourselves, but of bridging a gap. Leave out the Commonwealth, if you like, from this particular point, although I would hasten to say that an argument based on the traditional internationalism of the Labour movement is out of place. The Common Market is internationalism all right— international capitalism. What is this gap? We perish, if what? Take the facts. Since 1949 we have added more than 40 per cent. to our agricultural production. Another 20 per cent. would bridge the gap mentioned—the gap which involves our food supply and our balance if payments. I do not argue against foreign trade, because it would be absurd to do so. Have as much of it as you like, but put first things first. Do not work on the assumption that you have constantly to establish a vast and increasing foreign trade, to the detriment of the fundamental resources of our land and of our country, as has been done. Socialists have always taken the line that exchange between countries should be a surplus enterprise consisting of mutual arrangements in respect of genuine surpluses, not a rat-race; just as they have always said that machinery should be a means of lightening human toil, not of enslaving the soul of man.
Throughout the history of the Socialist movement in this country all the great Socialist parties or bodies—not only the sentimentalist followers of William Morris and the Utopians in general, but also those who call themselves scientific socialists, the Marxists—have always supported not the principle of nationalisation, not the idea of a centralised economy, but one of co-operative groupings, interlocked but more or less independent in their co-operative management. This was the ideal of Karl Marx, just as it was the ideal of William Morris and Oscar Wilde. That ideal, of course, has been completely discarded. To-day

457
it is regarded as necessary that there should be a vast system of high-powered manufacture, or as Engels called it, "machinofacture", as a vital thing without which we cannot sustain ourselves as a nation and a people. Scientific or Utopian, these views entirely correspond with those of Krapotkin, whose book Fields, Factories and Workshops had more influence on working-class thought before the turn of the century than is recognised. Aldous Huxley, in his introduction to an edition of Brave New World, accepts Krapotkinism as the most satisfactory alternative to capitalism and stateism, both of which, he says, mean slavery for the working class.
Many years ago Disraeli asked what would happen if we let our agriculture die, became the world's workshop and bought all our food from other parts of the world. He wondered what would happen if the rest of the world also became a workshop and did not buy from us, so that we could not pay for the food we need? Recently, Sir Winston Churchill struck a warning note against our relying upon certain resources and industries to the extent we do. A Government Committee, under Professor Solly Zuckerman, made a survey of all kinds of farming in Britain. It took ten years, and the Report is now in the hands of the Minister for Science. Among many other things, contrary to the conventional view about the capacity of British soil and farming technique, it disposes of the notion that people will not "go back." The Report says:
"The desire to possess and work land is shown by the number of men and women in all walks of life who adopt farming as a second profession."
Let me insist again that a 20 per cent. or, at most, a 25 per cent. increase in food production would make us independent of any foreign market. We should pay for what we want in honest cash, and in regard to the balance of food we require it is surely possible to make mutual arrangements with the Commonwealth or, for that matter, with other countries.
Farming to-day is subsidised to the tune of £300 million and more. Costs of food distribution are fantastic. It costs about eight or ten times as much to put a potato into a housewife's basket as it does to grow it. There are hundreds of societies up and down the
458
country which put into practice the Socialist principle of production for use, and which save over half the ordinary "shop cost" of food, vegetables, fruit and so on. We should be able to bridge the gap if we applied the principle of smaller and less centralised farming and generally adopted the principles that have always been at the back of our Socialist propaganda.
At the last session of the British Association Dr. Kay, former director of the National Institute of Research in Dairying, said that British food production, already one of the highest in the world, could be increased by at least 50 per cent. by applying existing knowledge more extensively. That an important authority in such an impotrant gathering should commit himself to such a statement surely justifies my criticism of the defeatist contention, so easily accepted, that we are done for unless we sell more gadgets to the rest of the world. As I said earlier, my Lords, although I am not arguing against foreign trade as such, it should be an extra, and we should put first things first. But the Common Market does not suggest that we have anything of that kind in mind. If we go into the Common Market—and it is admitted, for a start, that the price of food is to go up at foreign dictation—we are to face fiercer competition—called, if you please, a challenge—and buy a political pig in a poke.
We are told that we are an intensely overcrowded country. Are are? A London daily newspaper reiterated this statement only this week—and it is taken as commonplace—and in the very same article deplored the drift of industry to certain areas, because it was leaving vast regions a barren desert. The Zuckerman Report does not confirm anything of the kind. But, of course, we cannot make the best of our land and also turn the country into a white-hot furnace of super-mechanical production.
The late Lord Bledisloe said once in this House:
"Let us take as my contrast that remarkable little country, Denmark. The farmers are not Government-controlled. They are self-controlled, mutually controlled. They succeed through sheer hard work, enterprise and cooperation. Co-operation has been reduced to a fine art."

459
Sweden—a small country as densely populated as this, if we take into account the acreage in the whole of Great Britain and, of course, the fact that so much of our land is bracken-bound and water-logged—has a high standard of living, is prosperous, peaceful and, above all, happy. Scandinavia, with the Low Countries, is very much bound to the principle of co-operation, and Sweden has better social services than we have. Scandinavia is nearer to the Socialist ideal than any other part of the world, yet there are professed Socialists in this country who want to drag Scandinavia into a European—I was going to say thieves' kitchen. I should withdraw that, perhaps, but I feel that way about it, as against the better and more socialistic economy of Scandinavian countries.
The "Seven", of course, have to be taken into account. They are more in the category of our Commonwealth, and there is a world of difference between co-operative ties and competitive scrambles. Of her own free will, and without any dictation from abroad, Sweden insists upon the setting aside of a reserve of agricultural land for every factory set up. Specialisation of labour is no fetish, even in the Low Countries. In Belgium, for example, a man may drive a town bus for half a week, and work on his own land for the rest of the week—the right kind of division of labour, I think. But how uneconomical, it will be said. But it is not. A large measure of production for use and cooperative exchange prevails in all these countries, and the economics of the system are so much unimpaired by the capitalist winds of change. I do not ask for miracles. I do not believe in the dawn appearing in the East one fine morning. It will be a long, costly process to get a sane and well-balanced economy. But in Heaven's name we spend enough now upon lunacy! I ask only for a field capable of development, a direction, a mere 20 per cent. or so for the moment, that we can put up against the menace of slavery and materialism.
There is one other point, in conclusion. Where do all the trade unions stand in this matter? I prefer sitting upon a fence to rushing down to a main-line
460
track prematurely, but some unions are definitely in favour of the Common Market. I believe that is due to the existence of sectional interests. I think we ought to have an answer to this from the unions. Do they seriously think that restrictions, such as those which we have experienced, will any longer be tolerated if we join? Strikes without secret ballot; or any strikes at all; unofficial strikes; the closed shop; demarcation rules; political interference and so on? I warn the trade unions that vastly important modifications of trade union practice will be necessary and will be demanded. I think we ought to know what they think from that point of view. If we join the Common Market, things will not be what they used to be.
There is just one other point. Some time ago, Mr. George Brown, the Deputy Chairman of the Labour Party, said over the radio that it was ridiculous to expect Governments opposed to the doctrine of nationalisation to run nationalised industries successfully. That is the weightiest case yet made against nationalisation. For Mr. Brown did not see that, if the proper management of industry is to depend upon the ups and downs of political emotions, and we must therefore all vote for one Party to avoid such a position, there is the one-Party State complete.
For the reasons that I have just indicated, I shall not vote either for the Amendment or for the Resolution before the House. I wish to resist the present trend towards the super-mechanical, the materialistic slide into slavery that is going on, much of it imperceptibly; and I warn the Labour movement against it heart and soul. Modern technique is now good enough for the capitalists to tolerate syndicalism over a large part of the industrial field, on terms which include the destruction of liberty. Mussolini has been dead for a long time. Socialism is poles apart from this. It is a long and difficult road to the co-operative ideal, and I am no Utopian dreamer. But for Heaven's sake! let us keep the road open and free.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am happy to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Amwell—he occupies a worthy place in an illustrious list of speakers—the noble Earl, Lord

461
Dundee, who helped us so much at the beginning, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who made so firm and yet so delicate a statement of our Party's position. Then we entered a Prime Ministerial phase. We had two eminent Prime Ministers, then the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who is credited with having created the present Prime Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is often mistaken for a Prime Minister by visitors to this House.
There was in Irish history a rather painful episode called the Flight of the Earls. We have had a flight of the Prime Ministers since then, and, of course, one of them is an Earl. But I am very glad that my late and revered chief the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has returned, and I hope that he will not chide me—in the old days he might have done—for any rather unwary remarks that fall from me. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, quoted Engels and, if he is an authority—as I dare say he is, though he denounced materialism—perhaps he would tell us whether it was Engels or Karl Marx who said:
"Man makes his own history, but he makes it according to the circumstances of his own time."
I think that was said by Marx. But it comes to my mind only because man makes his own speech, but he makes it to some extent according to the time of the day, and to some extent according to the number of listeners.
LORD AMWELL: That was part of the philosophy which is the classical example of the petitio principle—an argument in a circle if ever there was one. I refer, of course, to the Marxian philosophy of history.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Though I do not agree with the noble Lord about the Common Market, I am absolutely with him about the Marxist history, so we can go forward together on those topics.
I remember a revered Member of this House, a great lawyer, who used to take about a quarter of an hour to ask himself exactly why he had decided to inflict himself on the House. I should prefer to follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who in a quarter of an hour can propound a complete philosophy and
462
programme for world peace. But if I am asked to justify, even in a few words, an intervention at this hour, when there are so many speakers and when, to quote a famous phrase from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, a period of silence would be welcome—as he said once on a famous occasion to a great professor—I would mention that I have more than once in this House declared myself a 100 per cent. supporter of Britain's going into the Common Market, and at the same time, with even more fidelity, I proclaim myself a 101 per cent. supporter of the Labour Party. It is perhaps permissible, therefore, in the circumstances to discuss for a few minutes with the House how such a person finds himself at the present moment.
Of course, I followed with the closest attention all that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, and I drew a great deal of consolation from it, because I am sure he would agree that his total opposition to the Common Market is not the official Party line. If the noble Earl, whom I revere more than any other man in public life and to whom I am more grateful than to any other man in public life, cam deviate a small extent from the central position, then I feel that perhaps what is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gosling, and we may all be deviationists. So, too, perhaps, I may be allowed to state a view which comes within the ambit of this very broad Amendment but which differs from that of one or two of my colleagues.
My Lords, I came away from the Brighton Conference of our Party very much distressed, as I ventured to explain in a leading newspaper soon afterwards. The special cause of my distress went deeper even than the fear that my own Party, the Labour Party, would stop, or would be instrumental in stopping, this country from going into Europe. I doubted whether that could occur in that way. In my mind, there was the deeper fear that the next Election might come between a Labour Party fighting on a nationalist and isolationist ticket against a Conservative Party presenting itself, curiously enough, as the internationalist champions. For anyone who, like myself, believes that the Labour Party is, in a unique sense, a Party of world-wide brotherhood, that would be not only an ironical but an agonising position. That horrible

463
anxiety has not been entirely removed from my mind, but for various reasons I confess to being a good deal happier to-day than I was immediately following the Brighton Conference. I may be deluding myself in this respect, but with all my heart I hope that is not so.
I agree entirely with any criticisms that are made on this side of the House about the record of the Government in respect to Europe. It has been painful, inglorious and, indeed, shocking. I have no doubt that if these negotiations should finally fail, as I devoutly hope they will not, the historians will lay the blame on our present rulers, who failed to take a very much better chance a few years ago, with the result that the affable Mr. Heath, and others, have been forced to go more or less cap in hand, having been refused the first invitation to the party. Whatever my own views about the Common Market and its intrinsic merits, I cannot resist the arguments and conclusions put forward by various speakers—Mr. Gaitskell and my leaders here; and certainly by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—that this Government of ours have managed to give the impression to Europe that we are bound to come in. Somehow or other—and for this the Labour Party certainly cannot be blamed—the Government have got themselves into a position where it is widely assumed that we mean to go in, come what may. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made that point, and it has been made by others. It is, at the very least, wretched diplomacy, and I am afraid the consequences will be very serious.
I cannot offer (I do not think any one of us from outside can offer) detailed criticisms of the negotiations, because inevitably we do not know enough of what has gone on behind the scenes; but almost everybody, I think, not associated directly with the Government will be inclined to regret, and many will be inclined to condemn, this atmosphere of defeatism, as it was called by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in which our negotiators have been placed—the kind of mixture of desperation and illusory optimism which has surrounded them. I should just add one thing here—and I think it is right for someone who, like myself, is so determined, as far as it lies in my power, to see that we do enter
464
the Common Market, to do so—and that is to support the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in informing the Europeans, who might possibly come across our words, that there is a sticking point. There must be a sticking point somewhere. It was very straightforward and right of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to say that, and I think it should be realised in Europe that even those who would describe themselves as the most passionate Europeans draw the line somewhere; that there is a point beyond which this country cannot be pushed.
Now we come to the Amendment, which is the immediate concern of my Party. I am glad to discover from the Press—from the Daily Telegraph, for example—that this is generally regarded as a very wide Motion that imposes no strain on speakers of sensitive morals. I quote from the Daily Telegraph:
"Both the Government Motion and the Labour Amendment are drafted in such a way that neither Conservative anti-marketeers nor Labour pro-marketeers should have much difficulty in voting as their Whips suggest."
I feel that for the moment I can accept that doctrine, just as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, with whom I sympathise a great deal in reverse, can perhaps accept it.
On reflection, I can persuade myself to-day that no acute question of conscience arises in the Division Lobby; but that does not mean—and I should like to say this as publicly and as clearly as I can in front of so many of my friends in this House—that on a later occasion this very sharp and painful question of conscience (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but from a different angle) may not arise, when the final terms are known and the attitudes of the Parties are defined towards them. I hope that that grim predicament will not impose itself upon us. I can only hope and pray that that does not arise. In the meanwhile. I must re-emphasise very strongly my own support for British entry into the Common Market.
We have not heard much to-day about What might be called the general economic case. I do not think you can prove this coercively to anybody, any more than you could ever prove free trade or protection to somebody who did not want to have it proved to them and

465
started from a different point of view. I do not think this is like mechanical science: I think that, in the end, there is bound to foe a great deal of freedom of decision. But I myself do find some significance, not only in the fact that, when the Observer consulted about 60-odd economists, there were 4 to 1 in favour, but, with me an even more compelling thought, perhaps, also this. When one thinks—and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will correct me if I am wrong—of the two gentlemen from outside who were regarded, at different times, I suppose, as the economic advisers on whom the Labour Party relied most (I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and Sir Robert Hall), one realises that they are about the two most practical economists in the country, and they are both extremely in favour of our entry into the Common Market.
Then, if you want to look at a Socialist in a high position in industry—and for some reason or another there are not many; it is through no fault of theirs—you need look no further than Lord Robens, the head of the Coal Board, who is also an ardent champion of the British entry. Those facts, mentioned baldly, are not going to be decisive; but I cannot accept the view that, if one is counting heads, so to speak, there is no disparity, either in quantity or quality, among those who take the rival stands.
On the political side, I would once again re-emphasise my view that, while European unity is certainly a much smaller and more restricted ideal than that of World Government, it is in itself, as the Labour Party Executive document has indicated and as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, quoted, a bold, imaginative and, I would add, a noble conception. Whether Britain joins or not will in the end, when the terms are known, be a matter for ourselves and there are not many choices of that magnitude in the world to-day.
I learn all I can about Would Government at the knee of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I was particularly interested that in the debate in this House last Thursday he not only supported a world police force but said he would like to see some real effort being made towards building up a world police force. But, if that cannot be done, he would like
466
to see a Commonwealth police force. This is one of the most important suggestions that has been made in this House for a long time. It would not amount to much coming from me. People would say it was fanciful. But coming from the noble Earl it has great significance. The difficulty about progressing toward World Government is that we cannot get other nations of the world to agree on any important step. In particular, we cannot get the Soviet countries to agree. Therefore, if we are talking about progressing towards World Government this step into Europe is, in fact, the only large step open to us.
My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House longer but I felt it necessary to make my position plain. It remains now for all who believe in Europe to redouble their labours and, if they feel this is right, their prayers. But, in conclusion, I would say one thing about my understanding of Socialism. Though my record in the Socialist Party is not to be compared in time and other ways with that of Lord Attlee and others, I have been a member of the Labour Party for 25 years. I think there is a narrower and a wider form of Socialism. In the narrowest form it is simply a kind of class selfishness. That is certainly not the view that the noble Earl has ever taken in theory and practice. It can take a form which is wider than that but which is not the finest imaginable. It can take the form of nationalism. Socialism can be advocated in such a way that "No other country is a fit partner for our international progress". Every large nation can be blackballed as not sufficiently Socialist enough to go forward with us. If we adopt that policy of blackballing countries which are not Socialist and refuse to draw closer to them we shall finish up in the end with a tight little Socialism here, and we may not even get that. In any case, it will be a pure conception compared to what I regard as real Christian Socialism, which must foe a world-wide, universal creed if it is to be anything at all. For that reason, I myself will always struggle to the last in any small way open to me to promote a closer unity of Europe as the only large step open to us on the way to World Government. I agree with what has been said earlier; but the people of Europe must understand that,

467
whatever particular individuals say here, there is a limit beyond which the people of Britain will not go.
6.55 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, the Motion which is before the House reads less like "Forward to success" than "Backs to the wall". The Lord Privy Seal has returned from his latest session in Brussels having suffered a severe rebuff. Neither in regard to agriculture, nor in regard to the Commonwealth, or E.F.T.A., is there any assurance that the satisfactions which Her Majesty's Government are committed to secure are likely to be attained. Even so pro-Common Market an organ as the Statist carries a report from its correspondent in Brussels which goes so far as to say that
"the meeting which produced all these negatives can hardly be described as anything but a disaster."
I do not propose to enumerate the various difficulties which have arisen—other noble Lords have done that; but it is not difficult to see why Her Majesty's Government have run into these difficulties. By dint of negotiations, the true character of the problem is now being revealed. The reason is that there is a self-contradiction, both in the objects which Her Majesty's Government are aiming at and in the conditions in which they have had, perforce, to pursue them.
To take the latter point first. Part of the case which Her Majesty's Government, and still more the more ardent Marketeers, have put to the public in order to gain their support for current policy is to point to the disadvantages of our not joining the Community. We should, it is said, deprive ourselves of a large expanding market and condemn ourselves to an economic basis too narrow for our needs. Our economy would wither; we should be unable to help the Commonwealth; we should lose influence in Europe and in the United States. But if we try to carry our public by proclaiming that if we do not go in it will be much the worse for us, then, by so much, we weaken the diplomatic position from which we conduct our negotiations with the Six. We cannot say one thing at home and another abroad. If we emphasise our dire need to go in; if it is our view, as Lord
468
Boothby once said, that unless we go in we are done for; then the Six are entitled to conclude that we shall be ready to pay them a heavy price, and they will try to exact that price—as, indeed, they are doing.
And when we remember that the Lord Privy Seal and his team will be dealing with a French delegation which is pursuing an exclusively self-regarding policy and promoting that policy by the exercise of a highly efficient and quite ruthless diplomacy, we can guess how intractable is the task which they have been set. By all accounts they have acquitted themselves with great skill. But, starting from so disadvantageous a basis, how can they hope to get the terms that we want? And to succeed at all they will need to use a hard and unrelenting diplomacy, far removed from the diplomacy of give-and-take, the diplomacy of concession in the general interest, which has been traditionally characteristic of our foreign policy but which we can no longer afford. In what the Lord Privy Seal recognises to be "formidable negotiations" he will have to fight and fight and fight again.
But the cause of our difficulties lies deeper than this: it lies in the fact that we have set before ourselves what seem to be incompatible objectives. There is nothing unusual in this—Governments are always doing it. We thought we could give Germany equality of rights in the early 1930's without prejudicing the security of France; we thought we could give autonomy to the Nazi Sudeten Germans in 1938 without prejudice to the integrity of the democratic Czechoslovak State; we thought we could make a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet Union in 1939 without doing violence to the interests of Poland and the Baltic States. Now, we think we can join the European Economic Union and still get satisfactory terms for our agriculture, for the Commonwealth and for our E.F.T.A. partners. I fear that this may well be a delusion.
Not without reason did a Frenchman once say, "If the British want to come into the Common Market they must come in naked". And there is point in the view which is attributed, perhaps wrongly, to Dr. Adenauer—namely, that Great Britain and her Commonwealth interests, together with Norway and

469
Denmark, not to speak of the Irish Republic and the three neutrals, would be too much for the E.E.C. to digest. The E.E.C. is in essence a closely knit body. It may well be thrown out of gear as an economic organisation by the entrance of all these rather ill-assorted elements, as well as being impeded on the road towards federation.
This is why it is at least possible that in the end, in spite of all denials, there will be for us a question of a choice between the E.E.C. and the Commonwealth. Nothing is more distressing to anyone with a sense of history than to note with what levity so many voices (I am not talking here of the Government) are raised today to write off the Commonwealth. It is as much as to say, "The Commonwealth no longer pays. Let us go for the fleshpots of Western Europe." Is that just shopkeeper politics or, is it a sign of distaste for this new Commonwealth, which is so different from the old Empire, a sign of nostalgia for an imperialist past which has gone for ever? At any rate, it is the deplorable conception.
There is another sphere where there is, I think, an uncertainty about Government policy which ought to be clarified, and where there may again be the pursuit of irreconcilable objectives. We are told that we accept the political implication of the Treaty of Rome. What does that mean? That question has been put very tellingly by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. If one searches among the various Government statements, no clear answer can be found, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I give two or three quotations. On the one side, there is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in another place in 1959:
"We must accept that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration … and for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal complete federation in Europe, including ourselves."
That is quite clear, and I believe that to be true. Then again, the Prime Minister, in the pamphlet issued a few weeks ago, said:
"It is true, of course, that political unity is the central aim of these European countries and we would naturally accept that ultimate goal."
470
That means to say that political unity is here authoritatively stated to be the ultimate goal of Her Majesty's Government. But the Prime Minister went on to make clear that political unity would not mean accepting
"the extinction of separate national identities."
But he did not say what, in his conception, political unity would, in fact, mean.
So also the Lord Privy Seal, in his statement to the Council of Western European Union, on April 10, 1962, said this:
"We are looking forward to joining you as soon as possible in constituting a Europe united politically as well as economically."
And he added:
"This new Europe will be a great Power, standing not alone but as an equal partner in the Atlantic Alliance."
My Lords, if words have their accepted meaning, these statements about political unity and about a great Power should imply that Her Majesty's Government accept the future possibility of a Federation. And a Federation, by definition, would mean the creation of a new European Federal State, with a Head of State, Parliament and Government, Foreign Secretary, Foreign Service, Minister of Defence and Armed Forces. Without these things, Western Europe could not become, as Mr. Heath wants it to become, a great Power, with a unitary will. And side by side with this, there would be Parliament and Governments in each of the constituent States, including Great Britain, with independent jurisdiction over a limited range of domestic affairs, not including the main levers of the economy and not including foreign affairs and defence.
I think that the federalists are right. It was hardly worth while making the Treaty of Rome except as a step along the road to Federation, as, indeed, the Coal and Steel Community was, in terms, originally proclaimed to be. But Ministers have hastened to say that this is not what they mean. What they seem to mean is a political unity which is not of a federal character, in the accepted sense of the word. I am puzzled to know what that can be, though I note that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has characteristically made a valiant attempt to give an answer. Let us see what Ministers have said.
"There was nothing "—

471
said Mr. R. A. Butler, on September 29 last—
"in the present or future plans of any of the six Common Market countries which could
risk impairing the position of the Monarchy in Britain, if we joined, or the authority of Parliament."
Of course it is true that, so long as General de Gaulle is there, proposals for political integration will not get very far; but to suggest, as Mr. Butler seems to have done, that none of the Governments of the Six have ultimate federalist aspirations, is a proposition which, to say the least of it, is of doubtful validity. Professor Hallstein has made it plain that
"the logic of economic integration … leads on towards political unity by way of the fusion of interests."
And, in their recent proposals about monetary questions and programming, the Commission have shown that they are driving full speed ahead along this line.
There have been other ministerial statements similar to that of Mr. Butler. Thus, at the Conservative Party Conference Mr. Heath said:
"We shall agree to nothing which undermines the essential powers of Parliament."
But if this is so, Western Europe, with us in it, cannot become the great Power which Mr. Heath says he wants. What is the purpose of these disclaimers? Is the purpose to reassure our own public, not only to reassure them (which is, of course, true) that the Treaty of Rome does not of itself create a federal body, but to reassure them also that even if we join we shall have no obligation to move towards a Federation, and no intention of so doing, even in the future?
But if we say this at home, we must also say the same thing abroad, unless we are to be charged with being disingenuous. By saying these things, we are also, are we not? serving notice on the Six that, even if we join, we shall not assent to any curtailment of our power of independent action going much beyond what is required of the Treaty of Rome itself, as distinct from its political implications? Because, clearly, the further we move towards federation, the more we must curtail the powers of Parliament.
There is need for clarification here and it is to be hoped that the Government
472
will supply it. No such clarification was to be found in what the Lord Privy Seal said in another place yesterday. He confined himself to a vague phrase about closer unity developing pragmatically. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has made a powerful plea for clarity on this point, and it is a plea which should be answered. If the British people were to realise what might be meant in practice by the acceptance of the political implications of the Treaty of Rome, and of the conception of the unity of Europe, I cannot believe that they would willingly accept it. It is no good thinking that we can merge our political will with others and yet keep it intact. And if our people cannot go wholeheartedly into the Economic Community, with full acceptance of its political implications, and knowing what they are, as they went wholeheartedly into O.E.E.C. and into NATO, then there would be a strong case against going into the Community at all. Unless the full assent of our public was forthcoming, one could understand that there might be hesitation on the part of the Six to accept us. That is one of the grounds, in addition to those so forcefully put by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for holding that, however difficult it may be, the issue of the Common Market and its political implications should be brought before the electorate before we sign.
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from this present debate, it is that this is a case where it would be better to make no agreement at all than to make an unsatisfactory one; and that is especially so because it would be an agreement that would have consequences for our national life, and for the life of the Commonwealth, which would be fundamental, far-reaching and permanent.
7.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strang, speaking with his immense experience as a negotiator, has suggested, I think, that it seems unlikely that we shall succeed in obtaining the minimum terms for safeguards that we want for entry into the Common Market. It is this subject of safeguards, and one particular form of safeguard—that for Commonwealth interests—with which I should like to

473
deal in a few words before this debate concludes.
We agree on all sides of the House, I think, that these safeguards for vital Commonwealth interests are essential. Where we disagree is about what we regard as satisfactory from the point of view of safeguarding these vital Commonwealth interests. The Government take the view that they have already made good progress with the negotiations to obtain these requirements from the Six. But this was not the view taken by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their Conference in September. It was then made perfectly clear that most of the Commonwealth countries were profoundly dissatisfied with the course of our negotiations and, indeed, seriously alarmed about the damage that would be done to the Commonwealth unless the Government got much better terms than they appeared to be getting at the time. We certainly share the views and the concern of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I should not be at all surprised if some of them had said privately that they would not expect the Commonwealth to survive unless the Government were able to get much better terms than they appeared likely to get at that time.
I do not want to be a Cassandra about the future, but I myself would expect a steady disintegration of the Commonwealth—not immediate perhaps, but steady and cumulative—to begin if we were to dismantle the Commonwealth pattern of trade which we have now, before it could be replaced by a European or a world pattern, another pattern which would compensate our Commonwealth partners for the loss of their traditional markets. It may be said that this is over-estimating the importance of our economic interests and national economic interests generally, and under-estimating the importance of other ties in the Commonwealth. But, after all, the modern Commonwealth is not held together by sentiment. Of its sixteen member States only four are still British. It is held together mainly by the national interests of its members, and these interests are economic, as well as political.
One has to bear in mind that 600 million of these 750 million inhabitants live in some of the poorest countries in
474
the world—the so-called developing or underdeveloped countries—and exist on an average income of less than £50 per annum. Is it surprising, in these circumstances, that for the new Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa the question of trade is all-important, and that their great concern is to keep their existing markets and to find new outlets for their foodstuffs, their raw materials and their chief manufactured goods? Unless we are able to make fresh arrangements for maintaining the flow of Commonwealth trade, the effect of our entry into Europe would be that goods from the Commonwealth countries would not only lose their preferential treatment but would have to scale the European tariff wall as well. Moreover, we should have to cut down our capital aid to the Commonwealth, because we should be contributing to the Community Development Fund, which benefits the French African countries and could not be used to benefit countries of British origin. This is the position that would face the Commonwealth unless we were able to make different arrangements.
The Government have been trying to find what they call "comparable outlets "for Commonwealth trade. Their complete failure to find such outlets, however, can be measured by the two main concessions which they claim. These concessions are associated status, to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred in his opening speech, and the promise of trade and other agreements to meet the difficulties of particular Commonwealth countries. These two proposals deserve careful examination if we are to assess their real value, and that is where, perhaps briefly, I can say something that has not already been said this afternoon.
Associated status was the major concession that France gained for her dependencies when she entered the Community. It is a curious irony that France, who would not enter without enormous concessions for her dependencies, or former dependencies, is now placing every obstacle to our entry by objecting to similar concessions which we want for our partners in the Commonwealth. But this status of association would have had very little value for France, and no doubt France would not have regarded it as going nearly far enough, if it had not included all the French overseas territories. But there is no question of

475
associating the whole of the Commonwealth with the European Community in this way.
To some countries association is unsuitable. Other countries have turned it down. The offer has been limited to our awn Colonies and to the Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean. It has not been extended to India, Pakistan and Ceylon. The only African country that has accepted, or accepted in principle, is the Federation of Rhodesia with Nyasaland, which I think everyone would agree is a rather uncertain starter. Tanganyika has turned the offer down, and did so on behalf of East Africa. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, did not refer to the other East African countries, Uganda and Kenya, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House can say something about the attitude of the Government of Uganda, which is mow a Government of an independent country, and the attitude of the Government of Kenya. But, at any rate, Tanganyika claimed to speak for these Governments, as well as the Government of Tanganyika. In West Africa, neither Ghana nor Nigeria has any use for association with Western Europe. We are therefore left with only a small number of British Colonies scattered all over the world, and among the independent countries Trinidad and possibly Jamaica. This is the total area of the Commonwealth that seems likely at the moment to benefit from association.
The Lord Privy Seal yesterday in another place claimed, I thought with some pride, that this offer of association has been made to 72 million people. But what does it really amount to if it is only conceivably acceptable to 2 million or 3 million out of the total population of the Commonwealth? I hope the Government realise that the political difficulties about association for African countries are really insuperable, and that they will not go on pushing that particular project in the hope that it may ultimately be acceptable. I believe I know enough about Africa to be able to say that with a great degree of confidence.
I think the Government should make a fresh approach to this whole problem of tropical foodstuffs which is the problem for the countries in Africa that have
476
been offered association with the Common Market. What we need is not a European/African trade bloc discriminating against other primary producers in Latin America and elsewhere, but free entry of tropical foodstuffs into Europe. That would be a much more promising line for the Government to explore, if I may suggest it. If we can get free entry into Europe we might, with the help of President Kennedy's trade Bill, negotiate an even wider agreement covering tropical foodstuffs from Latin America and other parts of the world. The Government have already negotiated a nil tariff on tea. I have not mentioned that, because in itself it is not a very big concession, but it is a useful precedent and it should encourage the Government to make every possible effort to get the abolition of the tariff on cocoa, coffee, groundnuts and other tropical foodstuffs. A trade agreement on these lines is surely the only alternative to association for the African countries, unless they are to be penalised in the way I have suggested, and Which would inevitably happen if we were to go in without these safeguards.
I should like to comment very briefly indeed on the second main concession the Government have claimed in their negotiations with the Community—the proposal to work out agreements to meet the trade requirements of other Commonwealth countries. We have the trade and aid agreements offered to India, Pakistan and Ceylon, to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred, the world commodity agreements to stabilise commodity prices, and the special arrangements for individual countries. In regard to these special arrangements for individual countries, I must say I share with several other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, a great deal of anxiety about the position of New Zealand. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will clarify that matter when he winds up the debate.
We all recognise the unique position of New Zealand in the sense that it is more dependent than any other Commonwealth country on the United Kingdom market. I believe that 90 per cent. of New Zealand's export of meat and dairy products still comes to this country. If Denmark joins the Community,

477
Europe will produce enough cheese, and almost enough butter, for consumers both here and on the Continent. The New Zealand economy would be wrecked unless we got a quota scheme, or something of that kind, for the continued admission of cheese and butter (after we joined the Community. A scheme to guarantee entry for New Zealand dairy produce and New Zealand meat to this country is, I should have thought, a sine qua non for our entry into Europe. I know that we all feel peculiar ties of sentiment towards New Zealand, and that those noble Lords who have been to New Zealand realise how immensely loyal and English the New Zealanders are.
This is what I am particularly anxious that the noble and learned Viscount opposite should explain. May I give point to my anxiety by quoting the reference in the White Paper, summarising the last stage of the negotiations on October 25 to October 27 in Brussels quoting the reference to New Zealand? Paragraph 8 says:
"The French Foreign Minister informed the Conference, with reference to the Ministerial meeting of August 1–5 that, in his understanding, the statements made about New Zealand from the Chair on that occasion"—
that is to say, during the August meetings—
"did not mean either that France was committed on the principle, without knowing the method of application of that principle, or that she was committed on the methods given the uncertainty in which France still found herself on the principle."
The principle was the principle of special arrangements for New Zealand. Does this mean, or does it not, that France has gone back on her undertaking to consider special arrangements for New Zealand?
The obvious comment—although I do not think it is a comment which has been made—on these proposed international agreements, on all the agreements of every type to which I have just referred, as a substitute for Commonwealth preference, is that none of these agreements has yet been concluded, or, indeed, that no start has been made with the negotiating of the agreements. We do not know how long it will take for these agreements to be negotiated. We do not know what they will contain or, indeed, whether the negotiations, how-
478
ever protracted, will end in agreement or disagreement. That is why we are saying to the Government: "Get your agreements first, and then we can judge whether they take care of the Commonwealth and offer anything like a comparable outlet for Commonwealth trade. But do not dismantle your present system of Commonwealth preferences before you have anything else to take its place."
Nebulous future agreements, and a form of association unacceptable to most Commonwealth countries, are surely a condition of failure, and not a measure of progress towards acceptable terms of entry into Europe. Of course, we wish the Government success in obtaining satisfactory terms—satisfactory for the Commonwealth and for our other interests and other commitments. But if, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, suggested, we have in the end to choose between Europe and the Commonwealth, we, and, I think, most of your Lordships, will certainly and unhesitatingly choose the Commonwealth.
7.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at this stage of the evening, and after the tone and quality of the debate, one rises with some hesitation. Certainly I propose to discard my carefully prepared speech, a speech that I had prepared in some anticipation that I ought again be in the lonely group which was not so much opposed to British entry into the Common Market as concerned at the prospect of what would appear to be a grouping of rich and powerful nations—whether in Europe, in the United States or in the Communist bloc—fully industrialised, raising artificial tariffs and barriers which, in effect, would exclude the vast majority of the people of this world. I have been privileged to live for a good many years in Asia, and to go back there year by year. I wish that this House could lift its eyes above the richness, the ease and the comfort in which we in Europe now live, and were able to see the poverty, the sickness and the distress in Which millions of people, men, women and children, still live.
It is true that we of the West, particularly of the United States and of this country, have in past years given aid by money, toy education, by technical instruction and equipment. I think that

479
those who have been party to that effort will recognise that what we have done merely scratches at the surface. Many will say that what these countries need is a stabilisation of their raw commodity prices. That may be so; and it is a very important part. But if these people are to be lifted out of their distress and their poverty, these countries have to be industrialised. Recently I was in India and I saw some of the great strides that are being made—great in terms but, let us fully admit, very limited, considering the task that faces India. It can be equally said of Malaya, Singapore and many other countries of Asia; and Africa, which is now emerging to independence, will face the same task.
My Lords, these countries, when they are industrialised, and if they are to progress and increase in strength will need markets. There are many who say that these countries can develop and trade within themselves. This is sheer nonsense. These countries will require the markets that only the West can offer, markets in which there is a high purchasing rate. It would appear, certainly to the Asian, that what is now taking place in Europe, in which the United Kingdom is contemplating joining, is the creation of a tariff wall within which those who are (rich and powerful will prosper and whose markets will be denied to the industrialists of Asia.
I remember, certainly four years ago, listening in Washington to the speech of Professor Hallstein, who was then speaking on behalf of the new European Economic Community. He said something to the effect that the Community would be outward-looking, and that one of its purposes would be to create trade for these under-developed countries. I fully appreciate and believe that there are many in Europe who would wish to see this. And I think that there are many in Europe who believe that unless the peoples of Asia can be brought forward a vacuum will be created which only the Communist Powers can exploit.
Nevertheless, if you look at the trade figures of the European Economic Community with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, in particular, you will see that from 1951 until 1961 the trade of the rich and powerful nations of Europe increased fourfold, whereas the exports from those
480
countries to Europe increased only marginally. So one must look to the reasons why this trade has developed in such a way, in spite of the protestations. India imported from the European Economic Community in 1961 £140 million-worth of goods, but the European Economic Community imported from India £41 million-worth; an adverse balance of £100 million. Is it that India could not sell its grey cloth? Is it that India could not sell more of its other merchandise? I think we must face frankly the fact that the restrictions on India were man-made; that it was not the inability of India to supply, but the tariffs and the quotas laid down by the countries of the Community to protect its own industry against that of India which led to this adverse balance.
I have many other figures that I can quote. Take the case of Pakistan. They sold to the Common Market £27 million-worth of goods. The Common Market sold to Pakistan £43 million-worth. If we go through many other figures—even our own figures—we see that the balance of trade is against these under-developed countries in the British Commonwealth. Take the case of Hong Kong. It is only a small island, mainly occupied by Chinese, but when I look at the proximity of China I cannot help but relate it to Berlin.
Hong Kong lies close to a Communist country; the majority of its population to-day, as in Berlin, are refugees from a Communist country. Much has been done; but it has been done by Hong Kong itself, certainly not by any of the powerful nations. Hong Kong is extremely proud of what it has been able to achieve, but, as I understand it, in the discussions that have taken place in Brussels the position of Hong Kong has been left to the end. No decisions have so far been made. There is considerable fear in the Colony that their position will be brushed under the carpet at the end and that they will be left isolated. If no satisfactory terms are obtained, it is estimated that the trade between Hong Kong and this country—and we are very much its largest supporter—will be reduced by at least 30 per cent. Certainly, from the facts and the prices I have obtained from Hong Kong, its entire cotton export to this country will disappear. There are many I know who will be pleased to hear it,

481
but the tariff that will be put on Hong Kong goods will certainly mean that we shall have this import replaced by goods from the powerful cotton mills of Germany and Italy.
I know that the Government have had some undertakings from the Common Market countries. I wish that I could accept them in the same faith as the Government appear to have accepted, them. If I felt that the Common Market was going to be largely administered by politicians—those people who move about the world and see things—I should perhaps not be so concerned. But, like my noble friend Lord Attlee, I cannot but feel that the Common Market will evolve with the civil servants (and here I do not speak in any disparagement of civil servants) and the intellectuals working out on the graphs and making the decisions; decisions that would appear, as in the past, to be broadly accepted by the Ministers. But these people will not quite take into account the human problems and the human challenges that will beset Asia and Africa as they emerge. Before the Government make a decision on entry into the Common Market, in fairness to the Commonwealth, particularly those countries which are now Colonies and which will shortly emerge, I hope, into Commonwealth countries, I believe we should insist on the Government's obtaining promises and agreements which are as specific as possible.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked in very strong terms that, before any decision is made, there should be a General Election. It is too early to presume in which way the political Parties will fall. The House will recognise that our Amendment accepts the fact that it may be for the benefit of this country were we to enter the Common Market. It may well be that when the terms are before us they will be such that the two main political Parties will accept them. Certainly that would not appear to be so at the present. But even if that is the case I believe this decision on entry into the Common Market is of such momentous importance that at least the Government who ratify it should have a mandate, should have fresh support from the people. I believe that the Commonwealth is looking to Britain, to the ordinary men and women, to use
482
their judgment, to use their instinct, which has been such a big part in their life, in making this decision. I personally believe that the decision is so momentous that the people should certainly be consulted.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his last remark when he said that the decision to join the Common Market is one of the utmost importance, and I also agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that before this decision is taken it ought to be put to the people. But, of course, it is of very little use putting it to the people if the people do not understand what it is about, and the average person has had very little opportunity of really understanding the object of the Common Market. I should like Her Majesty's Government really to try to advertise all the facts to the country. I think that if it were possible for them to use a whole page in every daily and every local paper in the country just to put down the salient facts it would be a great help to the average person. Presumably they would have to get the agreement of the Opposition if they were going to do it out of public funds, but if that agreement were not forthcoming I should like to see the Conservative Party spend a great deal of money on bringing the facts of the Common Market to the people.
I have always been very much attracted by the Common Market, as I have said before in this House, because I desire Great Britain to remain at the centre of power, and the centre of power is going to be Europe. I believe it is inevitable, that we cannot really help ourselves: eventually we shall have a united Europe. I would personally far prefer a Commonwealth free trade area. Of course that is quite impossible, because to start with the Commonwealth will not have it; as it is, the Commonwealth raise certain tariffs against some of our exports. It is all very well to say we can do without the Common Market if we do not get our terms. Of course we can do without it, but if we do do without it the people of this country will have to tighten their belts. Their standard of living will have to decrease, in my opinion, if we do not join the Common Market.

483
Another thing that attracts me to the Common Market is that anyone very much to the Left, and all Communists, are extremely anti-Common Market. Quite a few Communists have even shown love for the Commonwealth now, which strikes me as being extremely fishy, to say the least of it. I quite agree that according to the Treaty of Rome—take Article 189—we shall have to subject some of our sovereignty to the wishes of the Council. Everybody who has spoken in this debate to-day has looked at the Common Market as it is without us in it. But if we join it we are going, of course, to alter it to a certain extent. We shall probably hold the balance of power. I think we are bound to influence it to a great degree. Nobody appears to have taken up that point.
I also think that the agricultural community—I am a farmer among other things—have really shown great panic in the face of the Common Market quite erroneously; because I can tell your Lordships that I know one or two organisations to-day that are exporting food to the Common Market quite profitably. I know an organisation that is sending a lot of fruit to the Common Market at a profit. I also know an organisation which is sending meat to the Common Market. If we can make a profit with the trade barriers against us, once the trade barriers are down the future should be extremely rosy. I agree that in horticulture the small horticulturist will get hurt. But surely it is not beyond our power to assist him in order that he may adjust his trade.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, might I interrupt the noble Viscount for just a moment, because I am greatly interested in his comments about agriculture? He has said that the farmers are panic-stricken and the like. I do not find that spirit in the memorandum which has been circulated this week by the National Farmers' Union. All they ask is that the pledges which were made by the Government should be kept and that they should realise the general problem that they have to face, not only as to the position in regard to food in the Common Market but as to the position in re-
484
gard to food in the whole world. I think the noble Viscount might look at that.
I do not know whether he has, as a farmer, considered the future. I have still got wheat in my barn which I want to sell, but French wheat is coming in and keeping the price of British wheat ex farm at about 16s. 6d. per cwt. That is because of the subsidised nature of the French wheat coming into this country. We have to put up with that; and the Government, under the subsidy scheme, have to pay the balance between the standard price and what they are forced down to by this particular kind of business. I think that the noble Viscount had better think again about this.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the French wheat coming into the country is dumped wheat and it is coming in at under the cost of production. If we were in the Common Market I understand that we should not have food dumped here at under the cost of production. But Her Majesty's Government have told farmers that we are going to have this transitional period until, we hope. 1970, for the subsidies to be adjusted. Obviously, you cannot shut them off instantly—that would be quite impossible. But I cannot really see that British agriculture has anything to fear at all because we have far greater mechanisation; we have also a higher yield—with Denmark, we have the highest yield per acre of corn in the world. The opportunities for beef and mutton in the Common Market are limitless. However, I was extremely pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, say that we are going to press strongly for the protection of New Zealand. That is essential. After all, the population there is one of barely three million. It would be just a flea-bite in the Common Market to absorb the agricultural production of New Zealand. I think that protection is quite essential.
But there is one aspect of the matter that I am not quite happy about, regarding food prices. It is true that food is going to be more expensive in the Common Market for the consumer in this country, though of course it will be easier for the taxpayer. That will be the case in regard to the individual on a small fixed income. I am not talking of pensioners, because you can always raise pensions; but for people on small

485
fixed incomes this is a problem. I do not know how it can be solved.
The other day the noble Viscount the Leader of the House spoke about rigidity in our industry. I foresee that if we join the Common Market that rigidity will disappear. The days of three men using the same shovel, so to speak, will have to go. We shall have to be more competitive. Only the other day from my taxi I saw four men digging a hole in the road when I should have thought that two would be ample. All that will have to go by the board.
I am all for the Commonwealth. We have heard a lot of people say that we are going to desert the Commonwealth if we go into the Common Market. I think that is quite nonsense. If you were to tell me that the only thing that binds the Commonwealth is material advantage, then it cannot be a noble concept. I was always taught that the Commonwealth was bound by other ties. I am sure that if we join the Common Market after the public have decided, it is going to help the Commonwealth because we shall have far more capital to invest in individual countries of the Commonwealth. I cannot understand the argument that it is going to harm the Commonwealth if we stay out. It may be that for two or three years there will be growing pains, but on the whole I see a great future economically, and for the whole free world, if we join the Common Market.
In his Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that Great Britain must retain
"her present freedom to conduct her own foreign policy."
But have we freedom to conduct our own foreign policy? What happened at Suez? After all, we are partners in NATO. We do not now have full freedom to conduct our own foreign policy. If we join the Common Market, the Six, we shall have a foreign policy which will have far more power to it and which we can influence. I think that this idea of staying outside is complete isolationism—it is backward looking. I am surprised that so many of your Lordships appear to feel that way. I only say that I, personally, hope that Her Majesty's Government can put the facts squarely before the people; and that, although of course we do not want to enter under any terms, we will be practical about it. We do not want to make impossible
486
terms. Therefore, my Lords, I support the Government in their efforts to join the Common Market.
8.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the Leader of the House for the fact that I happened to be absent at the beginning of the debate to-day, and therefore did not have the pleasure of listening to the noble Earl who opened the case for the Government Motion. I have heard that he spoke very well. I heard also that he did not add much to my opinion of the Government's Motion. But, as I have said, I was told he spoke very well.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He did.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I would not have been away if I had not had a public engagement. I have also heard about the very great impression made upon the House by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I was here in time to listen to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I feel that those two speeches are of immense importance. I do beg the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House not, at any rate, to put all of us in what I call the category of aged "fuddy-duddies", or some such name, or to use the sort of appellations he attached to us the other night. This, in my view, is a very serious occasion. This is one of the greatest decisions the country has had to make, even if at this time it is not allowed to vote upon it but has got to give way to the delegated powers of Parliament.
Since I entered Parliament 40 years ago the noble Marquess, the noble Earl, and I have been through a great many crises together—we have not always been aged !—and we have always seemed to come together in opinion when something really national in the country was at stake. I should very much like to think that, so far, the Government would have on its side some people willing to listen to argument, willing to listen to warnings—as some, but only a limited number, of the Conservative Party listened to the warnings of Lord Avon, Lord Salisbury and Winston Churchill before the last war—and to take note of those warnings before they go any further. This is a time when we are faced with very great issues indeed.

487
My Lords, we have put down an Amendment to the Government Motion. The Government very clearly desire to proceed, if possible, and as early as possible, into the Common Market, subject only to the consent of Parliament. I think that is fairly clear. There is not the slightest suggestion—and the noble Marquess was quite entitled to-day to make the comments he did—that they would seek the sanction of the people before they signed the Treaty of Rome. I think that it would be a very great mistake not to do so. It is perfectly true that all Parties, even the Liberal Party—not among their representatives in this House perhaps, although that may be so; and not among their very small group in the other place, but certainly the Smedley group——
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Which group?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Smedley.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Peas.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The noble Viscount has selected the right trade, I think. They were certainly behind the Albert Hall meeting of protest against entering the Common Market. As I was saying, all Parties are divided on this matter. At one time I considered that the position of my Party was certainly very difficult. We have now before us an Amendment, which gives some breathing space and a clear warning to the Government as to what we consider will be the position if they persist in trying to go into the Common Market without having obtained, to the full, the pledges they have made in the three directions: to agriculture, to the Commonwealth and to the E.F.T.A. countries. That means that an Opposition which felt that the Government had not honoured its pledges in these three vastly important directions would be opposed to signing the Treaty. In that case they would be entitled to demand that the country should give a verdict on it before the Treaty was signed.
My Lords, I listened to the general argument of the noble Marquess as to what is usually the right course of action in matters of this sort. He had a little poke at my Party about their position
488
in the 1945 Parliament with regard to a possible cutting down of the powers of the House of Lords. On that point I would say to him that we have never ceased, in the whole of my 50 years of political life in the country, to put before the electorate what we felt was a wrong position for the House of Lords to hold. The electorate knew our views on that from the beginning to the end. Perhaps you might say that in Let Us Face the Future we did not have quite so specific a reference to the House of Lords as we had to the five main principles which governed our legislative proposals in that Parliament. But I thoroughly agree with the noble Marquess that, when such matters as we are now discussing are proposed to be dealt with without the real view of the people having been obtained, that is something that ought to be put right.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said in this House the other day, speaking on quite another subject, that what was important in deciding these matters was truth and good faith. When you begin to think about a Party's appeal to the electorate, these are very great factors: tell the people the truth before you do something, and keep good faith. I go back over my Parliamentary life and pick out the action of Mr. Baldwin in 1923—the noble Marquess, I am sure, will remember this. It was outstanding. Mr. Bonar Law had died in the course of the year 1923, and Mr. Baldwin had been appointed Prime Minister in his place. He, and his Cabinet with him, I take it, decided that, because of the very grave unemployment at that time, the only course was completely to change the nation's fiscal policy—to change from the traditional free trade practices of our country, and to go in for all-round protection as found necessary in the different trades of the country.
What did he do? The Conservative Party had been elected only the previous November, but Mr. Baldwin said that it was not possible to deal with the situation without going to the country on that issue. And he went frankly to the country, at the end of 1923. He came out from the Election with the largest Party, but he did not have enough to have a clear majority over all the rest of Parliament. But he, at least, presented

489
the people with their proper opportunity of giving a verdict upon the issue. I do not think that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has done anything more to-day than to apply that same honest and just principle of what Governments should do in circumstances of this kind as Mr. Baldwin did in 1923. From that point of view, I pay the late Mr. Baldwin my tribute.
The situation now is that we have the Government's Resolution, which I have mentioned, and we have a specific Amendment to it. That Amendment clearly indicates that within my Party there has been a move of hardening against aspects of entering into the Common Market, and there is not that same undivided view in the section which wanted to go into the Common Market come what may. Such general pledges as have emerged from the Government's efforts to get what they want have not satisfied a good many of my people, and they want to make quite sure that the pledges of the Government are fulfilled if, ultimately, there may be an entering into the Common Market. My personal feeling about the matter is that, in any case, I should like the Election before signing the Treaty of Rome.
In regard to the actual feelings of the members of my Party, I can quite see, and our leadership in the other place sees quite clearly, that there ought to be a means of consulting the country. If our going into the Common Market is going to have such an effect upon these various interests—either on the agricultural industry or on other industries in the country; or on the Commonwealth or on other countries—we are not prepared to allow it to go forward for signature unless it is referred to the country for a decision. Therefore, I think that the Government are under a great obligation to-night in what they say. I hope that, whatever is being said in the other place, the noble and learned Viscount is going to be able to answer what I think was a most specific challenge from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to-day, as to what is their intention. I specially stress this question: do they propose to sign the Treaty of Rome after acceptance by Parliament, without going to the country about it? Do they propose to sign it before they have an Election? I think the country ought to be told quite clearly what the position is.
490
I should like to press very strongly the considerations which have been put tonight with regard to the Commonwealth, by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, and, certainly, by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I think that Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place have all been really keen, to see that justice is done to our Dominions, especially in the case of New Zealand. It is my happiness that I have been able to visit New Zealand twice, and it has been my very good fortune, as a Defence Minister and as a Service Minister as well on another occasion, to have had that instantaneous and constant, loyal support from New Zealand in the defence field, as well as from Australia and from Canada. In addition we never had any difficulty in the time when we were still the Government in India, with a mixed Government, in receiving enormous assistance from India. In the case of New Zealand, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that unless something very much more is obtained than has yet been indicated to us there will be ruin of the economy of that brave and loyal people, so widely based upon English descent and practice. I think that that would be a very wrong thing to do.
The general position that was put from this Box this evening, as to the opinions which were expressed by the overseas Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, and especially stressed by Mr. Gaitskell in his speech yesterday and quoted ad lib., is such that I cannot believe that the Government are really intending—I hope it is not so—to make a sort of deal with the Common Market which does not live up to the essence of the pledge they have made. They started very badly in regard to this Commonwealth matter. Many Members of your Lordships' House felt that there was no real live contact in time between Ministers of the Government and the actual Ministers of the Commonwealth before the Government went as far as they did in presenting their case to Parliament in July of last year. Then, suddenly, Mr. Sandys had to be despatched all round the Commonwealth to try to recover from the effect of this very grave restraint, in having built up this new idea of entering the Common Market without proper discussion with the

491
Ministers. But now there is not the slightest doubt that pledges have been given to the Commonwealth which up to the present have not yet seen fulfilment as a result of the discussions that have been going on in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. I hope that the Government can be relied upon, so that if they do not get what they have promised to get for the Commonwealth they will not fail to keep their pledge that they will not go into the Common Market on that basis.
The position with regard to agriculture is very strange. I do not yet understand exactly where they are. I hope to be able to read to-morrow the speech of the Minister of Agriculture in another place. I should have liked to hear the references to agriculture which I am told were made here by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, this afternoon. But I am quite certain of this: that whatever may have been the experience of agriculturists in relation to Governments in the past, we have had no repetition since the last war of the kind of betrayal that happened in the repeal of the Corn Production Act in 1920, after the first war, because we had a sound and sane policy for the maintenance and expansion—so vitally required—of the agricultural product and for it to become a real factor in helping our balance of payments difficulties. The 1947 Act has meant an enormous expansion of our agricultural production, helping industry at the same time by the immense purchases year by year of the products of the British engineering industry, as well as of some imported farming machinery. Indeed, the kind of machines which used to be sent here from abroad are, at the present time, nearly all produced in this country, also affording employment for British skilled labour.
The position was that all Parties said they were pledged to support the 1947 Act. In the 1950 and 1951 Elections, the Conservative Party were pledged to support it. There have been little whittlings away, cuttings away, in the process of carrying out the subsidy scheme. But it is only in comparatively recent months that we have heard a statement of the kind—" Ah! we are pledged to continue the 1947 Act until the end of this Parliament ". What sort of assurances have you yet been able to give British agriculture, bearing in mind that you quite clearly
492
contemplate doing away with the whole effect of the 1957 Act, which will mean abolishing altogether the 1947 Act? You have nothing real in the way of an assurance for them at all. What game is the Government going to play with agriculture in this matter, may I ask the noble Viscount? We ought to know to-night, because it is very important that we should know. If the position of the British agriculturists is put in peril by nothing effective being obtained, or they are to be thrown back purely upon improvements expected here and there as against the losses which they will sustain by losing their subsidy system altogether, by fiscal measures taken to make food more dear in this country, then I think we should regard the terms as not having fulfilled the Government's pledge. It would be a quite unfair position to thrust back on the agricultural industry. I hope, therefore, that we shall get a further explanation of that to-night.
The other thing I want to say is this. Last night my leader in the other place, having dealt with the questions of E.F.T.A., the Commonwealth and agriculture, turned to two other very important factors. They were that there ought to be an absolute understanding right from the beginning—now—if we are going in, that we are not going to be handicapped in any way in our foreign policy. Now I have heard the quotations made by other Members of your Lordships' House to-night as to what has been said in the past by Minister after Minister now in the Cabinet. We had reference tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, to what was said by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there were quotations from Mr. Heath and what he had said about the inevitability of political unity and the like if you go in on the economic basis. What other noble Lords have said must surely be right: it is merely a building up of a political federation of Europe, and it is that which would be the real threat to sovereignty.
But I go further than that. I say that the sovereignty of Parliament itself is threatened in this Treaty as it has never been threatened since the time of the Reformation. Since the time when gradually, through the Stuart period, Parliament assumed authority over the Crown, and it was decided that

493
sovereignty rested in Parliament itself, we have never had the kind of challenge that this Treaty is going to give—never. You would go into the Treaty; you would set up your organisation; you would discuss, either through the Commission of Civil Servants or, possibly, in the Council of Ministers also; and then, whatever they decided, whatever its effect on trade or commerce, all the social, industrial and labour matters that arise out of it are settled in law, as was pointed out to us on August 2 by the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack. Those decisions immediately become law in this country as well as in the Administration by the High Court of Justice set up by the Treaty.
What of Parliament? Parliament then has no right at all to get any amendment of any of those things: none at all. We have not been in that position for hundreds of years. In regard to sovereignty, I am quite willing to lose sovereignty when it leads to a great basis for a world organisation for bringing lasting peace into the world, and that kind of thing, but I do not want to see our Parliament placed in a position in which it has no power whatsoever to get any amendment of laws of this kind. I read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said upon this matter on August 2, and that is the position. That is a loss of sovereignty which we ought not to suffer.
How are you going to re-establish the real and fundamental authority of Parliament in your own country, when Parliament has let the country down by undertaking things abroad that no future Parliament can really undo? As I understand it, you could not, if you went in, do it in any way except by refusing to accept any decisions of the E.E.C. Then ultimately you could be brought before an International Court of Justice and, whatever else came out of it, you would be inclined to lose face in the whole international diplomatic world for having repudiated a Treaty which a previous Government had entered into with more than one country. That surely cannot be a position which the Government can accept and which they can decide upon now, without going to the country before Parliament loses its sovereignty.
494
So I want to put it to the noble Viscount, as we have put it into our Amendment to-day, that we must be free to conduct our own foreign policy and we must be free to have control of our own economic planning for the benefit of our own people, for the relief of those needs that arise from time to time in various directions and in various aspects of our social life. We want t0 be free to do all that planning without being afterwards hauled back, as Belgium was hauled back about its coalmining policy, and told, "You have no power to do that; you must conform to the law of the European Economic Community".
My friends in the Labour Party do not all go quite so far as I do on this matter, but I think they have gone a long way to meet those of us who hold the view that we do. They have gone a long way, and I think that they have covered the ground in this Amendment. I will certainly vote for it, and I only hope that all those who have spoken as they have from below the Gangway on the other side (I agreed with every word they said on it to-night) will be prepared to vote for this general plea that they have put forward and which I have put forward, and will be able to go into the Lobby and say that now is the time to halt and consider, to stand fast in the old ways, in spite of all that the noble Viscount said yesterday. It was a very good message from the Prophet Jeremiah. He said that the result of standing fast in the old ways would be that you would get rest unto your souls. I hope that we shall very carefully reconsider the position.
8.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is, of course, an immensely complicated and an immensely difficult subject. One thing I am bound to say is that I think the only thing with Which I agree in the speech of the Leader of the Labour Party to his Party Conference and with which I wholly agreed When he talked about it, was his comment that anybody who thinks that it is easy is a fool. I accept that. We have had a very interesting debate to-day. There have been fifteen or sixteen separate speeches, and I should like in advance to apologise to those whose specific points I do not mention in the course of my argument for

495
any apparent want of courtesy I may show to them. I can assure them that I will do what I can to take their views into account, but should there be any particular point which I have not dealt with in the course of my answer, I hope that they will either write to me or put down a Question, in which case I hope to give them all the attention which they quite certainly deserve.
In a debate of this kind I think it is the duty of the speaker on behalf of the Government to come back to the central issues and business of the day. During the course of this debate we have, of course, risen to very considerable heights. I do not think anybody who heard the really tremendous speech of my noble friend, Lord Avon, will doubt that very high political thinking has been involved from time to time. If I do not answer him in full this evening he will understand that that is a courtesy rather than the opposite. I think a speech of that kind needs reflection although I shall refer from time to time to his remarks, which I not only admire but with which, if he will allow me to say so, I very largely agree.
My Lords, I think we must now consider the shape of the debate—a debate in which a Motion has been proposed which I shall ask the House to accept, and to which an Amendment has been proposed Which I must ask the House to reject. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin (and I understand, of course, that he was perhaps brought into this debate at rather shorter notice than he would have liked: and if he will allow me to say so he made an extremely moderate and conciliatory speech), asked why the debate had taken this particular form. The answer is quite a simple one. During long discussions in the usual channels in both Houses we understood that the Opposition did not wish to debate this question by way of Amendment to the gracious Speech, or generally on the gracious Speech, and that a Motion of this kind was the acceptable way in which we should discuss it. I think, as a matter of fact, that that decision was right, but I do not think it really lies in the mouth of either side to reproach the other for the form which the debate has taken. The Government must take full responsibility, and does take full responsibility, for the words of its Motion, and the Opposition must take
496
full responsibility, and, I hope will take full responsibility, for the terms of its Amendment.
Before I deal with the actual phraseology and implications of the Motion and the Amendment, there are two or three general observations I should like to make. I have been conscious, throughout the period of time during which this issue has been current before public opinion, of three general difficulties in the way of a member of the Government or, indeed, in the way of anybody with a sense of responsihibility, handling the issue. The first difficulty is that of conducting what is virtually a public relations exercise with one's own people and at the same time conducting what, by any standards, axe extremely tough negotiations with the other potential parties to the agreement. I think this is a genuine difficulty and I am sure the noble Lords who have carried the responsibility of government will sympathise with it. I think the difficulty was very well illustrated by some of the things which have been said this evening and, indeed, by the result of the Llandudno Conference.
We have to justify to our people the attitude (which I hope to explain at greater length later on) that we should like, if tolerable terms and reasonable terms can be accepted, to join the Common Market. We therefore have to put to our own people the case for the Common Market. Whenever we have done so we have succeeded decisively; whether in Parliament, before a Party Conference or before a public meeting, we have won that issue. We have, however, created in the minds of the Europeans at the same time what seems to be a kind of euphoria, a kind of atmosphere, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred, in which they believe that we would be bound to go in at any price, and that our prestige and success as a Government were so far committed to the enterprise that we might compromise the essential interests of the country. I hope to persuade the House that that is wrong, but of course it is inherent in the suitation which I have been trying to describe and am again trying to describe, perfectly fairly and without passion on either side.
The second difficulty we are under is that you cannot altogether describe the

497
characteristics of an association of nations or of peoples when it is as yet not fully developed. That is, of course, true of the Common Market, even if it remains, as it is, the association of the Six. I have always been told that Rugby football and American football are played by virtually the same rules. But experienced footballers tell me that the games are totally different, and of course you cannot ultimately describe what you believe to be the true characteristics of the Common Market simply by asking your lawyer to construe the terms of the Treaty of Rome.
What is much more important than construing the terms of the Treaty of Rome—though far be it from me to deprecate the value of the lawyer's contribution to debates of this kind—is to try to understand the spirit of the institution and the direction in which it is going. You can have no guarantee while the institution is developing, and it is for that reason, I think, that during the course of the negotiations we have, as several speakers have pointed out, come to rely more and more on good faith, and to demand more and more general indications of policy made in good faith than on institutional requirements insisted upon as a condition of entry. Whether we have been right or wrong about this attitude which has resulted very largely from contact with the Community is a question open to discussion. Noble Lords will recognise that, when you are dealing with the spirit of an institution, and a developing institution, it is the spirit and policy and direction which must be looked at at least as much as the legal institutions and constitution of that body.
The third difficulty to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships is the fact which I believe is quite certain and which stems from the second point I am seeking to make; namely, that the character of the European Community, with Britain, Ireland and E.F.T.A. members in it, will be different as it develops from that which it would be if Britain and the E.F.T.A. members were excluded. That is quite inevitable. Again, of course, it is not simply a question of the legal terms when you go in; it is not simply a question of legal institutions, important as these are: you cannot create an association of human beings with different personalities and
498
add to it other human beings, with still more different personalities, without altering the character of the institution. And it is the character of the institution and the nature of its policies in which, on the whole, we ought to be interested to a very great extent. Stemming from that point, as a corollary to it, I must emphasise, before I embark upon the more formal part of my discussion, the importance which that consideration has to the future of the Commonwealth in relation to the Community. I do not think that we differ at all about the objectives here to be achieved. We may hereafter differ about methods, but, as I ventured to say in the speech to which the noble Marquess referred two or three nights ago, no decisive decision of policy has so far been taken, and personally I do not think that the crossing of the Rubicon has been reached yet.
The only point on which I differ from my noble friend Lord Avon was on what he said about agriculture, and for this reason. Agriculture throughout the world is undergoing a tremendous technical revolution at the present time. This has been going on for a long time but it is now developing to an extraordinary extent. Whatever happens to us about the Common Market, it is certain that with the population we are likely to breed in this island we cannot guarantee to take an increasing amount of ordinary temperate foodstuffs, or indeed of ordinary industrial products, into this island market alone. I think that this fact has to be faced and it has to be faced by the Commonwealth.
Both the old and the new Commonwealths, for slightly different reasons—because the new largely produces in the tropical and the old largely in the temperate zone, and each has a widely differing degree of industrial development—will increasingly have to look to the industrialised countries of Europe both for their food exports and for their industrial exports. I do not believe that this country alone will supply them with an adequate market, because the means of production of both, again for widely different reasons, are altering very much. All that I say at this stage of the argument is that both the old and the new countries of the Commonwealth would be very unwise indeed not to realise the importance to them of the real policy which will be pursued by the Common Market countries.

499
I believe that the Common Market countries will pursue a markedly different line, according to whether the Community is composed solely of the Six or whether it includes this country, the E.F.T.A. countries and Ireland. If they are composed solely of themselves, and taking agriculture alone, I should have thought that the support prices for European agricultural products are likely to be fixed at a high level, which will be extremely deleterious to the prospects of Commonwealth exports. Whereas, if we are looking for the best chance of creating grounds of Commonwealth expansion, we should hope by our membership of the Community to help to keep support prices at a lower level. This may or may not be correct. As I say, I do not think that the moment for a decision has arrived, and precisely because I regard the decision as one of immense importance to the future of the country and the Commonwealth I should be very sorry to feel that here this evening, before events have moved to a much greater extent than they have yet, we had reached the parting of the ways.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I put a point on the argument the noble and learned Viscount is making? It may well be true that the wider distribution of markets will be affected by the changes to be made, but how is it going to help our Commonwealth in general by taking away the preferences they have now and putting in their place preferences for French wheat, for Dutch dairy produce and animal foods from other countries coming here, without giving them an equal preference? I have not seen how that is going to help the Commonwealth. Would the noble and learned Viscount please tell me?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that brings me to the actual Motion and Amendment before us. All I was seeking to do in this preliminary observation was to show, as I hope I have up to this point, that the actual character of the Community is what is to be considered rather than the purely legal structure of it, and that the character of the Community itself will be different according to whether we are members or whether we are excluded.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, reminded us this is the third main debate
500
that we have had about the Common Market. The Motion refers explicitly to the first of the three—namely, that in August, 1961. The Government are asking the House to reaffirm that Motion, and, as the noble Lord fairly reminded us, that Motion, which was passed without a Division by both Houses of Parliament, was to this effect:
"That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome, in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by Parliament after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree."
One of the first questions which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me in the course of his speech and one of the questions which has been raised by various speakers since is whether the Government adhere to these undertakings. The answer to that is unequivocally, Yes, we do adhere to them. The Motion before us explicitly refers to the Motion which contains them. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, again very fairly, I thought, pointed out that the gracious Speech actually contains them by reference or by implication. It is, of course, on one of them that my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal broke off the agricultural negotiations a few days ago. Therefore, the answer to that question is unequivocally, Yes.
We shall ask the House to endorse the Motion which the House passed in August, 1961. We ask you to add nothing to it, except to request the Government to carry through negotiations to a successful conclusion, and we ask the House to take nothing away from it. That is where we stand. If I may elaborate a point, which I think is perhaps sufficiently clear, there were three elements in the Motion: the first was that Parliament endorsed the decision to apply for membership; the second was that there were three interests to be safeguarded by arrangements, if they could be found, and the third was that Parliament will be asked to be judge of whether we have fulfilled our undertaking or not and that we are not the sole

501
judges, except of course during negotiations, of whether that is so. Parliament will be the judge, and that I think is the answer to the first of the questions, though not to the second, posed by my noble friend below the gangway, Lord Salisbury.
In my submission, nothing would be more fatal, and indeed nothing would be more dishonourable, than to ask us now to change our terms of reference. We want to keep our terms of reference to the terms of that Motion, adding nothing and taking nothing away. The second point I would make on the Motion is that, in the last resort, when the terms are put before Parliament for approval or disapproval, they ought to be judged broadly and as a whole. So far as I know, the result of any negotiation entered into in good faith is likely to be that there Will be some terms which we shall Hike better than others. This I think is inevitable; it is in the nature of negotiation itself. We are entitled to ask, I think, that the process should be allowed to continue to its completion, if we reach a completion, and that then the conditions should be reviewed as a whole and should be accepted or rejected on the broadest possible grounds and not in any niggling spirit. Nothing, in my submission to the House, could be more fatal to a sound decision upon this matter, which is, after all, what we desire to achieve, than an attempt to judge conditions piecemeal.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount if the proper interpretation of that is that when you obtain certain concessions, although you have failed to get others, you will then decide to go into the Common Market, irrespective of which people you injure or those Whose trading position you improve; and, instead of getting proper conditions for both the Commonwealth and for British agriculture, for example, you will be perfectly ruthless and will get in by having accepted a compromise which is not sufficient to defend those interests?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it means almost exactly the opposite of what the noble Viscount suggests. It means that we have given certain undertakings separately to E.F.T.A., certain undertakings separately to the Common-
502
wealth and certain undertakings separately to British interests, of which agriculture is one of the most important. And, if we reach the stage when we find that there are other conditions which we feel fulfil those conditions, we shall ask Parliament to accept them judging them in the broad. It may be—I do not know; I have played no intimate part in this matter—that conditions for tomatoes will be less satisfactory than conditions for wheat. This is obviously something that we must judge. The question we shall have to consider then is whether, in the broad, the promises that we have given to Parliament have been kept. We do not seek in this matter to be our own judges; we come before the tribunal to be judged. But what I suggest would be fatal is to try to dig up the negotiations stage by stage to see how they are going, and to see how one particular concession in a complicated matter, where three-quarters at least has not been negotiated at all, on either side, viewed in isolation, is one which we can conscientiously accept.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I just clarify a point? I follow that there has to be give and take in negotiations. But I hope the noble and learned Viscount is not suggesting that you can set off, say, concessions on the Commonwealth against agriculture. He is taking each of these separately, and you must view what you can get on agriculture, as a whole, the Commonwealth, as a whole, and E.F.T.A.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that I broadly agree with the noble Lord. We have given three distinct promises, and it will be for Parliament to judge whether we have kept them. I am only saying that when they judge they should view this thing from a broad, longsighted point of view, and not from a niggling, legalistic point of view. That, I believe, is the spirit in which Parliament usually approaches a decision.
I now come to the Opposition Amendment.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to put one question to the noble and learned Viscount before he leaves this vital point. When he comes to Parliament to be judged, will Parliament be asked to pass an opinion on the position as it is, or will

503
it be asked to approve or disapprove the Government's undertaking to go into the Common Market? In other words, shall we be asked to repudiate the Government's pledge to the other members of the Market, or shall we have an open question to decide?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure that I absolutely understand the question. But my understanding of the Government's position is that Parliament will have the ultimate arbitration as to whether the matter can go on or not, and can reject in toto or accept in toto, or possibly tell us to try to negotiate again—although I do not know whether a Government which have approved a particular set of proposals would be able to accept such a mandate. All I am saying is that Parliament is the judge of these matters. I do not think I can go into more detail than that this evening.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: But the noble Viscount could go a little further. The Government can make a decision ad referendum of Parliament. But if they have committed themselves, Parliament may wish to repudiate the Government's decision. In my submission, that is not a position in which we should be put.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I suppose that any Government when they put any set of proposals to Parliament are committing their credit to those proposals being the right ones. But I do not think this differs from any other set of international proposals of which I have ever heard. The ordinary constitutional position as regards treaties is that Governments in matters of this importance go to Parliament for approval, but only recommend to Parliament the things in which they can say conscientiously that they approve themselves. I do not think I can improve on that now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Apparently the noble Viscount is trying to get a kind of strengthening of the previous Resolution by the passage of this Resolution that has been put before us by the Government to-day. But, in fact, the negotiations have been going on and, as my Leader pointed out in another place last night, certain decisions have already been
504
taken by the Government in certain of these matters. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has said on more than one occasion that they could not go back upon those decisions which have been taken; that has already been said. Therefore, I think my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston is perfectly entitled to put the question he has: how are we going to receive this finally? Will it be that this is an accomplished fact and the Government are pledged? Are we even going to be in danger, as might have been gathered from the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that you might actually have agreed to sign the Treaty before coming to Parliament?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought that I had made the position plain, and I think the answer is, indeed, very plain. No decisions have been arrived at in the sense which the noble Viscount attaches to the word "decision". We are in the course of negotiations which are incomplete. Any decisions which are taken are purely provisional, and if we think when the time comes that we cannot recommend them to Parliament, we shall not recommend them to Parliament. But I think that on the whole, without any desire to discourage the noble Viscount from his research, if I were allowed to develop the points I have in mind to make, some more of this would become plain in due course.
I come now to the Amendment which has been proposed. I said that I could not on behalf of the Government accept that Amendment. I think it must be fairly plain, when one comes to examine it, why that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the conciliatory speech which he made at the beginning of the debate, said (and I endeavoured to take down his actual words) that there was in this House no difference of opinion as to the desirability of joining the Common Market. Really! I was surprised when he said that. I wonder whether he still thinks so. He said—and it is true—that the Amendment claims in terms that the House would support the entry of Great Britain on various provisions. But would the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, approve of it? I understood him to say explicitly that he was against joining on any terms. I

505
wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is likely to approve it on any terms whatever. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strang, whose speech we listened to with great interest, would approve it on any terms whatever. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, said it was a delusion to believe that we could reconcile the three pledges we had given on entry into the Common Market, and that it was not worth going on with the negotiations unless we went into a federation. That was a very powerful argument, but can it really be said in the face of speeches like that that there is no difference of opinion? The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I accept as supporters on terms which we should regard as reasonable.
I am bound to say, however, to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLS-BOROUGH, whose speech is still ringing in our ears, that we have heard him and enjoyed him on, I think, the three occasions that we have debated this subject, but the actual impression his speech created upon me—and I am bound to say that I am not the only one who received it—was that when the time came there would be no conditions which would really satisfy him. Indeed, he told us in the course of his remarks that never had the sovereignty of Parliament been challenged as it has been by treaties of this kind since the Reformation in the sixteenth century, and the challenge of the Stuarts. If he really thinks that, of course there is a difference of opinion as to the desirability of our joining the Common Market. The only thing which puzzles me (I will give way, I promise, in a moment, but I should like to complete this point) is not so much the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but how the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLS-BOROUGH, are going to support an Amendment which says that, with certain provisions, the House would support the entry of Great Britain into the Common Market.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I was addressing myself to the Motion before the House and to the Amendment, and I think I was perfectly correct in saying that both the Motion and the Amend-
506
ment accept the principle of the European Economic Community. That is What I intended to say. There were speeches made from all parts of the House, and I am not responsible for them. But my friends are going to support the Amendment and, therefore, I am entitled to say that all sections of the House accept the principle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the last thing I intended was a personal attack upon the noble Lord, and I hope I was not understood in that sense. I was directing my mind to the desirability of this House accepting the Amendment. I was only saying that the first argument which was presented on behalf of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was open to the kind of criticism which I have been trying to extend. The fact is, of course, that the very first thing the Amendment does is to omit all the words before the word "House". The Motion of the Government—and it is, of course, for the sensitive conscience of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to know how he can vote for it—reaffirms the decision of August 3, 1961. That is omitted from the Opposition Amendment, and no comparable words are inserted in their place. How on earth do noble Lords opposite, who, for such diverse reasons, are asking us to support this form of words which they have omitted, think that is going to strike the European Community if we pass it? What effect is it going to have on the negotiations? We are not lawyers; we are trying to be relatively intelligent politicians, and it will strike them, will it not, as a repudiation of the Resolution of August 3, 1961. I must say solemnly, on behalf of the Government, that that is how they will treat it.
It is not only the speeches to which I have referred in this debate which create this impression. The entire Press understood the proceedings at the Labour Party Conference at Brighton as having the same effect. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the very carefully balanced and not so clear statement of the Executive of the Labour Party. But I must tell him frankly that in other circles the speech of his Leader at the Labour Party Conference was understood, not only by Conservatives but by such authorities as the noble Earl who sits

507
on the Bench opposite, as being a distinct movement against the Common Market altogether. It really is not good enough to ask this House, as if it was a kind of harmless Amendment which represents a balance of agreement between the Parties, to pass an Amendment which leaves out the important part of the Government Resolution, and then ask them to substitute other words.
What is far worse than this is that having omitted the reaffirmation of the Resolution of August 3, 1961, it then proceeds to give us a set of marching orders totally different in terms and in kind from those which we received on that date.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
VISCOUNT AILSHAM: I promise you I will seek to establish that this is exactly what it does. The Motion of August 3, 1961, asks us to find out whether suitable arrangements can be found to meet the special interests which we are obliged to protect. The Amendment before the House demands something different in kind, for it demands guarantees which, if I understand the Amendment, means that in every case the thing which must be obtained must be something which is written into the Constitution of the Rome Treaty. At any rate, that is how it will be understood by those with whom we are negotiating. It asks us to introduce special terms as regards foreign policy, nationalisation and planning. I hope, as a matter of fact, to be able to persuade noble Lords opposite that these things are not in question and to give them full satisfaction that in fact these things are not challenged. But it would be a serious thing to introduce new terms into our marching orders, even if I can give the satisfaction I hope I can.
Then the Amendment goes on in terms which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye rightly referred to as the conventional terms of censure according to common Parliamentary usage to condemn the conditions already negotiated, but regrets that the terms so far negotiated do not satisfy either these conditions or the obligations. If that simply means, as it might grammatically, that there are a great number of things which have not been negotiated at all and that
508
therefore the terms are incomplete, that, of course, would be one thing. But noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Benches have shown that that is not the meaning to be attributed to the words of the Amendment. On the contrary, what they have sought to do is to import not a provisional but a hostile judgment on the terms which actually have been negotiated provisionally.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the House to judge whether the noble and learned Viscount's interpretation of my comments about the determination to negotiate for the Commonwealth can be construed in the way he has construed them? I said the two essential concessions, associated status and hypothetical agreements, were not satisfactory safeguards for the Commonwealth. Does the noble Viscount regard those concessions, those negotiated elements, as a satisfactory safeguard for the Commonwealth? I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he agrees, and I leave the House to judge.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All that has happened, so far as I know, about associated status is that the offer has been received and transmitted and, in a great number of cases, been rejected. But there is no final result of that negotiation at all, so far as I am aware. All I am saying is that the whole tone of the noble Earl's speech was that if we went on as we were going now there would be a steady disintegration. I am only saying that it is no good presenting this Amendment as something which does not really matter very much. Quite obviously, there are common features between the Amendment and the Government Motion; it would be a sorry day if there were not. But I am also pointing out that there are points of difference which make it utterly impossible for Parliament, consistent with its decision of August 3, 1961, to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed.
Having said that, I should like to deal with a number of specific points, because, although I could not possibly accept an Amendment in these terms there are certain matters upon which we can offer some consolation to noble Lords who have rendered individual questions.
On the question of foreign policy, I should have thought that there was virtually nothing in the Treaty of Rome

509
which would prevent us from carrying on an independent foreign policy. I will come in a moment to the specific issue of federation, which has, rightly in my opinion, engaged the attention of many noble Lords, including the noble Marquess and my noble friend Lord Avon. But I can find nothing in the Treaty of Rome to which anyone could take exception.
Again, looking at the realities of the situation, which is what I invited Parliament to do, I would only direct the attention of Parliament to the specific case of France, which has been a signatory to the Treaty of Rome from the first. Can it be said that France has not been adopting a perfectly independent foreign policy? In many respects I should have thought it was a controversial foreign policy, but I should not have called it other than independent. Its attitude to America is not the same as ours; its attitude to a fourth Power nuclear deterrent is not the same as ours; its attitude in the United Nations and to the United Nations is not the same as ours. Nor, so far, is France's foreign policy the same as that of Germany, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg or Italy. There is no reality in the suggestion that in the Common Market, as it is developing as an institution, the Powers that are signatories to it have not, in fact, observed a perfectly independent foreign policy, in the ordinary sense in which those words are understood.
The same is true of planning and nationalisation. Of course, if by some chance a Dr. Schacht emerged from one of the Six signatories and sought to misuse his powers of nationalisation under the Treaty for some purpose of cheating—that is to say, to destroy the Community as a Community, or to destroy the policy of the Community as the policy of the Community—it might well prove to be that the Treaty was inconsistent with it. But there is nothing in the Treaty against planning, and there is nothing in the Treaty against nationalisation. And, my Lords, I must again appeal to noble Lords to look at the realities of the situation.
As regards planning, Western Germany has pursued what, to our standard, would be considered a wildly laissez faire view towards private enterprise. France in
510
contrast, has pursued a view towards planning which I could describe only as extremely dirigiste. It is on the Labour side of the fence in that particular matter. Neither has got into trouble with the Commission, so far as I know. On nationalisation, broadly speaking, the same is true. Very little is nationalised in Germany; the French have nationalised, broadly speaking, very much more than we have. At least one of their great motor-car factories—their Ford's, as it were; I think it is the Renault factory—is nationalised, but no one has suggested that that is contrary to the Treaty of Rome. Therefore, although I very much object to the insertion of this Amendment I cannot conceive how any honest-minded Socialist can possibly find anything to boggle at under either head.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords I have already put to the House on more than one occasion the example of the Belgian coal industry. It is a nationalised industry, and when they decided that they might want to close certain pits they were informed by the Commission that they would not be allowed to do it: that it was not in accordance with the Commission's policy.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is, if I may say so, a totally different point. What the Amendment asks is: is the Rome Treaty, or membership of the Community, inconsistent with nationalisation or planning?—and I say, "No". But, obviously, both private and public enterprise can commit acts which are contrary to the Rome Treaty. That is what the Treaty is about. Of course, if the noble Viscount really objects to the Rome Treaty as a treaty he should certainly not support either the Government Motion or the Amendment. He should vote against both. The fact is that the point he is now raising is quite a different one.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I am trying to follow the noble Viscount very closely, but there are five points put in this Amendment, three of which have been given by the Government already. The other two, the noble Viscount says, do not arise, and therefore I do not understand why he cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought I had already answered that. We attach great importance to the reaffirmation of the "marching orders" we were given on August 3, 1961, and to the support of Parliament until we carry on those negotiations to a conclusion in which we can recommend the results to Parliament or on which we have to confess failure. I thought I had dealt with it. And I had in my mind to add that if any tender consciences on the other side really are unwilling to take the word of a Conservative (and I can quite understand that this may well be so) I would invite them to inquire of the Socialist Parties in the Six signatories in the Rome Treaty. They do not think there is anything inconsistent in nationalisation and planning. Indeed, they are pressing noble Lords opposite in terms far more stringent than any I would employ to go a great deal further on lines of political federation.
I am sorry to take so long, but I am seeking to satisfy noble Lords who put questions to me and I will try to truncate my remarks. I can only say that when it is said or claimed that if we go into this arrangement we commit ourselves in advance to lose our national identity in a European federation, this is simply contrary to the truth. Of course I know, and I suppose everybody knows, that in the course of the next fifty years the face of Europe and the world will probably change beyond all recognition. I think the wisest of us would have to admit, his own wisdom being limited as it necessarily is, that he is not able to predict what the political map in 2062 is likely to be. Neither do I know, nor, with respect, does anyone else, what Europe or we shall want to do in so long a period. But we do know what is and what is not in the Treaty of Rome. There is no federation in the Treaty of Rome, and if ever at some future date we join one it would be because the British people of that date, through their Parliament, had voluntarily decided to do so and not because of anything in the Treaty.
Again, if I may refer to the realities of the situation, of course I am perfectly well aware that inside Europe there are powerful federalist forces. There are also powerful anti-federalist forces. It is difficult to believe that General de
512
Gaulle, that great man with all his virtues and qualities, and, if I may say so, all the défauts de ses qualités, would compromise the independence and greatness of France. Indeed, one suspects at times that he is not a cross, as one of his critics said, between King George VI and Sir Winston Churchill, but a cross between Joan of Arc and Charlemagne or Louis XIV. This is not a figure of a man who is plunging recklessly into federation; and, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who has a profound experience of this subject and from whom I differ only with a great sense of my own inadequacy, I would say that it is not realistic to say that you can join this particular club only if you decide to join the federal club as well. On the contrary, I would suggest to those who do not like federal equality that one of the best ways to stop it would be to ensure that General de Gaulle and his ideas had some supporters. However, perhaps I have now said more than I ought to say on this particular subject.
I should like to turn for a moment back to the attitude of the Government on a point which has been very widely canvassed and covered by my noble friend Lord Avon. I wholly share his view that it would be quite wrong to suggest that the Government are committed to go in at any price, or ought to be committed to go in at any price. Admittedly the Government are not neutral on the matter of the Common Market. We want Britain to join. We believe in the Community, and we are determined not to fail in our application for any want of good will or negotiating skill on our part. But I think we should all understand quite clearly, both in this country and outside it, both in the form of Lord Gladwyn's speech and of the speech of my noble friend Lord Avon, that the Government will not be prepared to join at any price.
The reason why we will not be prepared to join at any price is partly, of course, that we would not wish to do so, but partly because we cannot do so; and it is very important that people should realise the limitations upon any Government in this country. No matter whether there is an Election or no Election—and I propose to answer my noble friend Lord Salisbury on that point

513
separately, if he will allow me to do so—terms which are shabby, humiliating or unreasonable will, in fact, be self-defeating. They will not get through this Parliament or through any other Parliament. If anyone thinks that as the result of the overwhelming support given to the Government at their Llandudno Conference they can afford to take Britain for granted, or that the Government's prestige is so committed to the Common Market that they cannot afford to refuse unreasonable terms, he should revise his opinion. We cannot afford not to refuse unreasonable terms. In my opinion, one of the greatest dangers in the way of the negotiations is not British insecurity, because we are all relatively wholehearted in our desire to join, but European euphoria which tends to think we are compelled to join when we are not.
If I may for a second pursue that point, I do not go along with those who say we cannot afford to stay out or we cannot afford to go in. I believe—and I forget Which of the noble Lords it was who said it—that this country will remain great whichever we do. Indeed, I believe it is the great object of those who engage in the ardours and discipline of public life at this time to keep Great Britain great in the immensely changed circumstances in which we are placed. I believe we shall be great whichever of the two choices we take. But a united Europe is a British interest, and I believe Europe will never be united unless we do our best to join and succeed.
If we stay out we shall still be great. We shall be rich, although I think probably less rich. The Communists will rejoice, and I shall be sorry for that. Europe will be, I think, a good deal poorer and more inward looking and might not enjoy all the support she has had from this country. But one way or another it is not the only thing; we must not lose our self-respect about this matter, and I hope no one will believe members of the Government have lost their self-respect about this matter. Quite obviously our prestige is deeply committed to the success of these negotiations, but it would still more permanently be damaged if in a matter of this prime importance we allowed considerations of prestige to stand in the way of what we genuinely believe to be the honour or the interests of the country.
514
My Lords, I fear that I am proceeding a long way, but I really should deal at least with the arguments of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. He has contended, in the second of the two questions which he posed, that before we enter the Common Market there must in any circumstances be a General Election. In his little interchange with the noble Viscount opposite I thought I understood him to base this contention less upon a formal mandate doctrine, which I think he regards with me as more peculiar to the Party opposite, than upon the absence of any previous consultation perhaps contained in the Party manifesto of 1959. Of course the House is accustomed to listen to anything that falls from the noble Marquess with the utmost respect, and, speaking for myself, when I differ from him I do so always with the greatest diffidence. There are, of course, a number of matters upon which he and I on this subject would be probably in complete agreement. I need hardly tell him that had I been aware at the time when the General Election was fought that during the currency of the present Parliament an application would be made, I believe I would have made it my duty to see that an appropriate sentence or paragraph was added to the election manifesto.
I am equally bound to agree with the noble Marquess that there are many circumstances which may or might render a General Election necessary at any time between the present and October, 1964, when I believe the present Parliament runs out. But I do not think that I should accept on behalf of the Government, or rather on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—because I have always understood that the prerogative of dissolution is undertaken personally on his advice—any one factor, whether the state of the Common Market negotiations or any other, as being conclusive in advance. Of course the noble Marquess, with that extreme brilliance which we always expect from him, set up one argument after another against his position only to knock it down. But I wish he had grappled, because I do not think he did grapple, with some of the difficulties which I personally see without expressing a final opinion about the matter.
The case against him, I should have said, is that an election about the

515
Common Market, as it would probably be called, may at any rate be not so much undesirable as not technically possible. Let us analyse some of the real difficulties together. Of course, you can hold a General Election, I suppose at any time you like, but nobody can ensure that the Election is in that sense "about" any particular one subject. It may be held about the level of taxation. It is "about" what the voters choose to make it about—the pay pause, the Opposition's Motion of censure yesterday, Cuba, the railway workshops, Southern Rhodesia, the 11-plus examination: any issue which happens to be current at the time. Votes are counted but the reasons are not given. How could we say, for instance, in the circumstances supposed by the noble Marquess that a vote for the Conservative Party would be a vote for the Common Market? How should we count the votes for Sir Derek Walker-Smith? They might be votes against Socialism; they might be votes against weakness in foreign policy on the advice of the noble Marquess; they might be votes against higher income tax, or for a modernised Britain, if anyone ever listens to my speeches. Which way would one count the voles for a Labour candidate like Mr. Ray Gunter?
I am sorry to see only the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Liberal Benches. What would happen about votes for Liberals? Quite obviously the noble Lord would agree with me, in the event of an Election in circumstances supposed by the noble Marquess, that it would be the duty of every Liberal candidate to stand down in order not to split the Common Market vote. But supposing the Liberals do not do their duty? Suppose the result of the intervention of 400 Liberal candidates, all presumably devoted to the Common Market except Mr. Smedley, was to let in 350 anti-Common Market Socialists: would that be a verdict for or against? The truth of this matter, I think, is that you cannot—it is not that one does not want to, but you cannot—turn a General Election in this country into a referendum. It is not a referendum and most of us would dislike the introduction of a referendum as a specific——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I greatly admire the noble Viscount's dialectic skill, but he is really
516
talking the most dreadful nonsense. What about the Election on Tariff Reform in 1905 which was thought necessary? What about the Election in 1909 and 1910 on the reform of the House of Lords that was thought necessary? What about the Election on Protection again in 1923 which was thought necessary? The noble Viscount could not say that a vote for the Conservative Party would be a vote for the Common Market. He could say, and I suppose the Government could say, that a vote for the Government would be a vote for the Common Market; and if the country really wanted a Common Market they would support the Government. But that is really nonsense and contrary to all the traditions of our country. He may get a great deal of fun out of this, but he is preaching a very dangerous doctrine.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I may be preaching a dangerous doctrine, but I happen to believe, quite sincerely, that I am drawing attention to the logical difficulties of the case, and although I happen to admire the noble Marquess's knowledge of our traditions and his love for them as much as anybody, I have at least a humble right to differ from his opinion when it does not happen to coincide with my own.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount said nothing about the three Elections which I have mentioned and which were all undertaken because it was the constitutional duty of the Government to undertake them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the only reason why I did not mention the three Elections which the noble Marquess has mentioned, and the fourth to which the noble Viscount drew my attention, was that he interrupted me before I had done so. I am going to proceed to do it. I do not accept that the Election of 1905 was solely about tariff reform. That seems to me a travesty of political history. It resulted in a great debacle for the Conservative Party, but I do not accept that it was about tariff reform. I do not accept that the Election of 1910 or 1911 was solely about the reform of the House of Lords. There was a thing called the People's Budget which entered into it a great deal. There were vast differences between the Parties at that time.

517
To come to the Election of 1923, which is I think the only respectable precedent as distinct from those cited by the noble Marquess—it was cited by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—that is, of course, a case where Mr. Baldwin in fact went to the country and tried to fight an election about an issue. It so happens that this was the second Election which as a boy I remember, because my father was engaged as a candidate. I can assure the noble Viscount that Mr. Baldwin did not succeed either in winning the Election or in ensuring that it was about an issue. The vital difference, with respect, between Mr. Baldwin's decision in that matter and the decision to which the noble Marquess is now seeking to persuade me in advance to commit my Leader, whose responsibility it is, is that there had been an express promise given that no change in the food taxes in 1923 would be made without a General Election. There is no such express prohibition in our promises unless I am unwise enough to yield to the temptation of the noble Marquess, and I can assure him that I am not proposing to do that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount but I should like to have the answer to this: Is it the view of the Government, and of the Conservative Party, now that it is not necessary to refer an issue of this importance to the Electorate?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, all I said was that it would be wrong to commit the Prime Minister to this, and so far as I know the true, constitutional doctrine is that the prerogative of the Crown is exercised at the instance of the Prime Minister in this particular example. All I have done so far is to discuss some of the difficulties in the way of accepting the noble Marquess's point of view, and to refuse to commit my Leader in this respect.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that I am much indebted to the noble Viscount for answering my case about 1923. There was a decision by a Prime Minister to ask for a dissolution—which he got; he dissolved Parliament—because, as he told the whole country through Parliament before he did it, he felt that
518
he had to consult the people upon this vast change in policy. It was all mixed up with the only other main issue of the time: unemployment, and how we could get away from unemployment in the country. He brought this in and said he was dissolving Parliament for that reason. I say that what you are proposing to do now is going to mean so many hazards to different people, that it is of such importance to sovereignty, that you have every liability resting upon you, every responsibility, to see that you get the view of the Electorate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have not characterised either the noble Viscount's view or that of my noble friend below the gangway as nonsense. I simply say that I do not agree with their constitutional contentions. I do not want to end this debate upon this unhappy note of dissent. In concluding my rather lengthy remarks I should like to say that I do not think we should forget that behind this application of the Government is not, as a matter of fact, a nice calculation of material advantage. It is not a desire to abandon our great traditions for, as it were, a mess of pottage. But it is an ideal. It may be a mistaken ideal; it may be an impractical idea. But we do not think that it is. We place it, as does the noble Earl who sits opposite (therefore I think it would be unwise for the noble Viscount to ridicule it) as part of our ideal for the world, as part of our ideal for Britain, as part of our ideal for the Commonwealth, and it is certainly part of our ideal for Europe.
Of course these things are distinct, but our view happens to be that they are interdependent, and the realisation of any one of them is, in our view, largely dependent upon the realisation of the other three. We were talking about Britain yesterday. I believe that none of our national hopes for Britain will be realised if Europe becomes Communist dominated, blighted by depression, inward looking, cut off from the rest of the world or riven by internal war. A united and prosperous Europe is, for us, a British interest, and a prosperous and modernised Britain is, I believe, a European interest.
But there is really so much more to it than that. For nearly 500 years Britain has looked outward, as the noble Earl

519
has reminded us, outward to the oceans, outward to America, outward to India and China, and outward to Africa. Calais may have been written on Queen Mary's heart, but its loss was the last belated flutter of Britain's European ambitions. Afterwards she became an ocean Power, and the Empire and Commonwealth were the fruit of her achievements. British law, British religion, British morals and customs tended to grow away from those of Europe. Our rôle in Europe became that of a balancing force, the enemy of tyrants but not a continuing presence.
Yet, for all that, we were, we are, and for ever will be, European. Europe is the mother of our culture. She is the nurse of our arts, sciences and technology, and in more recent centuries she has become the chief home and capital of our Christian religion that makes us what we are, the founder of that doctrine of freedom under the law which we have brought in our own distinctive form into the five continents of the world. Twice in our lifetime this Europe has lain in ashes, her young men slain, her soul riven with bitterness and despair. Her sorrow has been our sorrow, and we have shared her sufferings. We cannot stand by and see her ruined. We cannot unmoved behold her surpassed by the New World and the newly awoken continents. Europe with her ancient civilisation has her own part to play in the future, and I think we must help her to play it. To attain her ideal Europe cannot be inward looking, cannot be withdrawn, cannot be self-preoccupied—a rich man's club, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd put it.
The European ideal implies a world ideal—an ideal in which America and the developing countries also must play their part. I know, because I have spoken with some of their leaders; and as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
reminded us, they tend to fear Europe. They believe quite wrongly, I think, that we wish to keep them underdeveloped as the mere producers of primary products, the markets of European industrial goods. But this is not my picture; nor do I think it is the picture of any Member of your Lordships' House. On the contrary, I believe we visualise a world order of the future comprising America, Europe, and the Commonwealth, with the developing nations, even in the end, perhaps, the nations behind the Iron Curtain. We think that in what we are doing now we are perhaps helping that ideal to come a little nearer to the truth.
9.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if it were three or four hours earlier I should be very sorely tempted to follow the noble Viscount into some of the avenues he has explored, but time being what it is I must resist the temptation. If the issues were to be decided by those who heard the debate and took part in it, I have no doubt at all as to which way the vote would go. I think only one noble Lord has supported the Motion of the Government. Every noble Lord who has spoken, apart from that one, has either opposed the Government or has supported the Amendment. But I do not think anything I can say at this stage will influence the noble Lords Who have come in from dinner without having heard a word of what has been said during the debate. I am not referring to the noble Earl, but to most of the other Lords who have suddenly appeared from nowhere ready to vote. So I will just conclude and let the House decide as between the Motion and the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Killearn, L.

Silkin, L.

Burdon, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Milne, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Howe, E.

Peddie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dynevor, L.

Margesson, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Melchett, L.

Avon, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blackford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Bossom, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Molson, L.

Bradford, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Brecon, L.

Grantchester, L.

Newton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hacking, L.

Perth, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Carrington, L.

Hampden, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Savile, L.

Croft, L.

Home, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Davidson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Luke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

On Question, Resolution agreed to.

  THE NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM
  THE NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM