Sitting of 21 July 1971

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

    British Broadcasting Corporation (Programme Content)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many letters he has received about his refusal to intervene over allegations of bias and malpractice in programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received regarding his refusal to intervene over charges of political bias made against the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many representations he has received following his refusal to intervene following allegations of political bias made against the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Since I took office about 25 people have written to me when, from time to time, I have refused to intervene in matters of programme content.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I find that a most satisfactory answer and that it reveals that the public has a very proper appreciation that direct control in these matters should not rest in the hands of politicians? Will he, nevertheless, take note
    1420
    of the feeling of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, that in the recent inquiry into the programme "Yesterday's Men" the B.B.C. governors were acting as judges in their own case, since some of their executive decisions in the sequence of events under examination were, or might have been, open to question? Will he, therefore, look again at early day Motion No. 643 recommending the appointment of an independent broadcasting council?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly take. note of what the hon. Gentleman says. The Times leader today pointed out some of the essential differences between broadcasting and the Press which make the Press Council not a good model to follow. What a number of hon. Members are arguing for is a radical change in the system so that the B.B.C. governors would no longer have the twin functions, which they have always had hitherto, of both managing and answering to the public. There are arguments, as the hon. Gentleman will know, on both sides of that proposition.
    Mr. Fowler: Is it not the position that although the complaints about "Yesterday's Men" have been investigated and substantially rejected, mud is still being thrown at the B.B.C. staff concerned simply because the complaints were not subject to independent investigation? Would not my right hon. Friend therefore agree that not only is the present system unsatisfactory to the public, but it is capable of causing grave injustice to broadcasters and producers?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not say that the present organisation of broadcasting is sacrosanct, but for 50 years it has been held to be a good arrangement that the B.B.C. governors, as trustees for the public, should be responsible for both overseeing programme production and safeguarding the public interest. If one were to separate those two functions, one would presumably move to a system nearer to that practised by the I.T.A., and it will be seen that there are advantages and disadvantages in both systems.
    Mr. Goodhart: Would my right hon. Friend remember that the Press Council has been widely commended for its fairness and authority? Will he now consider inviting the Press Council to extend

    1421
    its range of activities to cover news and current affairs programmes on television and sound radio?
    Mr. Chataway: The Press Council has a job very different from that which exists in broadcasting, and I do not believe that the Press Council would feel itself equipped to do that.
    Mr. Kaufman: While totally rejecting any political interference of any kind with the B.B.C—[HON. MEMBERS : "That makes a change."]—I have always rejected any political interference—and while agreeing that internal editorial B.B.C. control of a sensible kind is a sine qua non to rectifying the situation, may I ask the Minister to examine objectively, and later give the House the results of his examination, the possibility of a broadcasting council parallel to the Press Council?
    Mr. Chataway: I have considered a number of suggestions put to me under the title of a broadcasting council, and people have a wide variety of ideas under that title. I will certainly continue to consider them.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the truth of the matter that the Leader of the Opposition is behaving towards the B.B.C. like a petulant prima donna? May I ask my right hon. Friend not to give him aid or comfort in these ridiculous antics?
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the B.B.C, which has responsibility for programme content, will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Richard: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whatever one's view about an individual programme, there is now a widespread feeling, on both sides of the House and in the country, that it is time that the B.B.C. governors ceased to be the body responsible for investigating complaints of this sort? May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further and ask whether he is now prepared consciously and actively to consider alternative methods by which these functions may be discharged by a body independent of the B.B.C. and outside the present governing body? Would he undertake to give the House the benefit of his consideration at some stage?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly continue to give careful consideration to any suggestions put to me. The point I make, however, is that what is suggested is a radical restructuring of broadcasting. If one were to achieve the objective which the hon. Gentleman sets, that would probably mean extending the range of a body like the I.T.A. to cover the B.B.C. as well. That may be what the House would ultimately decide, but I should be surprised.
    Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman either did not hear or did not choose to answer the last part of my question. Will he undertake to look at the matter, to try to discover an alternative method and then come back to the House and tell us the result of his considerations?
    Mr. Chataway: I will not give any undertaking to make a statement of that kind but I have said that I will consider all suggestions that are put forward.

    Postal Rates
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further increases in postal and/or parcel rates, inland and oversea, for this year he has arranged with the Post Office Corporation.
    Mr. Chataway: None, Sir.
    Sir G. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend for taking short and faltering steps in my direction in the matter of price stability, may I ask him to heed closely and take seriously the Chancellor's exhortations to the nationalised industries, notably the Post Office Corporation, that they are to hold their prices steady for the foreseeable future and not to add to the catastrophic inflation that we have suffered in the past due to their activities?
    Mr. Chataway: I always take most careful note of what my hon. Friend advises. He will have been glad to note, as I was, that the Post Office has welcomed the C.B.I. initiative and said that it intends to abide by the 5 per cent. limit.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any prospective increases in postal rates will be restricted to 5 per cent.?
    Sir G. Nabarro: No. Debated here first.
    Mr. Chataway: I can certainly assure the House that the Post Office has accepted the challenge laid down by the C.B.I. and the advice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Richard: Does that mean that the Post Office made proposals to the right hon. Gentleman exceeding 5 per cent. which he has reduced to that level?
    Mr. Chataway: No. The Post Office did not make formal proposals to me but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it was considering applying for an increase early next year which would have exceeded 5 per cent.

    Staff
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications why the numbers of staff within his Department have increased from 430 non-industrials and five industrials on 1st April, 1971, to an estimated 461 non-industrials and nine industrials by 31st March, 1972.
    Mr. Chataway: The greater part of the increase foreseen is to allow for the transfer to the Ministry's payroll of certain Post Office staff already working for the Ministry. The hon. Member will note that the 1971 figure is over 5 per cent. lower than that forecast by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Hamilton: How do these figures square with the promise of the Tory Party at the last election that it would reduce the staff in Government Departments and in the Civil Service generally, bearing in mind that these figures show an increase of 8 per cent.? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the two additional assistant secretaries are doing, since the result of the hiving-off of the Post Office Corporation has surely been to lessen considerably the burden of work inside the Department?
    Mr. Chataway: This is a new Ministry in the process of formation. I have explained that the increase was due to the transfer of a body of work from the Post Office to my Ministry, with the result that a certain number of people came on to our payroll. The fact remains that we have reduced by over 5 per cent. the figures agreed by the previous Administration.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications why there has been an increase in the number of assistant secretaries in his Department from seven in 1970–71 to nine in 1971–72.
    Mr. Chataway: One of the additional posts is part-time, replacing a full-time principal. The other is to make better provision for the work arising from my functions as sponsoring Minister for the Post Office.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Do the right hon. Gentleman and the House recognise that the salaries of these officials are £5,000 a year, or thereabouts? They are not office boys. Moreover, two out of seven represents nearly 30 per cent. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with his previous Answer that there is a reduction in the number which was contemplated by the previous Government? Or was a comparable increase contemplated in this field by the previous Government? Are the two, in fact, a reduction from what the previous Government proposed?
    Mr. Chataway: Overall there is a reduction of over 5 per cent. In this particular case a part-time assistant secretary has been brought in to strengthen the work of the Post Office Users National Council, and the other appointment is in respect of oversight of telecommunications. It is absolutely clear that the work cannot be done without senior appointments of this kind.

    British Broadcasting Corporation (Licence and Agreement)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his policy with regard to the exercise of his powers under paragraph 13 of the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement.
    Mr. Chataway: Clause 13 has five different provisions. I use my powers under 13(1) and 13(5) as seems desirable. I would use my powers under 13(3) if my departmental responsibilities so required. My power under 13(4) is a reserve power and I would not use it to intervene in a matter of programme content.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most hon. Members

    1425
    would agree with his decision that he would not normally interfere with programme content? Will he, also, recognise that many of us would view with some reserve the idea of the establishment of a broadcasting council of any sort, taking the view that the analogy with the Press Council is misplaced because we have here a publicly-appointed body? Would he further agree that if a publicly-appointed body is falling down on its job, something needs to be done? Will he look again at the whole structure of the B.B.C. and see whether steps can be taken—steps which I shall be pleased to suggest when I have more time—for ensuring that the governors in future do their job properly and fully and prevent any more things like "Yesterday's Men"?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that the B.B.C. governors are falling down on their job, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the analogy between broadcasting and the Press and the parallel of a broadcasting council along the lines of the Press Council cannot be very exact.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the implementation of 13(4) is not a matter of policy but that there is an absolute legal obligation on the B.B.C. to refrain from expressing its own opinion? Is he aware that in many people's opinion, that obligation has not been kept with sufficient strictness? Would he, further, accept that there is a legal obligation upon himself—an obligation, not policy—to see that this is adhered to and that the implementation of this may one day fall to him?
    Mr. Chataway: As I have said to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, if it were clear beyond doubt that the B.B.C. was infringing its Charter, clearly it would be my responsibility to intervene. It would not be right for me to intervene, however, in a matter of programme content where it was merely a question of opinion as to whether impartiality was being observed.

    Electronic Telephone Exchanges
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what facilities and procedures exist for the recording and monitoring
    1426
    of the origin and destination of telephone calls in electronic telephone exchanges ; and whether he will make a statement ;
    (2) in view of his responsibility for the Official Secrets Acts, if he will list the administrative arrangements which are made under the Post Office Act for the protection of the privacy, confidentiality of origin and destinations of telephone calls handled by electronic exchanges.
    Mr. Chataway: These are matters for the Post Office, whose staff is under statutory obligations of secrecy.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that that is not a very satisfactory answer? Is he further aware that he has some kind of responsibility under the Post Office Act, particularly with regard to the Official Secrets Act? Cannot he say anything about what will be the installation policy of the Post Office with regard to computerised telephone exchanges? Can he say anything about who else, apart from the Post Office staff, will be given access to the lists of telephone calls made from individual exchanges?
    Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman may have read an article which speculated on the possibilities of sophisticated electronic switching systems in the distant future. I understand that there are no significant differences in the recording facilities already provided or planned for electronics exchanges as opposed to those which are at present available for the crossbar or Strowger systems and, furthermore, that those speculations were of a fairly remote kind. Under the Post Office Act, obligations of secrecy are placed on all Post Office staff and they are taken very seriously by the Post Office.

    Radio Leeds
    Mr. Fordasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is aware that many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bradford, North are dissatisfied with their reception of Radio Leeds, due to the low power of the radiation ; what his proposals are to improve this situation ; and if he is in a position to publish a comprehensive frequency plan.
    Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on

    1427
    9th June. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Not yet".—[Vol. 818, c. 1017.]
    Mr. Ford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is most unsatisfactory? Does he appreciate that Radio Leeds produces excellent programmes of popular appeal to which many people wish to listen and that it is a most unhappy situation that they are prevented from doing so merely because the Minister is not willing to allow the transmitter to be stepped up in power? Would he, please, act now and quickly?
    Mr. Chataway: I must have a comprehensive frequency plan that is fan-to the B.B.C. and to the I.B.A. I am anxious that there should be good reception on v.h.f. and later, I hope, medium frequencies for B.B.C. local stations. I will help as soon as I can.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing suspicion that he is delaying the decision to give extra power to Radio Leeds so that the city and the region will be in a weak position to resist suggestions for a new commercial local radio station? Is that why Radio Leeds has not had a decision from him?
    Mr. Chataway: There is no delay in giving decisions. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to a number of others who have inquired that I am not prepared to give further frequency space to B.B.C. stations at this time because that would prejudice the plan for I.B.A. stations. We need a comprehensive frequency plan which will permit the maximum amount of broadcasting.
    Mr. Richard: Can the Minister say when his comprehensive frequency plan will be ready so that the B.B.C. can get on with improving its local radio stations? May we take it that the publication of the plan, and thereby permission to the B.B.C. to carry on, will not be delayed until after the passage of legislation setting out the responsibilities of the I.B.A., because that would take much too long?
    Mr. Chataway: I cannot yet say when the plan will be complete, but the I.T.A. has been enabled to start work on it already.

    Mail
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proportions of first-class mail is now being delivered on the day following posting.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is now the average number of first-class and second-class letters and light mail posted daily, respectively, and in total ; how this position compares with that immediately before and immediately after the postal strike, and with that of a year ago ; and, in each instance, whether he will tabulate the revenue earned.
    Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me that 94 per cent. of first-class letters are currently being delivered on the next working day after posting. The more detailed information sought in Question No. 21 is essentially a matter for the Post Office, which publishes annual statistics of traffic and revenue in its Report and Accounts.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread belief that there is no point in using 3p stamps on Fridays because the mail will not be delivered until the following Monday? Is he further aware that mail posted by hon. Members in the Houses of Parliament before 4 p.m. on a Friday is often not delivered in the constituencies until the Monday when the Member may have returned to the House and therefore cannot deal with it until three or four days later? Will my right hon. Friend look into this unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly draw the attention of the Post Office to what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Osborn: What effect have the postal strike and increased postal charges had on the volume of postal traffic? Is it not a fact that any further increase in charges would reduce the volume of postal traffic and use of the postal services?
    Mr. Chataway: It is too early to come to any firm conclusion on the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. But I think it must be accepted as inevitable that any further tariff

    1429
    increase would have an effect upon postal traffic.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Would the Minister indicate what proportion of the proportion referred to in the Question is the direct result of his doctrinaire and disgraceful treatment of the postmen in the recent dispute?
    Mr. Chataway: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman means. But the fact is that the standards of performance by the Post Office have recovered to the levels that they were before the strike, and the figures for delivery are now as good.
    Mr. John Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree, despite what he has just said, that there is growing dissatisfaction with the postal service? In my constituency frequent examples are brought to my attention of letters taking longer to get from London to High Wycombe than they took in the days of the mail horse coach. Can he do something to improve the service?
    Mr. Chataway: I accept that there is dissatisfaction with the postal service in many parts of the country, but I believe that the Post Office Corporation is as aware of it as anybody and is determined to improve upon its standards.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not know whether the Minister is aware that it sometimes takes three days for a letter to be delivered from the S.E.I postal district across the River Thames to the S.W.I postal district. When one complains or tries to get an explanation from anyone, whether it be from the right hon. Gentleman, from the Chairman of the Post Office Board, or from anybody else, no satisfactory explanation is given. Will he do something to ensure that we have an explanation why it takes three days for a letter to travel 200 or 300 yards?
    Mr. Chataway: There will, clearly, be some mistakes in the best ordered postal system. What one should be concerned with is the overall level of performance. At the moment 94 per cent. of first-class mail arrives the next day. But I appreciate that the majority of people remember far more easily the one letter which did not get there promptly rather than the 16 which did.

    Frequency Advisory and Mobile Radio Committees
    Mr. Gorstasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make additional appointments to the Frequency Advisory Committee and the Mobile Radio Committee in view of the future developments outlined in the White Paper, "An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting".
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir, but, of course, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, when it is set up, will replace the Independent Television Authority on the Frequency Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the I.B.A. will be concerned with the frequencies for 60 stations, no one will be concerned with any development beyond the 60 stations and it would be highly desirable for the Frequency Advisory Committee to have on it somebody who could speak up for such potential interests when a future Government or, I hope, this Government, increase the number from 60 to perhaps 160 stations?
    Mr. Chataway: In drawing up the frequency plan I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. But the Frequency Advisory Committee is more concerned with the broader aspects of radio frequency plans, such as the allocation of frequencies between broadcasting, mobile radio and other uses of the frequencies.

    Telephone Party Lines
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many representations or complaints he has received with regard to Schedule 9, paragraph 3(1) and section 28 of the Post Office Act, 1969.
    Mr. Chataway: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: But is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the regulations some old-page pensioners who have been telephone subscribers for as long as 20 years are faced with the loss of their telephone if they refuse to accept a party line, which they regard as an incursion of their privacy, and that many of them who are, naturally, bewildered

    1431
    by the regulations have had their telephones summarily cut off? Will he therefore look at the regulations again as they are applied to old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Chataway: These are matters for the Post Office. I am sure that it will take account of what my hon. Friend has said and look most carefully into any case which she cares to put to it.

    European Postal Bank
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has for the establishment of a European Postal Bank to assist in the financing of Post Office capital projects in contributing member countries.
    Mr. Chataway: None, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: But is not the Minister aware that lack of capital investment is preventing hundreds of thousands of people from having the telephone which they need and have a right to expect? Is he also aware that restrictions on capital investment are inhibiting the mechanisation and automation of the postal services? Surely he is not so complacent as to dismiss in this manner the suggestion contained in the Question?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that the suggestion in the Question offers any possibility of solution of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

    Television Licences (Refunds)
    Mr. Rostasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications why the beneficiary of a deceased relative's estate cannot claim a refund on the unexpired portion of a television licence unless the licensee has died within 28 days of the due date of its renewal.
    Mr. Chataway: In order to keep the licence system as simple as possible, successive Governments have followed the general policy of not giving refunds on television licences which are not needed for the full period of the licence. I cannot make an exception in favour of any licensee whose need for a licence has exceeded 28 days.
    Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he is satisfied with the highhanded, dictatorial system being operated
    1432
    by a State monopoly which is exploiting the public in the sense that the public has to buy a television licence a year in advance and if, for one good reason or another—for example, if he dies—a person cannot use the licence he cannot claim a refund? Is not this a system which no commercial, private enterprise organisation would be allowed to get away with? Is it not cheating the public, and is it not time that we stopped this "take it or leave it" attitude by a State monopoly?
    Mr. Chataway: I think it would be expensive to make any more exceptions. Of course, it would be administratively possible to offer refunds throughout the year in respect of any portion of a licence, but we must balance the interests. [An HON. MEMBER : "What about dog licences?"] It is hon. Members opposite who are the experts on dog licences. I do not believe that the expense involved in doing what is suggested would be justified by any benefit to the customers.
    Mr. Heffer: Would the Minister have another look at this matter because I think there are cases which should be considered? For example, one can get a refund on a motor car licence. Surely the refund system could be applied in this case? As one who has never had a dog licence and is never likely to get one, I think there is a case for consideration. Despite the rather childish language used by the Minister, I think this matter should be looked at.
    Mr. Chataway: I have looked at this carefully. One is bound to draw the line at some point, and it would not be sensible, with all the work which would be involved, to give refunds for the very small portion of unexpired licence. I think that the present line of 28 days is probably about right.

    Western Isles (Local Radio Station)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now take steps to set up a local radio station in the Western Isles with a remit to give predominance to programmes in Gaelic.
    Mr. Chataway: It will be primarily for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to say where stations for the

    1433
    new independent service shall be sited. The authority will also be responsible for questions of programme content including whether some of the programmes should be in Gaelic.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: There are at the present time 20 local radio stations in England and not a single one in Scotland, and since the Scottish B.B.C. has drastically cut the amount of time given to Gaelic programmes, would the Minister not reconsider his decision and take some action in the interests of amenity and fair play?
    Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. has taken the view in Scotland that a national version of Radio 4 should be maintained, and on B.B.C. radio, I understand, there are three hours of broadcasting in Gaelic a week.

    Telephone Deposits
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what deposits are demanded for domestic telephone subscribers when ordering telephones ; what is now the average delay in installing telephones ; what is the total value of such deposits held by the telephone service ; and at what stage interest is paid.
    Mr. Chataway: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 80–81.]
    Mr. Osborn: Does the Post Office wish to expand, and increase the number of subscribers? Is not the habit of demanding a deposit a development by a major State monopoly of a most undersirable kind?
    Mr. Chataway: I think that in certain circumstances it is only sensible to ask for a deposit—as, for example, if creditworthiness is not established. That is a practice which is followed in the gas and electricity industries, as well as by private enterprise.

    Telephone Extensions
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the current average delay in the connection of new telephone extensions.
    Mr. Chataway: This is a management matter for the Post Office.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: But could the Minister say what he is doing to help the Post Office in this matter, because I think that a great many hon. Members, on both sides of the House I am sure, get a pretty steady volume of complaints about slowness in connections and extensions?
    Mr. Chataway: With telephone extensions, to which my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is addressed, I believe there are no general delays. In the particular case in which he was concerned it was necessary to lay a new cable of a kind in short supply. I gather that the telephones are being installed.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, about this? The Minister has said that this was a matter for the Post Office and, therefore, refused to answer, but if he accepts the Question is he not in fact accepting his responsibility? Could I raise that with you later for you to consider the point? I think it is a matter of substance.
    Mr. Speaker: To accept a Question is not a matter for a Minister but for the Table Office, which accepts Questions. How a Minister answers is not the responsibility of the Chair or the Table Office.

    Local Radio (Medium Wave Frequencies)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many British Broadcasting Corporation local radio stations could technically be given medium wave support frequencies by the end of 1971.
    Mr. Chataway: A technical plan to deploy efficiently all the frequency channels available will need to provide for stations of the new independent service as well as those of the B.B.C. This is not likely to be possible before the end of 1971.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that we all know that and that we also know that the B.B.C. local radio stations, certainly the major ones, could be on the air in a matter of weeks with medium-wave transmission which would enable production of the community services he

    1435
    mentions in his White Paper? Is he also aware that his refusal to give his permission has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Convention but everything to do with his desire to have a free run for commercial television?
    Mr. Chataway: I think it is a ridiculous suggestion that the objective is to give a free run to the new service, for if it were we would have got rid of the B.B.C. local stations. The objective, as I have said to the hon. Member on a number of previous occasions, is to ensure that we have a plan to enable the maximum amount of broadcasting.

    Giro
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecimmunications what estimate he has now made for Giro losses for the year to 30th June, 1971, or latest convenient date ; and when he will lay the accounts before the House.
    Mr. Chataway: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the completion of the review, which is still in progress.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, but these losses are continuing and are estimated at £7 million this year. Why should a Conservative Government put up with a Socialist excrescence indefinitely? Why cannot the Giro system be wound up forthwith, and the money saved applied to capital expenditure by the Post Office Corporation in providing thousands of new telephone connections urgently awaited all over the country?
    Mr. Chataway: I take note of my hon. Friend's view, but, as I say, I think a decision must await the outcome of this review.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Sell it to the banks.
    Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the position of the Giro as a sort of commercial concern, to which, unfortunately, the brakes were applied from the beginning, and would he not agree that the brakes should be taken off, and that if they were, the system would be more in a competitive position, and that it would then be seen to be a howling success as the system is in other countries?
    Mr. Chataway: It is exactly to such a question that my inquiries are directed.
    Dr. Vaughan: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would also consider whether the Giro is justified in running, as it does at the moment, for some 4,000 civil servants, a below-cost service? Indeed, I understand that it is considering extending this service to employees of the nationalised industries and also of local authorities.
    Mr. Chataway: I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to await the outcome of the review. I will certainly take note of his view.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Sell it to the banks.

    Fourth Television Channel
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what plans he now has for a fourth television channel.
    Mr. Chataway: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) on 23rd November, the possibility of a second service of independent television is not excluded, but I have no immediate plans for authorising it.—[Vol. 807, c. 3.]
    Mr. Jenkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there were to be a fourth television channel it should not merely be additional but different? If the matter does come up for consideration, would he consider the possibility of a Pilkington solution from the point of view of revenue, so that the authority would be the recipient of the revenue and the channel would not be confined to the tastes of one particular programme contractor?
    Mr. Chataway: This is certainly one of the possibilities open, and I will certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind not only the desirability to avoid such a catastrophic situation as the "Yesterday's Men" programme, to which I think hon. Members on both sides took objection, but also the fact that there are additional resources becoming available as a result of policies which this Government have been pursuing with regard to the National Films Corporation which would mean considerable resources would be available for entertainment purposes and could easily

    1437
    provide a programme for a fourth channel, particularly if, unlike the suggestion of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), it were run independently along the lines of the first commercial channel?
    Mr. Chataway: I am not persuaded that it would necessarily be as simple as that to provide a fourth channel. As I have said, there must be doubts about the sufficiency of advertising revenue to finance it.

    Telephone Bills (Overseas Calls)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office that it should warn private individual subscribers when outstanding telephone bills have passed a sum of £100 arising from overseas calls.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. A general direction would not be appropriate.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents, whose telephone was used without his knowledge for overseas calls over a period of only six months, found himself liable for a bill of £4,000? Considering that telephones are cut off right, left and centre for only a few pounds of debt, is it not disgraceful that this subscriber was allowed to amass that bill?
    Mr. Chataway: I am aware of the very tragic case to which my hon. Friend has referred, and the Post Office, I am sure, will take note of what he has had to say. There is always the possibility for users who expect to run up large bills to be billed monthly, rather than on the present arrangement.
    Mr. Longden: Although my right hon. Friend's reply is not wholly unsatisfactory, I may seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Central Area Redevelopment (Costs)
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the fact that redevelopment problems in the central areas of cities give rise to particular yardstick cost difficulties, whether he will introduce a differential to cover such cases.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): In addition to the basic yardstick figure, an allowance of up to 5 per cent. is already available for redevelopment sites. In the case of particularly difficult sites we are ready to give even higher allowances on an ad hoc basis
    Mr. Finsberg: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the Greater London Council feels that its 1972 housing programme will come to a halt because of the inadequate yardstick procedure, and the same may apply to Camden Borough Council? Does he realise that he is accepting the same sort of advice from officials which his predecessors gave and which caused immense problems to local authorities throughout the country?
    Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to get the yardstick up to date and make it realistic. If my hon. Friend has evidence that it is inadequate, I shall be glad to examine it carefully.
    Mr. Ford: When the Minister visits Bradford tomorrow to discuss the Pollard Park area, together with others, will he bear this particular topic in mind when he holds his conversations?
    Mr. Channon: If the Council wishes to raise the matter of the yardstick with me I shall be delighted to discuss it.
    Mr. Finsberg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Private Houses (Prices)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in the index of average prices of new private houses from the end of the second quarter of 1970 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Channon: The latest available information, up to and including the first quarter of 1971, relating to new dwellings mortgaged by private owners is published in Table 50 of Housing Statistics No. 21 (May, 1971), a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Minister kindly give me the figure? Does it not reveal

    1439
    that the situation is worse even than the Minister of Agriculture suggested? This is a shocking state of affairs. What will the Minister do about it?
    Mr. Channon: As the Minister responsible for setting up the Land Commission, the right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that last year, for example, private sector land prices rose by 2 per cent. whilst during the period when his party was in power they went up by 24 per cent.
    Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the indecent haste with which builders rushed to increase house prices as a result of the introduction of S.E.T., will the Minister say by how much house prices should be reduced subsequent to the reduction by half of S.E.T., and will he insist on builders reducing their prices?
    Mr. Channon: In local authority contracts there is a tax fluctuation clause, as a result of which in many cases prices will come down by up to £60.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the failure of the Minister to reveal the state of affairs, and in view of his misleading reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Wilne Lane, Shardlow (Bridge)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will inquire into the proposed demolition of an existing bridge and the construction of a new bridge at Wilne Lane, Shardlow, in Derbyshire, in view of local objections on environmental and road safety grounds.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir. This is a substandard bridge carrying an unclassified road which urgently requires replacement, and Derbyshire County Council, as both the highway and the local planning authority, is responsible for the environmental and road safety considerations arising from its replacement.
    Mr. Rost: Is the Minister aware that his answer will disappoint a large number of my constituents and is most unsatisfactory? If his Minister does not get a grip on the bureaucratic bungling going on with the decision taking, his
    1440
    Minister will deserve to be called the Minister of Pollution?
    Mr. Griffiths: I disagree with my hon. Friend. If any British Minister has done more to aid the cause of combating pollution than my right hon. Friend, I do not know who he is. I can only tell my hon. Friend that Derbyshire County Council has a responsibility here and will discharge it.

    Road Improvements (Public Inquiry Reports)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of reports from public inquiries arising from road improvements that he has received since October, 1970 ; how many of these still await his decision ; and what has been the average time taken in this period between his receipt of an inquiry inspector's report and his decision on it.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The total number of reports of public inquiries arising from road improvements that have been received from inspectors since 1st October, 1970, is 122 ; of these 41 still await my right hon. Friend's decision ; the average time taken in this period between the receipt of an inspector's report of an inquiry and my right hon. Friend's decision on it is 13 weeks.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that a year after the inquiry no decision has yet been made on the key road junction for Teesside, the A19/A66, affecting the diversion bridge over the Tees, and that this situation defies all belief in his capacity to act with any sense of urgency on a vital question affecting a development area?
    Mr. Page: Yes, I am well aware of the time taken in this complex matter, which consists not only of the diversion of a trunk road but also planning proposals by the Teesside County Borough Council for a link road in Middlesbrough. This is not a simple road matter but also involves planning matters upon which it is difficult to reach a decision.

    Improved Older Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware that considerable contributions from

    1441
    public funds which are expended to encourage the improvement of older houses are resulting in landlords receiving appreciable benefit and return on moneys which they have not themselves invested ; and if he will take steps to advise officers in the rent service to bear such contributions in mind in the determination of fair rents.
    Mr. Channon: It would not be proper for my right hon. Friend to advise rent officers about the levels at which rents should be determined, since this is governed by statutory provisions.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned to see that the fair rent system is regarded as a just system? Does he think it is entirely fair that the tenant in a privately-owned property should first be liable to pay tax from which contributions towards improvement grants will come and then be liable to pay extra rent in respect of that part of an improvement to which a public contribution has been made?
    Mr. Channon: I believe that fair rents should be fair. They are assessed on precisely the same basis as is laid down in the Act passed by the previous Labour Government. Fair rents should be fair, and they are generally accepted to be fair.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is not my hon. Friend aware that many landlords, having applied for an improvement grant from a local authority, find that they do not benefit from the improvement of the property for some years, and sometimes find themselves considerably out of pocket, having received less in improvement grant than they should have received in the rent which was withheld from them?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he knows, we are engaged on a review of the whole procedures of this Act.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: If landlords are to enjoy the threefold bonanza of the 50 per cent. State grant being increased to 75 per cent. in the development areas, the enhanced value of their property, and having their rents increased on average two and a half times because they are taken out of rent control, surely it is wrong and unfair to tell the rent officers
    1442
    to ignore these factors and lay the whole burden on the tenant?
    Mr. Channon: It is not a question of telling the rent officers anything. The statutory basis on which they assess rents is laid down in the Rent Act, and that is what rent officers must observe. Anyone who imagines that landlords of controlled property are in for a bonanza is in a dream world.

    Biodegradable Detergents
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress in the development of biodegradable detergents.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Through a voluntary agreement with the Confederation of British Industry, synthetic detergents used for domestic purposes are generally more than 90 per cent. biodegradable. Biodegradable synthetic detergents have been developed, and are available, for use in industrial processes. I am hoping that by voluntary agreement we can speed up the change-over to their use in industry.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he try to get an agreement between the makers of detergents to reduce the foam content of their product which is so damaging to water courses, and will he reinforce any such agreement with a campaign to convince housewives that foam, while it may be good for morale, adds nothing to the washing power?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, but by voluntary agreement this country is in a better position than virtually any other country in the world on this problem. We are in advance of the standards being suggested in other countries. Voluntary agreement really has been a success in coping with what is, I agree, a very bad problem.

    Pollution (River Estuaries)
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take the initiative to promote international agreements to protect main river estuaries from pollution by industrial and domestic effluent, and not to confine such agreements to pollution of the seas only.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have already taken the initiative in proposing to other Governments concerned that any international agreement for protecting the North Sea should deal with pollution reaching the sea from rivers and estuaries and not by dumping from ships only. There are domestic powers available to protect our estuaries from discharges of effluent.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but might I ask him not to allow himself—and I am sure he will not—to be bounced into an international agreement by the United States, which has extremely dirty rivers and is anxious to get international agreement regarding the seas only and then to wash its hands of the whole matter?
    Mr. Walker: I hope not in the rivers! We have made it perfectly clear that the British Government would welcome an agreement which did not just cover dumping at sea, which in regard to the seas in Europe is a fairly minor problem compared with the massive pollution of our seas from rivers and seaside towns.
    Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of the closening relations between Britain and the countries of Western Europe to press this matter with them with every possible vigour since we all have an interest in clean seas on this side of the Atlantic?
    Mr. Walker: I have already had talks with the Ministers responsible in both Germany and France.

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now has information about the availability and nature of facilities for waste disposal in each local authority area; and if he can give the date when he expects to propose detailed discussions with local authorities on the technical considerations of this problem.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Each local authority already has some information in its capacity as either refuse disposal authority or local planning authority. I have suggested in Circular 26/71, that information might be assembled in a standard form in the period preceding local government reorganisation and, therefore, be available to the new authorities when they assume responsibility.
    Mr. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend paying particular regard to waste disposal in river estuaries?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dumping of waste and refuse in our larger cities is causing increasing annoyance to large numbers of people? Is he satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers and implement the penalties that they have, and would he review this whole matter?
    Mr. Walker: We have already taken action in regard to the river authorities and have increased the penalties in regard to waste products dumped by individuals. We hope that our proposals for reorganisation of local government will enable us in future to organise these matters on a much more rational basis.

    Railway Land
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the total extent of railway land not in use.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend has no detailed estimate of the extent of such land, but he has pressed on the Board the importance of obtaining the greatest financial advantage from all its land.
    Miss Fookes: Could some such estimate be presented within a reasonable space of time so that we may know the extent of the problem?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is not easy to do that because the amount of railway property is bound to fluctuate almost from day to day, with various areas of land being used or ceasing to be used for operational purposes.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I fully support my hon. Friend on this question? The British Railways Board has always been very bad indeed in releasing land when it ought to have been released, and has done a great deal of harm which has put people to a great deal of expense to which they ought not to have been put. Therefore, can we have some action?
    Mr. Griffiths: I assure my hon. Friend that my Department has pressed upon

    1445
    British Rail the need to dispose of surplus property as rapidly as possible. I am glad to say that in 1970 some £13½ million worth of such property was disposed of.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the hon. Gentleman give preference to the consideration of the situation in development areas, such as Tyneside, where land is urgently needed for new industrial development?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir ; but the Railways Board is required to operate as a commercial undertaking and must make a judgment on these matters.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet agreed the terms of his circular to local authorities on the restoration of derelict railway land.
    Mr. Graham Page: I expect to get agreement shortly on the terms of a circular on the procedure for disposing of disused railway lines in the countryside.
    Miss Fookes: Would my hon. Friend please interpret "shortly"?
    Mr. Page: I have asked the bodies concerned for any comments by the end of July, and I then hope to issue a circular.
    Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman encourage local authorities to purchase such land, particularly in industrialised areas, so that it may be turned over to housing or be made into parks and recreation areas which are so badly needed? Is he aware—indeed, I know he is aware—that in my constituency, as in his constituency, we have such land which could well be used for recreational purposes?
    Mr. Page: Yes. This matter is dealt with in the circular which I shall be issuing, and there are power in the hands of local authorities to take over such land for approved purposes, for which there are grants in relation to countryside parks, and so on.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Estates Department of British Rail takes a considerable length of time to reach agreement on these matters? I hope there will be a move by the Government, by any means open to them, to bring a sense of reality and urgency into that Estates Department.
    Mr. Page: But what we are concerned with in this Question is the use of railway land and making certain that when disposed of by British Rail it is used for good purposes. In future it will be for the local planning authorities, ahead of disposal, to decide the right purpose for these lines.
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that supplementary questions have referred to railway land rather than just railway lines. Is he aware that during the time of the Labour Government there was general agreement on the part of Government Departments, British Rail and local authorities that the first offer of all surplus railway land should be made to local authorities in order that they might consider housing and other community needs? Is he further aware that a few years ago a major survey was undertaken in Greater London establishing in some detail what was to become surplus for a period of five to seven years ahead? Cannot the same thing be done for other conurbations?
    Mr. Page: Yes. What we are aiming at is co-operation between British Rail and the local planning authorities—first, to get surplus land out of the hands of British Rail and into a useful purpose ; and, secondly, for the local planning authorities to co-operate on what that purpose may be.

  MASS MEDIA
  Mr. David Clarkasked the Lord President of the Council if he will list the statutory powers under which he carries out his official responsibilities in relation to the mass media.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The Prime Minister has asked me to exercise a general responsibility, within the Government, for the co-ordination of Government information services and liaison with the Press and broadcasting authorities. This does not require any statutory powers.
  Mr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Could he inform the House whether he has any responsibility for the mass distribution of the shortened White Paper on entry into the E.E.C., and is he aware that there is constitutional concern about the status

  1447
  of the White Paper. Is he further aware that there are reports in the Press that Conservative Party agents in the West Riding of Yorkshire have been receiving bulk supplies of this document to deliver as party political propaganda to the doorsteps of houses in West Riding?
  Mr. Whitelaw: On the general point, I have nothing to add to what I said to the House on Monday. On the second point, the Central Office of Information approached all organisations to ask if they wished to have bulk delivery. All political parties decided to take some of these documents. They took them, and it is their affair how they distribute them.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people feel that balance, however genuinely sought on any television programme or subject, is not enough and that what matters is the underlying long-term—perhaps subliminal—effect on the political plane? Is he giving attention to this difficult and intractable matter?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. and gallant Friend has said ; I do not think I can add anything at this stage.
  Mr. John Mendelson: With regard to this propaganda pamphlet, does the right hon. Gentleman now realise that in the West Riding, as in other parts of the country, Conservative agents are distributing this pamphlet and Post Office workers are being forced to take part in the process of distribution? Does he not accept that he is putting many members of the Post Office staff in an impossible position? The party agents of one political party are distributing this pamphlet and these workers are being obliged to take part in a propaganda exercise by the Government and the Tory Party. Will he stop the distribution of these pamphlets through the Post Office?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I would accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have nothing to add to what I said on Monday.
  Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the White Paper has not been approved and is a contentious document advocating the Government's policy on a very important matter. Ought not this matter to be looked at again?
  Mr. Whitelaw: We went through all these matters on Monday, and I have nothing to add.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (STATEMENT)
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Lord President of the Council by what authority he required the British Broadcasting Corporation to take action in respect of an allegedly libellous statement made on Radio 4 on 28th June affecting the character of one of Her Majesty's Ministers ; and what was the nature of the action requested and taken.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I acted in the capacity to which I have just referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). I forwarded to the Director-General of the B.B.C., with my support, a letter which I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning the nature of the programme and the particular remarks about my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. King: Did my right hon. Friend notice that in two successive weeks there was first the use of trickery to the detriment of the Labour Party, and then in the following week slander to the detriment of a Conservative Minister? Would he accept that the House should not be divided about this matter and should resent the one as much as the other? Would he further accept that there seems to be some evidence that the governors of the B.B.C. are suffering from some kind of collective swollen head?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It would be unfortunate if I were to follow my hon. Friend in all that he said. These are difficult matters. I should not like to comment on them one way or the other. In the particular case to which the Question referred, all I did was to send a letter from my right hon. Friend, which referred far more to the nature of the programme and whether a person who, in the position of the man who appeared, should have been on the programme than to the particulai remarks about him himself. The B.B.C. decided to apologise to my right hon. Friend ; that is its affair and not a matter for me.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the right hon. Gentleman chose to intervene in this case,

  1449
  does not that mean that if he had so chosen he could have intervened in a similar manner over the programme "Yesterday's Men"? Why did he not choose to do so in that case?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It does not quite follow. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I would not wish to make any comment one way or the other. I realise the feelings that have been expressed on this matter. The last thing I would wish to take up is any party political position on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"] I think that would probably be accepted by a very large number of hon. Members of the House. All I would say is that my responsibility within the Government is simply with the Government's liaison with the mass media. Matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman are matters between the Opposition and the B.B.C. and are for them and not for me.

NORTH ATLANTIC (DUMPING OF CHEMICAL WASTE)
Mr. Farr Mr. Farr (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement with regard to the Dutch vessel "Stella Maris" which is now sailing towards the west coast of Ireland with the intention of dumping 600 tons of waste chemicals which will eventually reach the west coast of England ; and what action will he take.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): It has come to our notice that the Dutch vessel "Stella Maris" is to dump 600 tons of what is described as chlorified aliphatic hydrocarbonates in the Atlantic in a position approximately 700 miles west of Ireland. We have as yet no precise details of the content of the waste or of the conditions in which it will be dumped. Although the preliminary view of our experts is that the dumping of this waste would cause no harm to fisheries, Her Majesty's Government deplore this action on general environmental grounds. This is because of the chemical's persistence and tendency to accumulate in the food chain. Our Embassy in The Hague is already in touch with the Netherlands Government as a matter of urgency about this and have instructions, if the material is
1450
as described, to make representations forthwith.
The dumping of waste at sea is not at present subject to international controls. Her Majesty's Government are concerned about potential danger to marine resources and it was for this reason that we took the initiative in convening both a meeting of North Sea states in London on 11th June and a meeting of the United Nations intergovernmental working group on marine pollution, also in London in June, which we hope will lay the basis for international agreement.
Mr. Farr: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has shown that the Government are aware that no nation can treat the waters of the world in this way and pollute them on the great scale that is proposed. May I ask if my hon. Friend is fully aware that the vessel intends to dump this waste in the centre of the Gulf Stream, which flows from where it is to be dumped along the west coast of the British Isles, from Land's End to the coast of Sutherland?
Mr. Royle: We understand that the dumping is not due to take place for three or four days. In addition to the steps I have already outlined, I have asked the Netherlands Ambassador to call on me this afternoon so that I can express our concern.
Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Danish Government and Norwegian Government have already successfully made representations to the Dutch Government for the dumping of this 600 tons of chemical waste not to take place off their shores because of the dangers to their fishing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it appears that the waste will be dumped 600 or 700 miles west of Ireland, in a current that could endanger fishing off the west of Ireland? To what extent do Her Majesty's Government make a full assessment of this type of operation before it is allowed? As there is to be an international conference in Oslo in about three months' time on the question of dumping industrial wastes in international waters, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this ship should be made harbour-bound until international agreement has been reached?
Mr. Royle: We are aware of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has told the House, and we are aware of the action already taken by the Norwegian and Danish Governments. We are making a detailed assessment of what is involved at present, and I will advise the right hon. Gentleman immediately these inquiries are completed.
We have received an invitation to the Oslo Conference, which we are now considering, but I am afraid that the question of making a vessel port-bound must be a matter for the Dutch Government.
Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the dumping of persistent chemicals in the oceans of the world has been taking place on too large a scale for too long, and that he will have the support of the whole House in taking the strongest possible line when international discussions on this matter take place?
Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I must tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already been very active in this matter. We are grateful for the support that the House has given the Government this afternoon.
Mr. Pardoe: I welcome the condemnation that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Is he aware that there is no part of the ocean, however far from our shores, in which it is safe to dump noxious materials, and that the recent expedition by Thor Heyerdahl found substantial traces of oil pollution right across the Atlantic? Is he also aware that, although there may be some danger to fishing now, we shall need to use the oceans in the future for fish-farming and that we are turning them into dustbins for the future?
Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Her Majesty's Government deplore the dumping of noxious material at sea.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this incident shows the necessity for an international, indeed a supranational, régime for the high seas and the sea bed?
Mr. Royle: Yes, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper entitled The United Kingdom and the European Communities (Command Paper No. 4715).
The long debate on which we are now embarking and the White Paper of which the House is invited to take note is an important stage in a process which has been going on now for ten years. It began in 1961, when the Conservative Government first put in an application for membership to the European Communities. It was renewed in May, 1967, when the House by an overwhelming majority of 426 approved the Labour Government's decision to make their application and reopen negotiations.
It was continued when the last Government arranged to begin negotiations in June, 1970, and one of the first acts of the present Conservative Government on taking up office was to send their negotiator to Brussels to sit at the table with the representatives of the Six.
As the House knows, I handled the first negotiations in 1961. It was therefore with particular pride that a fortnight ago I was able to tell the House the present Government's conclusions. I said then :
"(1) The Government are convinced that our country will be more secure, our ability to maintain peace and promote development in the world greater, our economy stronger, and our industries and peoples more prosperious, if we join the European Communities than if we remain outside them ;
(2) The Government are satisfied that the arrangements for our entry agreed in the negotions will enable us to adjust satisfactorily to our new position as a member of the Communities and thus to reap the full benefits of membership ;
(3) The Government will therefore seek the approval of Parliament in the autumn for a decision of principle to take up full membership of the Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1971 : Vol. 820, c. 1338–1339.]
The House will understand that for me and perhaps for many others that statement was a realisation of a hope which I expressed to the Six on behalf of this country in 1961. At the opening of the negotiations, I told them :
"We desire to become full, wholehearted and active members of the European Community in its widest sense and to go forward with you in the building of a new Europe."

1453
That is still my view. It was valid 10 years ago, just as it was valid 4½ years ago when the Leader of the Opposition and his Government declared their belief in a European policy because it was desirable and because it was good for the Western world as a whole that Europe should be developed, strengthened, and become more prosperous.
In the course of the last 10 years, there have been many debates on this question, in almost all of which I tave taken part. In those debates, a broad measure of agreement has evolved about the kind of Europe that most of us want to see and about Britain's place in that Europe.
I accept, of course, that there are some people in the country and on both sides of the House——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: A lot of people.
The Prime Minister: —who have always, in principle, believed that Britain's place lay elsewhere and that Britain's destiny lay outside Europe. This is a point of principle which I have always respected but which I personally have never been able to accept. It will be expressed in different forms on both sides of the House in the course of this debate. It is one which those of us who hold a contrary view will continue to respect.
Amongst those on both sides of the House who do not take that view there has, over the years, developed common ground on the basic principles which underlie the applications made by both Conservative and Labour Governments to become members of the European Community.
This is an exploratory debate. It was deliberately arranged as such at the general request of the House. Perhaps it might be helpful if, at the outset, we reminded ourselves of how much ground we have in common in these affairs. After that, I should like to analyse the differences that have emerged since the White Paper was published. If I may, I shall do this in broad outline. My colleagues who are to take part in these days' debates will deal in greater detail with particular aspects of these matters and endeavour to answer questions which
1454
will be raised by hon. Members from all parts of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will deal with all points arising on the details of the negotiations themselves. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will deal particularly with regional policy and the coal and steel industries. The Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will cover those matters touching on their own responsibilities. The Home Secretary will wind up the whole debate.
The reasons that impelled the two Conservative Governments and a Labour one to make application to join the Community seem to us to be as valid today as when it was first made 10 years ago ; indeed, they are probably more valid.
There is the industrial and economic argument. I have always stressed the industrial and economic argument, though I must remind the House that when we first entered into negotiations we gave priority to the political considerations. The promise in the long run of a single market in Europe provides a foundation from which European industry and European science can grow to match the achievements of the United States and the Soviet Union. This is a point which the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly emphasised when he said :
"…all of us are aware of the long-term potential for Europe, and, therefore, for Britain, of the creation of a single market of approaching 300 million people, with all the scope and incentive which this will provide for British industry, and of the enormous possibilities which an integrated strategy for technology, on a truly Continental scale, can create."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967 : Vol. 746, c. 313.]
Nothing has changed in the last 10 years, except that the possibilities have increased, the scope and incentive have grown greater, and the Community has become more prosperous.
Of course, the economic argument has far wider implications. A Europe that is strong economically will be able to play its rightful rôle in world affairs. Again as I said in 1961 to the Community at the opening of negotiations :
"You have shown what can be done in a Community comprising a group of countries with a will to work closely together. Our wish is to take part with you in this bold and imaginative venture ; to unite our efforts with yours."

1455
Nothing had changed six years later when the Leader of the Opposition declared :
"… we believe in the need to make effective our enormous potential industrial strength by giving that strength a chance to operate on a European and not a national scale—or a series of national scales. It is only if we do this that we can exercise everything that goes with industrial strength and independence in terms of Europe's influence and world affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967 ; Vol. 746, c. 1095.]
I have always believed that this Community is not something to be feared :
"I have never seen a European policy as a policy of withdrawal into 'fortress Europe', either for ourselves or for other countries. I have always seen it as a means of enabling us with Europe to continue an influence which I believe to be beneficial in other parts of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967 ; Vol. 746, c. 1296.]
That was the way in which I welcomed the application of the then Government in 1967. A Europe which is uniting can be a new and more powerful force in the world.
Equally, the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept
"… the notion that all great issues should be left for settlement direct between these Powers because we in Europe are not sufficiently powerful economically—and, therefore, politically—to make our voices heard and our influence felt."
Nothing has happened in the last 10 years except to show that a Britain outside Europe, and a Europe without Britain, has been unable to influence in great measure the events in the Middle East or the Far East, while we have watched a new power rise to a position of immense influence in all parts of the world.
Nor must we under-estimate the contribution that the unity of Western Europe can make to the cause of peace and the easing of tensions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I use what turned out to be prophetic words to underline this message. He said :
"Our purpose is to make a reality of the unity of Western Europe. But we know that this will be an empty achievement unless it leads first to an easing of tension and then to an honourable and lasting settlement of the outstanding problems that still divide Europe, Western Europe from Eastern Europe. This indeed is something that we have striven for for many years ; and I am convinced that, if Britain is a member of a united European Community, our chances of
1456
achieving this will be immeasurably greater."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1095.]
The right hon. Gentleman has again welcomed that. I believe that those words were first spoken by him to Mr. Kosygin during his visit to London in January, 1967.
Again, nothing has changed since that time, nothing has changed since 1951, except that we now have a Social Democratic Chancellor in Western Germany, supported by the Social Democratic Party, who has made the boldest and most audacious effort so far to ease the tensions that divide his country and the world. That surely provides grounds for even greater suuport for the Community than was possible 10 years ago or 4 years ago. There is, then, considerable agreement about the kind of Europe with which we wish to become more closely linked.
After this, we have all had to decide whether this should be brought about by means of an enlarged European Community, whether the Community is the kind of community with which we want to be associated to achieve these purposes, and whether it has the kind of institutions to which the United Kingdom would wish to belong.
Again, there is a good deal of common ground here in the House. This is only natural, because the decision to negotiate, taken by three Administrations in three different Parliaments, involves an acceptance of the basic Community and its institutions. It meant that we accepted the Treaty of Rome, with any such adjustments as might be necessary as a result of new members acceding to it, such as the voting strengths which are set out in the White Paper, and provided that we received satisfaction on any point about which we might see difficulty in the course of the negotiations. The Conservative Government of 1961, the Labour Government of 1967, and the present Government of 1970 have all accepted it.
It meant accepting the common agricultural policy of the Community, whether it was approved by many in this House or not, with any such adjustments as were considered necessary and desirable for new members over a transitional period. [Interruption.] I am saying exactly the reverse. Perhaps I may elucidate. I am

1457
saying that to enter into negotiations meant accepting the common agricultural policy—[HON. MEMBERS : "No."]—with transitional arrangements whether or not individual members approved of that policy.
Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Prime Minister recall that both in this House and during the General Election what my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition now—[An HON. MEMBER : "Which one?"]—put to the House was the question of entering into negotiations? [Interruption.] This is a serious question. I hope that I shall be allowed to put it. All that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to the House was the question of the opening of negotiations. As Prime Minister he stressed that the House was agreed that negotiations should be entered into. Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in his election manifesto he never put to the British people acceptance of the common agricultural policy? He said that all we were committed to was to negotiate.
The Prime Minister: It has long been recognised that we could apply to enter into negotiations with the Community, but that unless we accepted the common agricultural policy negotiations would not begin. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point as to what was said in our election manifesto. It began by saying that if we could negotiate the right terms we believed that it would be in the long-term interests of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community.
I will now deal very briefly with the common agricultural policy. By 1961 that policy had not yet been fully formulated. Therefore, there would have been great advantage to us in becoming a member and helping in its formulation. By 1967 that policy was a fact of European life.
Finally, the negotiations meant accepting the other Community institutions as they developed before we became full members, and this the Governments of 1961, 1967 and 1970 have also fully accepted.
In the last 10 years neither the Community nor its institutions have changed,
1458
except that they have developed, matured, prospered and proved themselves. In my experience, I have found in meetings with the Commission and with the Community—and it has been shown in the recent negotiations—that they have an infinitely greater degree of flexibility of approach now than they had in 1961 when we were first negotiating with them.
This was the situation when we started negotiations in June of last year. The Community had developed in its own way. Successive British Governments had reached the conclusion that, provided satisfactory arrangements could be made on certain major issues, the security, influence and prosperity of Britain would be better served by joining the Community as it had developed than by staying outside.
What these major issues were had been defined by our predecessors. I do not think that there is any difference of view here. They defined the crucial issues, we accepted them as such, and we embarked on the negotiations.
The first set of issues all related to the interests of our existing trading partners, notably the Commonwealth. It was necessary to ensure that they were able to make as easily as possible whatever adjustments might be necessary to take account of the changes in our trading arrangements which would result from our joining the Communities.
The interests of the Commonwealth in these respects have been a major concern for everyone. All British dependent territories, except Hong Kong and Gibraltar, will be offered association under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome, which I think practically the whole world agrees offers them tremendous advantages. Indeed, much of the rest of the world is envious of it, and some are critical because the advantages are so great. All independent Commonwealth developing countries—Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—except those in Asia, will also have the choice of association with the Community under a renewed Yaounde Convention or of a separate trade agreement. The negotiations will begin in 1973 between all the existing and potential associates and the enlarged Community, of which we would be a member with our full rights.

1459
It is obvious that France and Britain have by far the greatest interest here, because the great majority of the States to be associated under the Convention have formerly been connected either with France or ourselves. It is apparent from my discussions with President Pompidou that here we have interests in common : to ensure that the position of these countries in particular as raw material producers is safeguarded.
The independent Asian Commonwealth countries will enjoy considerable benefits from the generalised preference scheme. We and the Community have said that it will be our continuing objective to expand and reinforce trading relations with these countries.
Concerning sugar, our contractual commitments to all participants in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will continue to the end of 1974 when the Agreement expires. Thereafter, the developing countries concerned have a clear assurance from the Community, to which we, as a member of the enlarged Community, would be a party, that the Community will have as its firm purpose the safeguarding of their interests. We and the Commonwealth countries concerned have said that we regard the Community's offer as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. The Governments concerned have made it clear that they are satisfied with this assurance.
Special arrangements like those negotiated for developing countries would be inappropriate for Australia and Canada, and they have not sought them. But they will be given the space provided by the transitional periods to deal with the effects which our entry may have on their industrial exports to this country. They stand to benefit from the special arrangements made for duty-free entry of certain key industrial materials.
I am deeply sorry about some recent Australian criticism of the transitional arrangements which have been made. As the House knows, I have seen a great deal of Australia, both by land and by sea, and I have many friends and connections there. I have the greatest admiration for
1460
what Australia is achieving today. We have arranged that, instead of a phasing out period, there is the assurance that if there is any disruptive effect on its trade action will immediately be taken by the Community, of which we would be a member. We believe that this is a satisfactory safeguard for Australian trade. [Interruption.] It is for the British Government and Parliament to decide, having weighed the merits of the case.
For New Zealand dairy products we have made arrangements which will ensure—[Interruption.] If the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) do not feel that he is representing them, they had better make a change.
I want now to deal with what has been one of the most important parts of the negotiations—the arrangements for New Zealand. For New Zealand dairy products we have made arrangements which will ensure continuing access to the markets of the Community for five years. The Community have agreed to review the butter situation three years after our accession and to decide on suitable measures for ensuring beyond 1977 the continuation of special arrangements for New Zealand butter.
The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has said that it is a major achievement which is very satisfactory for New Zealand. The White Paper records incorrectly that the New Zealand Government have described our arrangements on these matters as a whole as "highly satisfactory". They were described by Mr. Marshall as "very satisfactory". The phrase "highly satisfactory" was used by the New Zealand Prime Minister to describe the review procedure—the review after three years and the commitment to continuing special arrangements for butter after 1977. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have constantly asked for a long debate in which they could hear what has been happening in the negotiations. If they have any sense of responsibility they might perhaps listen to what has been happening.
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I support what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is a serious debate, and it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should be heard, because he is expounding the White Paper which we are debating. Other right hon. and hon. Members will

1461
be speaking on the White Paper, and I support what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same for him.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of recent pronouncements by the Leader of the New Zealand Opposition, and is he further aware of the present state of great hostility on the part of the New Zealand people? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop pretending that Mr. Marshall and Sir Keith Holyoake speak for the New Zealand people on this issue?
The Prime Minister: It is the New Zealand Government with whom Her Majesty's Government deal. The Leader of the Labour Party wrote a letter to me, through the High Commissioner, raising certain points which he said caused him anxiety. I have sent him a reply to those points, and they have been published in the Press. There is therefore no need for me to go into detail over them. If the hon. Gentleman studies the New Zealand Press he will find that there has been very little support for the criticism of this agreement, and that there has been a determined attempt to keep New Zealand out of British politics.
I turn back to the question of the review. The review arrangement comes into effect after three years and provides a commitment to continuing the special arrangements for butter after 1977. I think that it is curious, but it may be one of the matters with which the Leader of the Opposition will deal, that this feature of the agreement which the New Zealand Government describe as highly satisfactory is one which the right hon. Gentleman has singled out as "selling New Zealand short". That is certainly not what the New Zealand Government think. It is not what the Community believes, and nor do we as a Government believe it either.
The Community is under an obligation to continue a satisfactory arrangement after 1977, and when this is described as a unique arrangement which New Zealand has for five years, that is so. I cannot recall, nor do I think that the right hon. Gentleman with his experience at the Board of Trade and as
1462
Prime Minister can recall, any trading agreement in the world which gives such undertakings as New Zealand gets under this arrangement.
An Hon. Member: What about Morocco?
The Prime Minister: Morocco's is a purely trading arrangement, in no way comparable to that of a major developed country. Morocco is a developing country. Its arrangements are on roughly the same basis as those which countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific would have in the enlarged Community.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand has stated in his Parliament that it is the best deal the British could possibly have got for New Zealand. They have specifically stated that they cannot endorse the pricing formula—naturally they would like the best possible prices for their products, and my right hon. and learned Friend endeavoured to get them—but they also stated that their disagreement on this should not be an impediment to our entry into the Community if the general settlement reached commends itself to the House of Commons for other and wider reasons.
I now turn to the E.F.T.A. countries which are not applying for membership, because this is our next concern. It is for them to negotiate direct with the Community what arrangement they want. But we want to avoid damage to our trading relationship with these countries. The Community shares that view and wishes to avoid the creation of new obstacles to intra-European trade.
The second set of issues for negotiation related to the arrangements that we need to make in order to ensure that our assumption of the costs inherent in accession to the Community is phased broadly in relation to our acquisition of the opportunities to benefit from it. If more needs to be said about E.F.T.A., my right hon. and learned Friend can say more tonight, but the position is straightforward. These countries are responsible for their own negotiations. What we and the Community are responsible for is giving them adequate time in which to continue their negotiations and to make the arrangements which they want to make so that fresh trade barriers do not have to be erected.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question about the E.F.T.A. non-applicant countries? Are they to be offered industrial free trade area status with the Community or not?
The Prime Minister: They are to ask for what they want, and they are then to negotiate. It is a matter for them to decide. Some have decided that they want a normal form of association. I understand that Sweden has changed the view which she held at the beginning of these negotiations and now wants a different form of arrangement. It is not for us to tell these E.F.T.A. countries what they want, or what they are to have.
I now turn to the question of the costs inherent in our accession to the Community. These arrangements are described in some detail in the White Paper and I do not propose to go over the whole of that ground again now. I want to refer to two aspects of the matter.
The first is the impact on the cost of living of the higher prices which we shall have to pay for some of our food. We have made arrangements which will spread this impact over about six years. We have assumed that the present price relativities between world food prices and Community prices remain unchanged. This seems to us to be the right neutral assumption to make in a situation where it is at least as likely that the gap will be further reduced by rising world prices as it is that the gap will widen again. On this assumption the rise in the cost of living resulting from entry will be about half a new penny in the pound a year for six years.
Hon. Members: Rubbish!
The Prime Minister: If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to dispute the figures they can do so during the debate. Any increase in the cost of living is unwelcome, but when this is put in proportion to increases under any Administration during the last 15 years one can see that it is a comparatively small increase.
The other aspect of the impact on our own economy on which I want to touch is the question of the balance of payments cost. It is easy to identify the types of effects which entry will have on
1464
our balance of payments under their three broad headings—our payments to the Community budget, changes in the agricultural trade, changes in industrial trade, and influences on capital movements and on our invisible trade.
For the first two of those elements we have given estimates of the possible balance of payments cost over the first five years. These estimates depend on assumptions, about the size and shape of the Community budget, about the effects of adopting the common agricultural policy, and about the gap between world and Community prices, which are deliberately cautious—some, indeed, have said too cautious. But at any rate, given these assumptions, it is possible to provide some estimates.
For the other sets of estimates of effects, on the other hand, the effects on industrial trade, on invisible trade and on capital movements, we have taken the view expressed in the February, 1970, White Paper, which said :
"Not only are the areas of uncertainty very large, but the technical problems of making comprehensive and realistic estimates of the effects of membership are equally formidable …It is equally impracticable to make reliable estimates of the situation in which we should find ourselves in the later 1970s if this country were not to join the Community."
"I would be doing a disservice to the House and hon. Members if I tried to offer a detailed calculation, in quantitative terms, of the effects of each of the factors which will be operating on our balance of payments in the first few years after our entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1081.]
Those are not my words ; they are the words used in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister, in May, 1967.
I am therefore not going to give figures for these aspects because, quite simply, I believe it to be unrealistic to do so. There are too many and too large assumptions to be made, many of them about factors which are completely outside our control or are otherwise totally unpredictable. I do not propose to attempt estimates on which I could not invite the House or the public to place any serious degree of reliance.
We have quantified where we reasonably could. Where we could not, we have set out the basis on which a qualitative assessment has to be formulated, and we

1465
have made clear our own conclusion : that the advantages of joining the Community will more than outweigh the costs, provided that we seize the opportunities of the far wider home market that would be open to us.
I have talked of the transitional arrangements. Perhaps I may say a word about the long-term safeguards. These, too, are set out in the White Paper.
On our contribution to the Budget, the Community has declared that if unacceptable situations should arise, "the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions." On New Zealand, we have the review procedure and the promise of continuing special arrangements for butter. On sugar, we have the Community's assurance of its firm purpose to safeguard the interests of the countries concerned. On capital movements, we have the provisions of Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome. These safeguards have already been, and are being, used by some of the present members of the Community.
On each of these aspects we have an assurance from the Community or a provision in the Treaty which defines the Community's obligations. The fundamental question for the House is really this : do we believe that the Community is now, and will be when we are in it, the kind of body that will approach these matters in a positive, constructive and reasonable manner? The answer must be—in my view—undeniably "Yes". [Interruption.] Because anybody who has watched the operations of the Community since its coming into existence knows that it operates in a positive, constructive and reasonable manner in order to deal with problems which arise in its member countries.
Joining the Community means joining a body which has the institutions and the means of adjusting to the problems of its members as and when they arise. It has demonstrated this over the 12 years of its life and it has shown that it is able and willing to use and develop the powers which it has got.
If we did not believe that—if we believed that the members of the Community would not act responsibly to each other and in international trading relationships—then, indeed, the question would not be whether the terms are
1466
right, or even whether we ought to join the Community ; the question would be whether we ought ever to have applied for membership at all.
It is because we believe that it is the kind of body to which we can reasonably and conscientiously belong—the kind of body that, having resolved differences of view, will act responsibly, with full regard to the vital interests of each of its members ; the kind of body that will carry out what it has undertaken to do—that we can regard the safeguards which we have negotiated on these matters, for others as well as for ourselves, as not just adequate but as fully satisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made essentially the same point in 1967, when he said :
"Many of the details, many of the consequential decisions—important though they may be—can best be settled on a continuing basis within the Community."
With that, too, I thoroughly agree. What I and many in Europe have found most puzzling is the lack of understanding of how this Community works. We in this country—and perhaps in this House-having had 10 years of negotiating outside the Community, during which time we have twice been rebuffed, find it difficult to make the effort of imagination to visualise how we will operate being inside the Community, having our full powers in order to deal with the problems that arise for us and for other members.
In handling this subject, whether it be the negotiations themselves or the discussions in this House, it has always been difficult to strike the right balance between matters of principle and matters of detail. It has always seemed to me right that the Governments of the Six and this House should discuss a considerable number of detailed arrangements in advance of entry. This is the line which we ourselves have twice taken in the negotiations. It has been shown in the reports of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy to this House, and it has been shown in the White Paper.
It is natural, too, that in this debate the House should concern itself with the detailed arrangements which have been set out. I have dealt with some, and ray colleagues will be prepared to deal with others, but for most Members of the

1467
House, now that the arrangements are known, the question is not one of detail but of principle. It seems to me right that, as Prime Minister, I should try to answer one question of principle which I know is uppermost in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members. That question is : how can Britain continue to exert in the world a strong and constant influence—in defence of her own interests, certainly, but also in the interests of common sense and of humanity?
No one who has sat through these last Parliaments can doubt that this is a question of immense concern to the House. At different times we have all faced calls for action from different parts of the House—action by Britain on Vietnam, on Biafra, and on Bengal. One can think of many other instances in which the British Government have been called upon by Members in all parts of the House to exert their influence. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members below the Gangway opposite should be querulous ; they are usually the people who call loudest for action by any British Government.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of any particular situation, there has been a clear desire that British influence should be felt, and there has been an impatience with the constraints under which British policy has sometimes been forced to operate.
The fact is—and I think that almost all of us would recognise it today—that neither our membership of the United Nations, nor our membership of the Commonwealth, nor our natural relationship with the United States, has provided us with that leverage in world affairs for which the instinct of this House continues to ask. The same is increasingly true of our power to influence international agreements covering world trade and payments, which are so important for our international trading position and so for our prosperity.
It is broadly true, also, of the contribution which Britain makes to the relief of world poverty and the promotion of of world development. Ministers in different Governments have come to this Box and said, quite justifiably, that we are doing all that we can. That is fair
1468
enough. But most of us know that we ought to do more, and that it is in the interests of our country as well as of other countries that we should do more.
Now we have the opportunity to join a Community which has a better aid record than ourselves. It is a Community with a lower average external tariff than ourselves. It is a Community which has provided special arrangements of a unique and remarkable kind for the countries which once formed part of the colonial empires of its members.
Thanks to the success of our negotiations, we have ensured that the vast majority of the countries associated with us in the Commonwealth can either share those special arrangements in the future or else work out trading arrangements of their own with the Community to suit their own particular needs. At the same time, through membership of the Community we have the opportunity to develop the resources out of which we can improve our own record in aid, in trade, and in overseas investment.
These could be substantial gains for Britain in the developing world. But there is another prospect which is perhaps even more important. We are now entering a phase of rapid movement in world affairs which provides opportunities for statesmanship which, if rightly taken, could break down many of the barriers which we have come to take for granted in our modern world. This is certainly the view of the President of France and the President of the United States. I believe that we in Britain will be far better placed to take our share of these opportunities once we are a member of the European Community.
Her Majesty's Government have often expressed support for the efforts of Chancellor Brandt and the West German Government to reach an understanding with the Soviet Union and with the other Communist countries of Eastern Europe. Here is a great opportunity for advance towards lasting peace in Europe, an opportunity which no Member of this House would wish to see thrown away.
The Federal Chancellor has always made it clear to me that his task in reaching an accommodation with his neighbours to the East will be much easier once there is a European Community enlarged to include Britain and pledged to work towards a common European

1469
foreign policy. He has always taken the view, which I endorse, that, so long as the countries of Western Europe are divided, there will always be some who are tempted to exploit those divisions. Once we have an enlarged Community and a common foreign policy then the prospects for understanding between the two halves of Europe will be that much greater.
But the argument runs beyond Europe. We are now seeing a dramatic and welcome renewal of contacts between the United States and China. At the same time, the United States and the Soviet Union are deep in conversations on nuclear matters which intimately affect the future of every citizen of this country and of Europe. We cannot be sure today about the outcome of either of these developments. What we can say is that they are, or should be, the concern of Europe.
So the decision which we are called upon to take on this great matter in the autumn is not simply a decision about our own prosperity. It is not simply a decision whether to join a Community which offers us a chance to do more in the developing world. It is also a decision whether we should join with others in working out a European policy which would give Europe an effective voice in these overhelming developments which vitally affect her future.
This is no longer a choice which can be postponed into the future. It is no longer a choice which is contingent on the decisions of others, because all the members of the Six now welcome us—that is the great change which has taken place since 1961 and 1967. It is a choice offered to Britain here and now in 1971. It is a choice which depends on our own courage and our own farsightedness.
The choice is clear, and the prize is a great one. As a nation we must show the wisdom and the energy to seize it and make the most of it.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: This "take note" debate provides an occasion for right hon. and hon. Members, in advance of the continuing debate in the country, which will culminate in the parliamentary debate in October and Parliament's definitive decision then, to express their views this week both on the broad issues of principle and on the terms
1470
which have emerged from the negotiations of the past 12 months. At the same time, it provides all right hon. and hon. Members who are not privy to the negotiations with an opportunity to probe the terms more fully and to seek to elucidate the Government's estimates of the short-and long-term gains and costs more fully than they were set out in the White Paper.
The Prime Minister was, of course, totally justified today to explain to the House, in much fuller terms than he could employ in the brief statement that he made when he laid the White Paper, the position of the Government on the terms and on the broad issues of principle.
I think that it would be agreed that right hon. and hon. Members fall, in the main, into three groups on this issue—groups which cut right across the two main parties, and in this they reflect the country as a whole.
First—I think that this group includes the Liberal Party as well as the two main parties—there are those in both the main parties who, on the issue of principle, feel that it is right that Britain should join the Common Market and its associated institutions, I will not say regardless of the terms, since even the most enthusiastic would draw the line at conditions which to them involve an intolerable burden, which in their view would be so onerous as to make it impossible for Britain's economy to put forth its full strength and meet the challenge of entering the Market.
But most hon. Members in this group, in all parties, have decided—the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that this is true of the Government—that these terms are acceptable. Earlier statements of the right hon. Gentleman before the negotiations concluded, and no less of the Chancellor of the Duchy, made it clear that they had formed this view quite early in the negotiations. Even so, senior members of the Government, including the Home Secretary, up to a few weeks ago were rightly stating it in the House as their view that it was impossible to decide until the terms were fully known.
The second group are those, including the hard core of right hon. and hon. Members of both main parties, who voted against the 1967 decision to apply and who in principle are against joining the

1471
Market—who, for one reason or another, do not consider it in the best interests of Britain that we should become a member. But here again, I think, they would have taken this view regardless of what terms emerged from the negotiations.
The third group consists of those who see advantage—many, indeed, great advantage—for Britain to join the Community but only if the terms emerging from the negotiations provide—here I quote the words that the Labour Party has adopted from 1962 onwards and which were included in successive election manifestos—that the terms emerging from the negotiations "ensure that British and Commonwealth interests are safeguarded." These words were set out in the document approved by the Labour Party conference in 1962, in the 1964 and 1966 election manifestos and in resolutions passed by the Labour Party conference successively since the date of the application of the Labour Government in 1967.
I do not want to inflict too many quotations on the House today, but the right hon. Gentleman very flatteringly quoted many of my statements, so I hope that the House will bear with me if I follow his example and also quote a number of my statements. In the 1970 election manifesto, we said :
"These will be pressed with determination"—
referring to the negotiations—
"with the purpose of joining an enlarged Community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. This year, unlike 1961–1963, Britain will be negotiating from a position of economic strength"—
[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman was claiming that at his Central Hall meeting last Wednesday, so hon. Members must not snigger at that one.
"Britain's strength means that we shall be able to meet the challenges and realise the opportunities of joining an enlarged Community. But it means, too, that, if satisfactory terms cannot be secured in the negotiations Britain will be able to stand on her own feet outside the Community."
The Prime Minister has just quoted the Conservative manifesto of last year, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a remaindered copy. Perhaps I might quote not just the selected piece that he quoted but a rather longer piece. We read on page 28 :
1472
"If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense."
[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear hear."]
"Economic growth and a higher standard of living"—
[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear hear."]
"would result from having a larger market."
[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear hear."]
"But we must also recognise the obstacles"
No cheers? [HON. MEMBERS : "Get on."] I am entitled to quote from the Conservative manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from it, and these are some relevant passages. It went on :
"There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain".
That section in the manifesto could have been taken from any one of my statements on the Common Market over the last four years, and probably was.
With complete and undeniable consistency, the document, "A Better Tomorrow". went on :
"Our sole commitment is to negotiate ; no more, no less".
While we have strongly represented in the ranks of the Labour Party committed supporters of entry and committed opponents, both of them within the limits I have described, regardless of the terms. the official position of the party, since 1962, at the time of the application in 1967, and at all times since has been support for entry given the right terms, the necessary conditions and the essential safeguards on which we have insisted. [Interruption.]
Every statement we have made setting out the great advantages and opportunities open to us from joining the E.E.C. has been based on that necessary condition being satisfied. That has remained our position and, as for the right hon. Gentleman's most flattering quotations today from my previous comments, I do not think he quoted any in which I did not say, as I have always said, that the terms must be right and that we would judge by the terms. When the Prime

1473
Minister quoted my high hopes on technology, he must have recognised that they were pre-Rolls-Royce, pre-Upper Clyde and pre the abolition of the I.R.C.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for halting his helpful analysis of the situation to allow me to put it to him that he is hardly doing himself justice. He mentioned three groups. There is, in fact, a fourth—those who see short-term political advantage in opposing entry to the Market, of which he himself is claiming to be head.
Mr. Wilson: I thought this was going to be a serious debate. I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, who was only wasting the time of the House.
Mr. Onslow: It is a fact.
Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself, he will no doubt be able to explain later precisely what he means. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were seeking short-term advantage in 1969 when they thought they would get more votes by playing it cool on the Market. Perhaps that was the group about which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was speaking. [Interruption.] I will be happy for the information to be made available to the House in the course of the debate, if that will help the Prime Minister. I have quoted it already and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman knows to what I am referring.
The Prime Minister: I looked up the quotation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It was made in 1969. I said that any future application and failure would be disastrous, regardless of which party did it.
Mr. Wilson: I shall be happy to supply the right hon. Gentleman with the whole quotation. He also referred to our application of 1967 as being disastrous.
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Wilson: He was so reported and I wish that he had issued a denial at the time, though I do not think that that would have suited his book then.
I have referred to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I do not propose, for the benefit of the House, to go through the whole list of quotations that I could
1474
use. [HON. MEMBERS : "Good."] I have noticed in some anthologies a somewhat selective approach in that they have been confined to our hopes and the advantages we saw in entry on the right terms. No reference has been made to the necessary conditions and the achievement of acceptable terms.
This charge can be fairly made about the quotations in the White Paper from me and also in the Conservative Political Centre's devoted publication, which I note with interest is being distributed at a cost of 25p and is not being issued, like other Tory propaganda, free through the Post Office. [Interruption.]
Where the anthologies have been set out fairly and objectively—for example, in The Times last Friday—they have reached the conclusion that
"The importance of securing acceptable terms in any negotiations with the E.E.C. runs as a leit motif through his speeches and interviews."
Mr. Peter Tapsell Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle) rose——
Mr. Wilson: I will not give way. I must get through as many quotations about me as the Prime Minister got through about me, and then I will stop.
I will try to confine myself to quoting the terms of the announcements of November, 1966, and May, 1967, which related to the application, and my last statement from the Government Front Bench on this subject when our White Paper of February, 1970, was published. On 10th November, 1966, when I announced the discussions that my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary and I had decided to initiate with the Heads of Government of the Six, I said :
"my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I intend to engage in a series of discussions with each of the Heads of Government of the Six, for the purpose of establishing whether it appears likely that essential British and Comomnwealth interests could be safeguarded if Britain were to accept the Treaty of Rome and join the E.E.C."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1540.]
That was our position when the European tour started and, after my right hon. Friend and I had reported to our Cabinet colleagues, I announced our application to the House in May, 1967. This was the result of the impressions we had gained from our discussions on the vital issues on which the right terms had to be

1475
obtained. Setting out some of the issues on which the Government would need to be satisfied. I said—and this is what the right hon. Gentleman did not explain this afternoon :
"It is also the Government's view that the financial arrangements which have been devised to meet the requirements of the Community's agricultural policy as it exists today would, if applied to Britain as they now stand, involve an inequitable cost and impose on our balance of payments an additional burden which we should not in fairness be asked to carry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 312.]
That was in the statement announcing the application to the House.
The last statement I made from the Government Front Bench in the 1966–70 Parliament can be clearly summarised in this quotation
"If, when the decision is to be taken, the disadvantages for Britain appear excessive in relation to the benefits for Britain which would flow from British entry, the Government clearly would not propose to Parliament that we should enter the Communities. If, on the other hand, the costs, after negotiations, appear acceptable in relation to the benefits, the Government will recommend entry…. We have made clear"—
[Interruption.] I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite are bearing with me. I have still quoted far less of what I have said than the Prime Minister quoted of me. They must listen to what I am saying. They have spent enough party money falsifying it—[Interruption.] Now let them listen and take it.
"We have made clear"—
I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to the next bit, because they will want to cheer it—
"that if the negotiations produce acceptable conditions for British entry we believe that this will be advantageous for Britain, for Europe, and for Europe's voice in the world. Equally, we have made clear that if the conditions which emerge from the negotiations are in the Government's view not acceptable, we can rely on our own strength outside the Communities".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1970 ; Vol. 795, c. 1083–4.]
It is on that basis that we approach—[Interruption.]—it is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about my hon. Friends. Both sides of the House are divided on this issue and the sooner that is realised honestly by all hon. Members, as it is realised in the country, the better we will get on. As I was saying, it is on that basis that we approach
1476
the decision which all hon. Members will have to take in October. We have to judge the terms and what they mean in assessing the balance of cost and advantage in the widest sense, in international as well as economic terms of entry. That is what the right hon. Gentleman, fairly from his point of view, set out to do this afternoon.
But never have we said, and nor is a single word that we have said or that I have said capable of being construed as meaning, that we have to accept whatever terms emerge.
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman seems to agree, but that is not what the Tory Press was saying, and nor was it what the Lord Chancellor was saying last week.
In the Labour Government's White Paper of 4th July, 1967, and in the Parliamentary debate on the application, we set out the conditions which we needed to see met. I am about to deal with these and my right hon. Friends will be concerned with certain others besides the four issues which I listed. One is fisheries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will want to probe, more fully than has been possible before, the implications of the E.E.C. policy and the unsatisfactory state in which this matter has been left. The second relates to problems arising from the operations and rules of the Iron and Steel Community on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will have some questions requiring answers. The third concerns regional policy, with which the whole House is concerned.
There is growing concern about the regional implications. When I reported to the House in 1967 about my own discussions with the E.E.C. Heads of Government, I explained what we had been told in the Six capitals and suggested that, despite the apparently strict requirements of the Treaty of Rome, there was a considerable degree of laxity, permissiveness even, in respect of individual national programmes for regional development. That is what I told the House.
But recent developments have thrown some doubt on the optimistic impression which we had been given. One instance

1477
which we had been given of a tolerant attitude to the regional policies of individual E.E.C. members related to Belgium, but now, I understand, the Commission has brought Belgium to book for its regional policies. Is that because Belgium is part of the E.E.C. heartland, as it is called, and not, in Commission jargon, on the periphery? But if that is so, how far would the heartland extend in Britain ; how far north ; how far north-west ; how far west ; how far south-west?
There have been reports in the British Press this week about the new guide lines, or rules, or regulations, on national policies for regional development which the Commission is putting to the Council of Ministers for its meeting this week. I for one was surprised to read it reported that even the very limited and ineffective policies introduced by the present Government in Britain were scheduled for possible outlawry, although investment grants would be tolerated up to a certain limit. What of all the other measures introduced by the Labour Government—the regional employment premium, the wide range of new incentives in special development areas, the aid to shipbuilding?
How far would the E.C.S.C. rules prohibit the use of development area and other regional policies in the steel and coal industries? The House now knows—we had to press very hard to get this—that there could be no Government interference in matters affecting prices in steel, not even to sanction the continuation of the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council. We now know that there could be no writing off of capital by the Government, or even any failure on the part of the Government to exact a full target return on capital.
But would the British Government—I am sure that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to help us with this—be able to intervene in location policy with the steel industry, as the former Conservative Government did with Newport and Ravenscraig some years ago and as the previous Labour Government did? Let us suppose that a private or public enterprise, or an incoming European producer, sought to build close to an existing development area steel works, to build a new complex at Foulness——
Mr. Bernard Braine: God forbid!
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have in his constituency the unemployment figures which some other hon. Members have. However, if that were happening, with or without the consent of the hon. Gentleman, could the Government direct that the new works be built in an appropriate development area or location rather than where the firm wanted to build it?
Again, could the B.S.C. investment programme be assisted by investment grants, which under the Labour Government were running at £100 million a year? What calculations have the Government made of the effect of the Community's pricing system and of the ban on delivered price schemes, on those substantial and vital parts of the coal and steel industries which are located in the development areas of Scotland, Wales and the North, to say nothing of the intermediate areas? Would help such as that which was given by the Labour Government for the new aluminium smelters in Anglesey and in Northumberland and Invergordon be permitted? [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members who do not have regional problems will recognise that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about regional questions and want answers to them. On what the Commission is proposing about what is called in this new jargon opaque aid, we should certainly not have been able to provide the incentives necessary to get the Leyland-National Bus Factory to Cumberland.
What will be the position of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I recall that Board being described as Marxism by the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for Scotland and who in the present Government has occupied the positions of President of the Board of Trade and Minister for Trade. Are the Government satisfied that such Marxist manifestations—and I am referring of course to the Board's pre-foxhunting days—would be acceptable to the free market Eurocrats in Brussels? I hope that we shall have clear answers to these questions.
I hope that in answering them Ministers will be aware of a more general

1479
anxiety which is felt by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from development areas and, indeed, from wider parts of the country, namely, that the very fact of joining the Market will exert an inexorable pull away from existing centres of industry in Britain to the areas close to the Channel and the ports serving the southern parts of the North Sea and that to meet that much stronger powers, much more uninhibited powers, to assist regional development will be needed, even than those which we have had in the past.
I turn to the main issues set out in the White Paper of July, 1967, issues on which we at all times stressed that we should need to be satisfied if, as the Government, we were to recommend entry—issues, I want the House to be in no doubt, any of which could have become a breaking point for us. These are the issues on which the House must finally judge.
The first is that in which we have asked the Government to set out the costs, the burden on the one hand, short-term and long-term, against the undoubted benefits on the other, benefits which some of us at any rate have always looked forward to as open to us, including what many of us have described as the unquantifiable, possible, hoped-for but not assured, dynamic results of entry. I have argued, not only recently but throughout, that the response of the Community to Britain's costs must be judged not only in statistical or cost-benefit terms. We have to judge what has come out of Brussels over the past few months as an indication of the type of Community which it is proposed we should join. We could not know that until the negotiations were completed.
I said this some time ago in a speech at the London Conference of the European Parliamentarians, asking them in effect whether the Community was a rule-ridden bureaucracy, whether in its motivation it was looking outwards to Europe-wide unity and a wider world unity, or was basically an agricultural welfare complex based on subsidies to high-cost producers, tariffs on imports of cheap produce, backed by expensive import subsidies to sell high-cost produce to the world at low-cost world prices. This was a question which, I said, we might be in a better position to answer when
1480
the negotiations were complete. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will form their answer in the light of the terms in respect of the contributions required of us under the Common Agricultural Fund and other financial aspects of the institutions, and in respect of Commonwealth sugar and our imports of New Zealand food.
Our first vital requirement, set out in the White Paper of July, 1967, relates to the balance of payments cost of entry. However strong our present balance of payments, no right hon. Gentleman would maintain that it can be fairly asked to sustain a burden across the exchanges, a burden which would threaten to plunge us once again into deficit, which endangers sterling or forces the Government, as successive Governments have been forced over the past 20 years, into unwelcome and costly restrictions on current production and, through investment, the means to future growth.
I do not under-estimate—and the right hon. Gentleman referred to this this afternoon—the difficulties of making the estimate on the balance of payments. They were, as he said, difficulties which we faced in our White Paper of February 1971, difficulties which as the right hon. Gentleman said last week, led us to produce a final figure which had to be made within a very wide range, dependent on a no less wide range of assumptions.
A large part of our difficulties in preparing that Paper were accounted for by three main factors. The first was uncertainty about decisions which were only then beginning to be taken about the future shape and cost of the common agricultural policy. Decisions taken since then have narrowed a great part of the area of uncertainty within which we had to estimate.
The second related to the actual terms which would be offered to us and on which the ultimate settlement would in great part depend. There was a third factor inhibiting our estimates. On the eve of the negotiations—this would have been true of any Government in this country—there were assumptions that we could not make, and in all prudence we would have been wrong to make, since it might weaken our bargaining position.
It is not too much to ask the Government to give us their best estimates, with whatever notes and qualifications they feel

1481
it right to make in respect of areas and assumptions still remaining uncertain. As the House knows, it is not that an estimate has not appeared. On 25th June a number of, clearly, serious reports appeared in different newspapers, all exactly the same in giving a figure for the estimated effects on the balance of payments costs—£500 million a year by 1978—and all of them, with similar unanimity, stating that this should be set against an estimated increase in the gross national product by the same date of £2,200 million a year. By a process of simple, accurate but highly question-begging subtraction, these papers concluded at the same time, on the same day, that there would be a net gain of £1,700 million.
These figures did not appear on the same day in all these papers with the same statistical accuracy just by a conspiracy of the newspapers concerned or as a result of a sheer coincidence of their statistical assumptions.
It is interesting that these figures do not appear in the White Paper. In their place is a new figure, reaching £1,100 million increase in the national income, without any explanation. This is supposed to be on a ½ per cent. increase. There is no explanation, and it is not a forecast but a hope.
Perhaps the House would agree that it is a fallacy to suggest that if, on certain assumptions, the national product increases by a given amount there is no need to worry about the balance of payments. If that were so, any Government could abstract from their balance of payments problems by going for expansion, for a consumer-led boom regardless. There is no automatic relationship between increased production and the overseas balances, and successive Governments, having gone for expansion, have had to cut back because of the balance of payments content. That is why we aimed, by interventionist policies, to ensure that within any given level of production the export-oriented and import-saving industries could show a more than proportionate expansion. These were the policies which the present Government have reversed.
I trust that during the debate Ministers will endeavour at least to give a clear estimate of the expected cost to our balance of payments and the measures they have in mind to mitigate its impact.
1482
Otherwise all experience—and this is especially true under the Government's present policies—points to restrictions on growth and a growing threat to the level of employment.
The figures required—and the right hon Gentleman set out some of the elements that would have to be taken into account—would include the budgetary contributions on which figures are given in the White Paper. Then there is the admittedly difficult estimate of the effect on trade.
There is a certain damage to some of our large traditional export markets which would be affected by our being required to adopt the Community's rules This damage will be the greater in Commonwealth markets because the Commonwealth preferences from which we now benefit will go and discrimination against the Commonwealth in buying from it may well limit its ability to buy from us.
The question really is how far this damage, which is regarded by everyone as likely if not certain, would be offset over the rest of the 1970s by any gain there would be in trade with the Market itself, provided that our exporters succeeded in increasing their sales in Market territories more than European exporters increase their sales in Britain. Here we have to look at the differential reductions that would be made in the C.E.T. compared with our own.
In the longer term I have always felt it is harder to forecast the outcome, because it is not easy to predict any gain from the dynamic effect on British industry of a wider market. As to the years ahead, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was reported in The Times as saying that in the short term there would be an appreciable "downturn" in Britain's external trade due to the acceptance of the common external tariff. While expressing confidence in the longer term, as many of us have, he said :
"It is likely to prove the case that the balance of disadvantage, created by the progressive adoption of the common external tariff will have a somewhat sharper and quicker effect on external trade than will be the expansionary effect of a progressive elimination of tariffs between us and the Community."
It cannot be put fairer than that : it might be put clearer, but not fairer.

1483
There are the calculations of the effects of entry on our invisible earnings. An authoritative article in Monday's Guardian from a City source throws considerable doubt on the optimism which has been expressed about the net earning from invisibles, at any rate for a long period ahead.
I have expressed the hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the course of this debate will give us the best estimate they can of the balance of payments costs, with whatever qualifications they feel it right to make about the assumptions on which it is made. Perhaps they may tell us a little more about the £500 million figure we saw quoted with such obvious authority—indeed the authority was stated to exist—about three or four weeks ago.
If they refuse to do this I have another suggestion. The House will have seen the Motion on the Order Paper, No. 650, calling for a Select Committee on these matters. I do not see how the Government can reject that proposal for these reasons. First, Parliament and the country have the right to know the facts before a decision is reached.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Select Committee would have to sit in August.
Mr. Wilson: Why not sit in August?
Second, in May of last year the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to this. I think he was in Paris when he said :
"It would not be in the interests of the Community that its enlargement should take place except with the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries."
On "Election Forum" on 27th May, the right hon. Gentleman said :
no British Government could possibly take this country into the Common Market against the wish of the British people."
He has rejected, rightly in my view but not every hon. Member will agree, a referendum. He has rejected—for reasons which I understand but do not share—the idea of a General Election to test the country's feelings. He is leaving the choice to this Parliament, with the Whips on. On this basis I suggest that he cannot refuse the information that the House needs about the cost of entry. If he
1484
refuses to give it, the House at least ought to be able to discover for itself by the long-established machinery at its disposal—a Select Committee.
My third point is that the right hon. Gentleman may consider that a Select Committee will not be able to discover anything of value. If that turns out to be the case, let the Select Committee representing all of us come to that decision for itself. It is a fact that Governments of all parties consider that Select Committees cannot add to the corpus of knowledge and wisdom inherent in the Government machine. The experience of a considerable number of Select Committees in the last Parliament has totally disproved this élitist view. Take, for example, the Select Committee on Agriculture which investigated the Market question. I am not sure that that was very popular with the Departments or with the Government of the day. But it gained insight not available by any other means, and it made this information available to the House on an issue which the House could not obtain by any other means.
I propose therefore that if, as the Government claim, they have no more to tel us, and if they have nothing to hide—and there is the mysterious incident of the £500 million which suddenly stopped barking in the night—they should move for a Select Committee with power to send for persons and papers and make available all the information, statistical and other, that the Committee might require. It should also have power to sit in the recess and perhaps be asked to produce a report by 30th September.
In view of the very special importance of this question—and most hon. Members are taking this issue seriously—it might be worth considering that Mr. Speaker be invited to preside over the Select Committee or, failing him, some experienced—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposide know the cost, let them get up and give it, or, if not, let other hon. Members have the facilities for finding out. Failing Mr. Speaker, perhaps some other experienced parliamentarian who is above the battle now raging might preside. I hope that the Prime Minister will consider this suggestion.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: As one who has signed the

1485
Motion on the question of a Select Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would do me the honour of coupling his name with mine on the Order Paper?
Mr. Wilson: I should have to consider the company I might be getting into, but I think I have done more than that : I have given my full support across the Floor of the House to what the hon. Gentleman has supported by signing his name.
I hope that the Prime Minister will consider what I have put to him—I am not asking for an answer now—and will inform the House in due course, and fairly soon.
The second issue on which the Labour Government insisted throughout related to capital movements. This was a central theme of the discussions I had with the Prime Ministers of the Six. I have expressed my anxieties about this question, and no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be dealing with it tonight, as will be my right hon. Friends later in the debate.
The third issue which we put forward as a necessary condition related to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This Agreement was introduced by the Labour Government over 20 years ago. It has provided the stability of a secure and assured market with guaranteed prices to producers over a wide area of the Commonwealth. The Labour Government, in 1967 and subsequently, maintained that the interests of the Commonwealth producers must be safeguarded. The terms brought back from Brussels carry no such safeguards for Commonwealth sugar producers so far as the Six are concerned. All we have to rely on is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's linguistic achievement in translating "aura ã coeur" into the phrase "it will be the firm purpose of". I do not regard this as a clear and unequivocal guarantee.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman met the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries, he gave them the impression of an unequivocal pledge by the Government that in one way or another Her Majesty's Government would underwrite a continued market in the enlarged Community for the present
1486
quantities of sugar from the developing countries. The Commonwealth countries had no choice when he said this to them. They had to take it as a binding assurance on the part of the British Government. But instead of asking for guarantees from the Six, as he might well have done, that they agreed to such binding assurances on Commonwealth sugar, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for no more than the reading into the record of his statement. He did not ask the Six to say that they accepted what he had said to the Commonwealth.
In the House, when right hon. and hon. Members on both sides asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter—and I do not like using this word about him—he was a little evasive. We asked him whether the Community had accepted his statement to the Commonwealth. They, he said, had "received" It. If hon. Members are satisfied about a clear answer, perhaps they will explain in the debate what they think the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant. I asked him in the House if he would confirm that there was a bilateral British Government assurance, and whether he interpreted his deal, as I think our Commonwealth sugar producers did, as meaning that if the Six did not deliver, the British Government would insist by their own separate actions on maintaining the safeguards. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered these questions in the House.
When I mentioned the Morocco Agreement to the Prime Minister this afternoon, he seemed a little surprised, but there is a certain parallelism here. On that occasion France received a clear assurance that she could continue her existing arrangement with Morocco to the end of time if there were no adequate acceptance by the Common Market as a whole of her Morocco commitments on the negotiation of which she would have a veto.
I come finally, of the four issues—[Interruption.] It seems that hon. Members do not want to hear about New Zealand. It is typical of some of them, but I am now coming, in the interests of hon. Members who are concerned about New Zealand—and the rest can go off and have the drink that they obviously so much need—to the question of New Zealand, which I believe to be a serious

1487
issue at this time for the whole House and for this country.
During the E.E.C. debates 10 years ago I told the House of the Labour Government's dealings with New Zealand after the war and of the New Zealand spirit of sacrifice in Britain's interests to keep us fed in a period of world famine after the war, even though it meant rationing themselves, and I referred to the New Zealand refusal to exploit the famine position by charging higher prices to Britain. I said :
"I submit to the House that we cannot consistently with the honour of this country take any action now that would betray friends such as those. All this and Europe, too—if you can get it …if there has to be a choice we are not entitled to sell our friends and kinsmen down the river for a problematical and marginal advantage in selling washing machines in Dusseldorf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1961 ; Vol. 645, c. 1665.]
I said that 10 years ago.
On Saturday I said that I would not have recommended the Labour candidate—I mean Cabinet—to make the application—[Interruption.] We had a conference at which Labour candidates were free to express their views. It was not a didactic teach—in on a predetermined line. On Saturday I said—and hon. Members had better listen—that I would not have recommended the Labour Cabinet to make the application for entry into the Market except on the basis of assured and continuing access into Britain of New Zealand produce. That was the position of the Labour Party and of the Labour Government. It is clearly not the position of the present Government.
What I said on Saturday has been called in question, and certain newspapers, perhaps concerned more with their political allegiance or proprietorial or editorial commitment to the Common Market case, regardless of the terms, have since flatly queried my statement. I am therefore entitled to set out the facts about the extent of the Labour's Government's commitment to New Zealand and the exact terms concerning New Zealand on which the Labour Government were prepared to consider entry to the Common Market. Not only that, but on what we said to the Heads of Government of the Six, when we discussed this matter in the six capitals, before I recommended
1488
the Cabinet to agree on the application of May, 1967, and also on what the reaction of the Six was. In so doing, I rely on my own clear memory of what occurred.
Mr. Onslow: A spectrum of the mirror?
Mr. Wilson: Indeed, I have refreshed my memory in the manner in which any former Minister is entitled. I have consulted the records, and in what I am about to say I have consulted the conventions, precedents and proprieties. My studies on this subject do not relate to New Zealand alone, but it will suffice for this purpose and the House's purpose to confine what I have to say to New Zealand.
In the early months of 1967 my noble Friend Lord George-Brown and I had intensive talks, lasting many days, with each of the Heads of Government of the Six. Following that, we reported on each of those discussions, in full detail, to our Cabinet colleagues. My noble Friend and I went further. We made a joint recommendation to our colleagues that we should make an application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome for entry into the European Communities. All this was public knowledge at the time.
So far as New Zealand was concerned I would not have been prepared to recommend entry—nor, I believe, would the Cabinet have been prepared to agree to entry—except on the basis of the joint recommendation which my noble Friend and I put to the Cabinet, repeating what we had told the Six, namely, that
"for New Zealand a transitional period would not be enough unless it were for a generation, e.g., that arrangements would need to be, if not permanent, at least equal in effect to a permanent change."
That, I think, justifies the statement I made on Saturday, and which I repeated today. I think it rules out of court subsequent Press and other statements.
In opposing the Government's New Zealand terms I have taken exactly the line I took, and, let me say, the Cabinet took, in 1967. It is, of course, a fact that neither my noble Friend nor I could in honesty have made the recommendation to the Cabinet in those terms unless we had clearly stated in each of our discussions with the Six what our attitude

1489
was and unless we had received clear assurance in those discussions that it would be worth while applying after we had made clear what our view was.
Since, therefore, the record of our discussions was circulated to hundreds of people all over Western Europe—and our New Zealand friends were kept in the picture at all stages of our discussions ; and since I am satisfied that in what I am going to report to the House there is no breach of established proprieties—I have checked on this ; since, I believe, in view of all the partial and inaccurate information which has been printed, the House has the right to have the facts as they were known to the Prime Minister of the day ; and since, above all, the decision we have to take is so fundamental that the House should not be asked to take it except in full knowledge of the facts, I intend now to give those facts.
I begin with the discussions in Rome. In accordance with a pre-agreed division of work in the negotiations, my noble Friend dealt in the main with agricultural and food questions at some length, and this was his conclusion. He said :
"New Zealand would continue to present the gravest obstacle, which probably could not be surmounted by transitional arrangements alone."
After we left Rome we went to Paris, on 25th January, 1967. Again this was expressed at considerable length :
"All these problems would have to be resolved when making arrangements for the United Kingdom to join the Community…. It seemed that a derogation"—
from the Treaty—
"would be necessary to give New Zealand reasonable access to the market on which she was so dependent…. He would emphasise what had been said earlier in the discussions : soyez gentils a la Nouvelle Zélande.' "
Now I turn to Brussels. The date was 1st February, 1967. Again, my noble Friend, after a very long exposition of these questions, said this :
"The problems raised by our membership of the Commonwealth were difficult ; but it had been generally accepted that they could all be overcome through transitional arrangements with the exception of our trade with New Zealand, for which some form of permanent arrangement would almost certainly be required."
Later :
"New Zealand was, he thought, the only real and continuing difficulty in this field".
1490
That is, Commonwealth trade.
"He thought all members of the Community would need to face the fact …that a permanent and continuing arrangement might be necessary in order to assure New Zealand of continued outlets for her agricultural produce."
Also :
"We had not consulted New Zealand at this stage …there were, however, a number of ways in which the New Zealand problem could be overcome—perhaps by a Morocco-type protocol, perhaps by an association agreement with an enlarged Community under Article 238. perhaps by levy free or reduced levy quotas …he felt sure that it was possible to produce a satisfactory result which would in practice permanently take care of the New Zealand problem. … It was not necessary to use the word 'permanent' to describe whatever was done. He felt sure, however, that it was possible to produce a satisfactory result which would in practice permanently take care"—
permanently take care—
"of the New Zealand problem without prejudice to the Community's Common Agricultural Policy".
After Brussels, Bonn. What my noble Friend said there was that
"because of the extent to which New Zealand's export income and agricultural products depended on access to the British market, the problem of New Zealand would have to be resolved by a more permanent arrangement such as a Morocco-type protocol, or by a form of association, or by a derogation providing special access for New Zealand to the Common Market."
The next Prime Ministerial discussions were in The Hague. Again my noble Friend said this :
"There would be very serious effects indeed on the New Zealand economy and it was difficult to see how transitional periods could overcome this problem, unless they were of such length that they would in effect be equivalent to a material change in the existing arrangements. Various ways had been suggested of overcoming this difficulty, among them, special guarantees of access to traditional markets, and association with the Community. The problem could certainly be solved, but it was a formidable one."
Finally, I come to the discussions in Luxembourg, where my noble Friend said that
"some special arrangement would have to be made for New Zealand. Even here, however, a very long transitional arrangement, possibly of more than 20 years, might suffice."
The next 20 years, he said. He went on to explain :
"The real problem arose over supplies of agricultural produce from New Zealand. (Supplies from Australia and Canada would present difficulties but they should not represent insuperable difficulties.) New Zealand

1491
depended on her export of temperate foodstuffs to the British market. This meant that provision would have to be made to ensure access for the agricultural products of New Zealand to Britain and the Common Market on no less generous a basis than she enjoyed at present. The method of arranging this would have to be discussed if negotiations were begun. Something more than a transitional arrangement would be necessary : a Morocco-type protocol might be a possibility or some arrangement which guaranteed access for New Zealand products to the Community Market. Britain could not let New Zealand down in this respect."
Those are the facts of what the Labour Government did—Rome, Paris, Brussels, Bonn, the Hague, Luxembourg. That was what was said on behalf of the Government. And the message was the same. In no case when we went to those six capitals was there any comeback, any disagreement, any query. There was no demur. Indeed, after we had stated our case in those terms all except France pressed us to put in our application. So there was no misunderstanding. My noble Friend and I were, therefore, thoroughly justified in recommending to our Cabinet colleagues an application to join the E.E.C. on the basis which I have quoted and which I repeat, that
"for New Zealand a transitional period would not be enough unless it were for a generation, e.g., that arrangements would need to be, if not permanent, at least equal in effect to a permanent change".
On that basis, and no other, we recommended to our colleagues that the application of May, 1967, be made. On that basis, and no other, the Cabinet agreed to the application. These talks—and if we had received any objection in any of the capitals of the Six my noble Friend and I could not have reported or recommended to the Cabinet as we did—governed the basis of the Cabinet's decision to apply for entry. Labour's terms were either a permanent derogation or association agreement, or Morocco-type treaty or, if the issue were to be based on a transitional agreement, that transition must cover a generation. Those were Labour's terms on the last occasion when the terms were collectively considered by the Labour Government.
Mr. Daniel Awdry Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham) rose——
Mr. Wilson: I will give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has been very patient. Because of my faith in
1492
the desire of all British newspapers and other commentators, regardless of their political allegiance, to print the facts when they are available to them, and having regard to much recent comment, I express my confidence—and I have the right to do so—that what I have said now about what the Labour Government's decision was will receive as much space in each of them as has been devoted in the absence of these facts to proving the opposite. I have the same confidence that right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have made assertions contrary to the facts as I have revealed them, will take appropriate and early steps to put the record right.
Mr. Awdry: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this point? The very right hon. Gentleman who would have led negotiations for his party, had that party won the election, has publicly stated that he would have recommended to the Labour Government the terms which we have secured, and that they would have been accepted by the Labour Party. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Mr. Wilson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening, because I said, and I repeat—I do not want to weary the House by going through the quotations several times—that the arrangements for New Zealand products must be permanent if we were to use the transitional—[HON. MEMBERS : "Answer."]—I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative Government had got the terms I asked for——
Mr. Awdry: The point I make is that the very right hon. Gentleman who would have led the negotiations had the Labour Party won the General Election publicly this week on television said that the terms we have secured would have been acceptable to that right hon. Gentleman and to the Labour Party. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Mr. Wilson: I think my right hon. Friend was announced as Labour's negotiator for the Common Market. Of course, we did not start the negotiations ; they did not occur until the present Government came into power. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend was not a member of the Cabinet at the material time. He is entitled to

1493
express a personal view, and that is all he did express, but his negotiating brief and all that had been agreed by the Cabinet were as I have read out this afternoon.
Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys (Streatham) rose——
Mr. Wilson: I have now given way more times than the Prime Minister gave way, but I will do so for the last time.
Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length about his concern for New Zealand and the other terms which he considers right and necessary. He referred earlier to his speech at the recent Labour Party conference. Did he not make it unashamedly clear that New Zealand and all the other terms—and in fact the whole European issue—were of purely secondary importance to him compared with the Labour Party's position? Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his final peroration say that the Labour Party's "main objective" was to beat the Tories and get themselves back into office?
Mr. Wilson: While that laudable aim is certainly our view on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman is totally misrepresenting what I said. When I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman I did so—[HON. MEMBERS : "Answer."]—I will answer, but I will also say on what basis I gave way. I gave way to him having known him and been on very friendly terms with him for many years, because I have always believed that the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity on this European question, going back for many years, cannot be questioned. I hope that he will not question my commitment over just as long a period to New Zealand and the Commonwealth countries.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have obtained for New Zealand a continuing arrangement subject to review, and that I made it perfectly clear to the Community that a 20-year transitional period would not be sufficient.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got nothing but a commitment to reconsider after three years. That is all he has got, and it is interesting to see how President Pom
1494
pidou interprets these discussions with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I noticed the right hon. and learned Gentleman nodding his head earlier when I said that this problem must be solved for a generation. He was nodding his head as though that was what he had got. I was talking about a generation of human beings, not of hamsters. Hamsters have a rather shorter life than human beings.
I have shown that the only commitment made by the Labour Government in our application to enter Europe was to negotiate—and that is what the Tories said in their election manifesto—with a real purpose to achieve entry if that could be achieved on acceptable terms, and the clearly announced decision of our Government that we should decide in favour of entry only when the terms were available, and only if they were acceptable in accordance with the criteria we had laid down which I have just read to the House. I have proved in the last few minutes that the terms produced by Her Majesty's Government on this important issue of New Zealand——
An Hon. Member: And accepted by New Zealand.
Mr. Wilson: Accepted in terms far less than enthusiastic by the New Zealand Prime Minister. They have been rejected by the New Zealand Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman will study this morning's report from New Zealand, including the letter from Mr. Norman Kirk, he will find under the heading "New Zealand's euphoria ends" a statement by one trade interest after another in New Zealand Conservative newspapers giving the lie to the hon. Gentleman.
What I have said destroys the claim in paragraph 22 of the White Paper, that "They"—the present Government :
"…picked up the hand which their predecessors had prepared for the negotiating table."
This is not the case. I have read suggestions that a negotiating position had been prepared and approved by the Labour Government before June, 1970 and that this was "picked up" by the present Government. This is not the case. Of course a great deal of work had been done by officials, but nothing had come before the Cabinet, nothing had been seen by my colleagues or myself, and the statement in the White Paper and

1495
Press comment based on it are, therefore, untrue. With the £600,000 which the Government are spending on propaganda, it would now be right for them to spare a few hundred pounds to printing an erratum, and giving the facts the same publicity.
So much for the terms. Finally, a word about the White Paper as a whole. The Government have rightly called for a great debate, but have started it off with a White Paper which is a party political manifesto. They must not be surprised if some of the statements in that manifesto are greeted with a disbelief engendered by the false manifesto on which the Government were elected last year, when all our economic problems were going to be solved by a stroke of his wand.
At no stage in that election did he campaign on the proposition that Britain's problems were insoluble, except on the basis of joining the Market on whatever terms we could get. His manifesto itself is eloquent tribute to that. His one talisman for solving all the nation's problems, real or electorally falsified, was not the Common Market. It was the law of the market in Britain. That is what he fought the election on. He never mentioned the Common Market as a means of solving our problems.
Last year's prescription has failed. He now seeks to assert that only in the Market and on these terms can Britain succeed. He will find not only a great many hon. Members but many millions outside who reject this defeatist view, which seems to run through every pronouncement of his since the White Paper was published, and who assert that given the right policies by the Government of this country, Britain is likely to be at least as strong, as vigorous, as prosperous, as influential outside the Market as it would be if we were to enter the Market on the wrong terms.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was wholly wrong to say that it was expected of a Labour Government or the Labour Party that they had to accept whatever terms might emerge. That certainly has never been any suggestion I have made, and it is certainly
1496
a suggestion I have never heard made from any other quarter. In fairness to the record of the Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the commitment of the Labour Government was to negotiate and no more. It was a little more—and what he omitted was what I felt was sadly lacking in his own speech. It was not merely to negotiate, but
"to pursue our application for membership with all the vigour and determination at our command."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 314.]
Therefore, we are not only interested in the terms, important though they be, but in the warmth of approach and attitude towards Europe itself. In regard to the suggestion of a Select Committee, if it would help any right hon. and hon. Member out of difficulty I would have no objection to supporting it and I would persuade one of my colleagues to serve on it!
With regard to New Zealand, I hope I may return to that in a moment because I believe that it would be the wish of the Labour Party to assert that what they said in public in negotiations was not manifestly different from what they negotiated in private. By that test, some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were not perhaps as weighty as we first might have thought.
There is no difference between us as to the great historic importance of the question we are debating. I believe that the opponents of entry are divided into two categories. There are those who, for a variety of reasons, have never supported the concept of Britain joining the European Economic Community ; and, although I disagree, I respect their view which has been wholly consistent from the beginning of the debate. I must confess that my respect is somewhat tempered by curiosity in regard to that small minority in that category who sat in different Cabinets and who have been opposed to entry but not opposed to making application for entry.
I would regard them as the fundamentalists. In fairness to them, the view they hold today was the view which, up to 1967, was the official predominant view of the Labour Party and which up to 1961 was the predominant majority view of the Tory Party. I hope that we shall see no great heresy hunting as far

1497
as the fundamentalists are concerned. It is for them as much as for the pro-Marketeers that I personally would like to see this matter decided on a free vote. This would enable the conscience of every Member to be made manifest.
I hope that the Tory Party will not be too harsh on their fundamentalists. One of the first votes I cast in this House, was on 14th December, 1959, when the present Home Secretary conceded to my hon. Friend, now the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that the Free Trade Area was his first love but that it was dead ; E.F.T.A. was his second love, and the European Economic Community was a third best. We had tabled an Amendment calling on this country to become part of the Community—which was nothing very new for us since we had advocated such a concept in 1948.
I remember the Home Secretary, then President of the Board of Trade, said
"If the Liberals are prepared to go into the lobby tonight to support the proposition that this country ought to join the European Economic Community, let them realise the consequences to British agriculture, British trade and Commonwealth connections inevitably inherent in the proposition which they are supporting.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 1168.]
This we did. We divided the House -185 Tories, three Liberals, with the Labour Party in total abstention—or perhaps one should rephrase it, leaving their options open. There was a suitable opportunity for a further debate on 25th July, 1960, when again we divided the House on the proposition that we should be part of the European Economic Community. Although our vote went up to four, the Tory vote went up to 215, because the Tory Government had the advantage in their Lobbies of the support of the present Leader of the Opposition. I understand that nowadays to be seen voting on European matters in a Tory Lobby is regarded as a criminal offence. In those years many have changed in their opinions but some have changed more often than others.
There is then the second category who on their record are totally committed to the European concept, subject to reservations on the terms which, I concede, if not acceptable could be a cause for veto I think that the commitment of all three Governments and the extent of that commitment
1498
is best summarised in the W.E.U. statement by the then Mr. George Brown at The Hague on 4th July, 1967. May I remind the House, because it came up in interruptions on the common agricultural policy and other matters, that in paragraph 19 Mr. George Brown, on behalf of the then Government, said :
"We accept all three Treaties, subject only to the adjustments which are required to provide for the accession of a new member, for example, our participation and voting in the Community's institutions and our contribution to its financial expenditure."
Again, in paragraph 44 they went further :
"In all other fields we accept, as I have already made clear, the obligations of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the regulations, directives and other decisions taken under it, subject only to a transitional period and, of course, to developments in the Community in the mean time."
I suggest that the Labour Party——
An Hon. Member: Why debate the position of the Labour Party?
Mr. Thorpe: I am asked why debate the position of the Labour Party—because this is a great national issue and this is one political party of this country that has not expressed an opinion. I will tell the House what the advantages are, but I think that we are entitled to know from the Opposition where they stand on this great issue—[Interruption.] The shouting is not quite as loud as it used to be back in 1950. It used to come from both sides of the House ; now it comes only from one side.
Paragraph 44 clearly accepted the common agricultural policy of Europe So this idea that one can go round nitpicking about the common external tariff, the value-added tax, President Nixon visiting Peking, and all this affecting the whole concept of our approach to Europe, is fundamentally dishonest intellectually on the basis of the Labour Government's admission on 4th July. 1967.
Mrs. Renée Short: Tell that to the housewife
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It will not help the very many Members who hope to take part in the debate if there are constant interruptions.
Mr. Thorpe: I must pursue the point that Lord George-Brown was sent on the negotiations in order to succeed, and he was not sent to Europe as a ruse of the then Prime Minister to keep him out of Britain. Therefore, for me it is a very great cause for sadness to read the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted, from The Times on Monday, 19th July, 1971, reporting the conference on Saturday :
"The negotiations would show whether the Community was a rule-ridden bureaucracy ; whether in its motivation it was looking outwards to a Europe-wide unity, or whether it was basically an agricultural welfare complex based on subsidies to high-cost producers …"
If the right hon. Gentleman had all those reservations about those strange foreigners why did he ever go and negotiate with them in the first place? That is what we are entitled to ask.
The stance of certain people during the great debate is extraordinary. It is rather like a man who stands at the Pearly Gates and says to St. Peter that whilst he professed his consistent support for the Christian religion and deplored the manifestations of paganism among his opponents, he would like time to study the terms before deciding whether to enter, and so in the meantime he would preserve strict neutrality until the end of the month.
There are, however, certain criticisms which are made and on which we are entitled to more information. First, the White Paper is very thin on the question of regionalism, indeed, it does less than justice to the regional development which has taken place within the Six. I am thinking particularly of areas like Southern Italy and others where there has been very dramatic increase of employment and an increase in wage earning opportunities.
Similarly, reference was made to the balance of payments. I regard the present White Paper and the figures set out as going very much further than we have ever been able to go before, and I think particularly of Table 2, page 24, largely of course because the negotiations were further advanced than at the time of the previous Labour Government's White Paper. But one must realise that then we were told that the food bill might be reduced by £85 mill ion or might rise by as much as £255 million, and that the cost to the balance of payments was
1500
between £100 million and £1,000 million. We are entitled to ask for the £500 million point to be cleared up one way or the other.
I am certain that no British Government would have persisted with negotiations to join unless they were confident that, in terms of economic growth, the cost to our balance of payments would be more than sufficiently covered by the growth in our economy in the initial stages. That must be self-evident—unless successive Governments have indulged in a form of economic masochism, which I doubt. The Government are in some difficulty about quantifying the cost to the balance of payments. I would prefer it if there were no figure, rather than wild figures. The then Prime Minister, on 10th February, 1970, said :
"… the House will understand that many of the estimates must be highly speculative. There must, for example, be a wide margin of error arising from any calculations which may be made about the response of British agriculture and industry to changes in prices and tariff levels whose effects cannot be fully felt for a number of years. Hon. Members will realise what margin of error this involves both in the calculations of the agricultural cost, and its wider implications in industrial, commercial and financial matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1081.]
Turning to New Zealand, it is germane to point out two very significant things. First, the New Zealand Government have actually accepted the proposals put forward. Second, one of the persons referred to, namely, Lord George-Brown, has expressed his opinion that those terms would have been recommended to and accepted by a Labour Government. Naturally, I respect the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, that he has implied that those would not be terms that he, as Prime Minister, would have recommended. I accept that if that is his position. But it is not without significance—because these are matters of opinion—that of the four persons basically involved in the negotiations during the time of the Labour Government, three of them have expressed their opinion that those terms would have been accepted, including the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and Lord George-Brown.
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity of

1501
listening to "The World at One", when he would have heard that Lord Chalfont expressed the same view. So it is all four now.
Mr. Thorpe: The figure is four out of five, which is a fairly high percentage.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: He was a member of the Tory Party.
Mr. Thorpe: On New Zealand, if one looks at paragraph 34, while one naturally accepts the figure of 20 years, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is interesting that Lord George-Brown said
"I am confident that in discussions together we can find a constructive and realistic solution. Community farmers have a strong interest with New Zealand in wishing to see the level of butter consumption maintained in Europe."
Then he talked about other problems. But never at any stage was there a public commitment to the 20-year period as being a condition for entry.
In conclusion, I ask what sort of Europe do we want? I want this country to go into a Europe which is outward-looking in her trading policies and which is using her wealth to help the developing world. I therefore applaud the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 31st March, 1971, in which they have been the first major trading unit in the world to lift their barriers against trade with many of the developing countries. This was wholly in accord with the U.N.C.T.A.D. resolution of 1968, and it will affect imports worth £416 million from 91 different countries. It will also, incidentally, lose them some £40 million in Customs revenue. It is not without significance that it has been welcomed by U Thant as a major breakthrough—not, I should have thought, the action of a narrow, inward-looking Community.
Similarly, if one considers the European Development Fund and the financing of projects from 1958 to 1963 to the 18 independent African countries which are associated, one sees a figure of about 600 million dollars invested in those countries, and from 1964 to 1969 further aid of well over 800 million dollars for industrialisation, diversification of agriculture and aid to exports. From 1960 to 1964, the overseas aid of the Six has risen by 50 per cent. whereas that of the United Kingdom has risen by only 6 per cent.
1502
If one considers paragraph 117 of the White Paper, whereby 20 independent countries and 19 dependent territories will be offered some form of association which will assist them in freer trade and will entitled them to benefit from assistance under the European Development Fund, one will see that again this is the sort of Community which is outward-looking and which we ought to join if we want to play our part in the third world.
I want to see the Community as a low-tariff area. At the moment tariffs are only marginally lower, but they are lower. Philosophically, the view of the Six is far less protectionist than opinion in this country, as was indicated and made manifest by the howls which went up from both sides of this House when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry suggested that the motor car industry might benefit if it were subjected to a little more competition.
I do not share the vision of Europe of the Prime Minister and the President of France. I think that it is too narrow at the moment. I want to see Europe evolve politically, rather along the lines of paragraph 20 of the Labour Party's pronouncement at the W.E.U., which sums up my own feeling. That said :
"We believe Europe can emerge as a Community expressing its own point of view and exercising influence in world affairs not only in the commercial and economic but also in the political and defence fields. We shall play our full part in this process."
That is the kind of political evolution that I want to see.
Sir Tatton Brinton: What was the date of that?
Mr. Thorpe: It was 4th July, 1967, and it was the speech of Mr. George Brown, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the W.E.U.
I want to see direct elections to a European Parliament. I believe that one effect of the British joining the Community is that we shall become, if not the most, certainly one of the most, politically conscious members, in terms of elections and the need for democratic control over the civil servants working in the Community.
I want to see direct monetary union by 1980. I want to see a new world currency created, which will mean rewriting the

1503
Bretton Woods Agreement, or, alternatively, creating a European reserve currency. Already, Europe is beginning to tackle matters like pollution on a European level. I want to see us play our part in that regard.
I believe that history will give short shrift to those who, on this issue, put party unity before taking the right decision. I believe that the terms are right. They are better than we have been able to expect ever since the first application in 1961.
I want to see this country working with progressive Socialists like Willy Brandt and with progressive Liberals like Walter Scheel, in their policy of Ostpolitik. I want to see us working with people prominent in politics, who, despite the chauvinism of the last few days, stood by us, worked with the Resistance, and were part of the Free European Movement which today we applaud.
I have always wanted to get into Europe on the right terms. I wanted to get into Europe when both major parties opposed it. I still wanted to get into Europe when a Tory Government applied to join. I wanted to when a Labour Government began negotiations. I want to today, whether or not the Labour Party opposes it.
Entry will provide a tremendous stimulus for the country. It is not only right for Britain and Europe. It is not only right for the developing world. It is right for the world as a whole. That is why I hope that we shall soon become full members. If we do, the generation which takes us in can claim to have played a significant part in history.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: As we have been asked to compress our speeches, I shall not deal point by point with the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), which I much enjoyed. He ended up on precisely the political view of Europe that I understand, and he spoke as a true European. It is for that reason that I do not wish to join, and I am quite clear about it. Unfortunately, hon. Members in many parts of the House are not clear about it, simply because they are not true Europeans.
1504
I wish to follow up what the right hon. Gentleman said about the state of this debate and the possibility of a free vote. Our Prime Minister, in his broadcast to the nation on 8th July, said :
"It's a big decision, and it's one that goes far beyond party politics."
That is the Prime Minister's view. It is my view. I believe that it should be the view of every hon. Member. However, on 13th July, about a week following, I was discussing this matter on a B.B.C. programme called "It's Your Line", and the same question was raised. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was also appearing, said "No. It will be a vote of confidence in the Conservative Party's policy." From the moment that my right hon. Friend said that, it ceased to be a national debate and became a party political debate.
We have got the debate into a frightful mess. It is sunk. Look at the Labour Party. We all know from the Press that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in difficulties. We on this side are not yet in that sort of difficulty. But these things happen. I remind hon. Members on both sides that as we approach October and the time of decision we shall all be having our party conferences and we shall all be televised to the nation. If I know the Labour Party and the Conservative Party—and the Liberals—there will be dreadful rows over the Common Market at all the conferences.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: And the trade unions.
Mr. Marten: Yes, probably at union conferences as well. Listening to comments in the House today, sotto voce and not so sotto voce, clearly some of them are extremely hurtful to people. On this side of the House there are a number of Conservatives—I was glad to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party say "with integrity"—who are against entry, and, despite their long held views, despite their statements at the General Election, often written into their election addresses, and despite the statement by the present Prime Minister at the election—
"…in the Conservative Party we fully recognise that there are some members who hold an opposite point of view to the European policy, very often on grounds of principle, they take the view that they would not wish to become a member of the European Economic Community. Now of course these

1505
people would be absolutely free to vote in the way they so decide. This is always the case in our party"—
do not share the view of the Government but are now being invited or told to vote for the Common Market simply not to bring down the Government. That makes it a party political issue.
On the Labour side, the pro-Marketeers are told not to vote with the Conservatives. This has got the debate into the murky mire of party politics, when we have been asked by the Prime Minister to make it a great national debate. The Leader of the Liberal Party has said as much, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to deplore the sort of behaviour and arm-twisting that is going on throughout the country. The people need to be given a lead.
As the right hon. Member for Devon, North said, a free vote would greatly enhance the standing of Parliament on this great issue. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have a three-line Whip on for the final vote. Why cannot this matter get the full-hearted support of the British Parliament without it? Is not the case good enough? Is it so weak that it cannot be got through without a three-line Whip? I do not think the country wants us to have a three-line Whip. I hope that in the end the main party leaders will give the House a free vote. They would gain in respect, as would Parliament as a whole.
I am all in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee, because I believe that quite a lot of us would like to press a great deal more than we can on the Floor of the House and in Question and Answer. I shall be happy to serve on such a Committee if I am asked.
The economics of the case are arguable. I am one of those who have always believed that the country prospers when we maximise free trade, which is not what we are doing if we enter the Common Market. I believe that the White Paper makes out a very good case for maximising free trade—for a free trade area. But to those who say that if we do not go in we have had it, I suggest that next year we shall have a growth rate of 4½ per cent. That is greater than the forecast of the growth rate for the same period in the Common Market. Our exports have never been so high, sterling
1506
has never been so sound on the exchanges, and the balance of payments has never been so good. So who can turn round and say that if we do not go in we shall virtually perish or not prosper? It is nonsense to say that.
I recall that in 1961 some of my hon. Friends, who are in the House now, quite seriously said that if we did not join the Common Market by 1970 we should merely be an offshore island of the commercial status of Portugal. Were they right then? [HON. MEMBERS : "Yes."] Of course they were not. With such a strong balance of payments and high exports they were not right. Yet those are the people who are advising us to go in.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marten: I think it is probably better that I should not give way as we have been asked to compress our speeches. I will see my hon. Friend outside.
Mr. Gummer: If I manage to convince my hon. Friend, will he make another speech?
Mr. Marten: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will regard these interruptions as injury time.
I believe that the most important point is not anything to do with the White Paper, because it has not come into the negotiations, but something which follows from what the Leader of the Liberal Party said about his belief that Europe must be united and ultimately become one country. That has always been my main objection.
Mr. Thorpe: Not one country. I suggested a confederation, which is quite different.
Mr. Marten: A confederation. A United State of Europe. Whatever we call it, it has to have one Government. This is what we put to Willy Brandt, the Chancellor of Germany. When he was over here I asked him the direct question "At the end of the day, do you see that the Common Market must have one Government?", and his straight answer was "Yes". That is right. It is the only answer. If Europe is to speak with one voice, as we have been told time and again, it can only speak through one Parliament, and if Europe is to be an economic Power to rival America

1507
and Russia surely it can only be such an economic Power if it has one Government. That is the logic of the whole thing.
The Leader of the Liberal Party said that we shall have a strengthened European Parliament. The Anglo-Italian Declaration of 1969, which the Government have honoured, made that absolutely clear :
"Europe must be firmly based on democratic institutions, and the European Communities should be sustained by an elected Parliament, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome."
That is the way that it is obviously going.
The Prime Minister, speaking in the Guildhall on 29th July, said :
"I have always believed that once Britain is a member of the European Community the British will be the first to press for democratic and parliamentary control of the Community's operations."
Yes, indeed. Three people—Chancellor Brandt, the Prime Minister and Dr. Luns—say that we must get a European Parliament. I am saying that we shall also get a European Government.
I should like to refer to a publication called "Uniting Europe", which says :
"The processes of economic and political unity are the two sides of the same coin…. the Community is a political entity through its institutions, which are not only already taking political decisions, but which are also organised in such way as to form the basis for a system of government. This constitutional mechanism is still imperfect and incomplete, but it is federal in form."
That, to my mind, is the logical development.
We shall have a President of Europe to appoint the Ministers in the Government. We shall have a President, a democratically-elected Parliament, and obviously, a Government which will carry out the decisions of that Parliament, when matters have been debated and voted upon. Otherwise, why have a Parliament? A Government must have Ministers and civil servants. We have European civil servants in the Commission now. This is the logic of it all. Why go into the Community if we are not to have something like a federation? I admire those who want it and stand up and speak for it. I do not have the same respect for those who want to sweep it under the carpet.
1508
Finally, I turn to the question of sovereignty. People say that we shall not lose our sovereignty. Indeed, the White Paper says that there is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty. That depends on what is meant by "essential national sovereignty". But let us trot through the list of powers which we shall have to transfer from this Parliament to Europe. On signature, we transfer the right to make trade agreements with third countries. We transfer our policy over agriculture. By 1973 the value-added tax has to be harmonised at the European level, whatever it is. By 1980 we shall have monetary union and probably a common currency with a federal reserve bank in Europe.
We are told that we must go in for defence reasons ; in other words, to relieve the Americans of some of their burden, presumably, of conventional weapons in Europe. We shall have to take over part of that burden. If we do that the sensible thing is to integrate the European armies under one European commander. [Interruption.] We have N.A.T.O. aleady with the Americans in it. I do not see, if it is to be just N.A.T.O., how there will be any improvement in the security of Europe. Clearly, something more will happen.
Once we get a major matter like defence debated in a European Parliament with a European Government taking decisions, foreign affairs will be brought in and people will say that they want unity in foreign policy. It seems that all the major aspects of our life will at the end of the day be transferred to the European Parliament and the European Government. This is what the debate ought to be about. These matters ought to have been discussed in the negotiations so that the British people know where they are being led.
I am not an anti-European. I have a great love for Europe. I have tried in my way to do what I can to help Europe. Nor am I a Little Englander. I believe in the open seas, not in the limitations of Europe. I was brought up to think of the open seas, the Commonwealth, and so on, and alliance with America and Europe. But, to my mind, going into Europe cuts us off from what I call the basic philosophy of the open seas. I believe that Britain wants to

1509
remain free of total involvement in Europe. We should have the maximum co-operation, wherever possible, and offer all the help that we can if Europe wants it, and I am certainly not in favour of paying for it at the rate which is being asked. I believe that as a country we should keep our freedom of manoeuvre in the way that we have in the past. I believe that in that way we can best use our influence in the world for peace. I believe that is also the instinct of the British people.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Unlike the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) I believe that Britain's best interests lie in association with Europe.
During the last war I was a Deputy Regional Commissioner for South-East England, an area known as "Hell fire corner". More bombs, shells, flying bombs and rockets fell on that part of the country than any other. I resolved then that I would do everything I could to make sure that that never happened again. I believe that I am doing that by hoping to build a United Europe.
It was my privilege, also, to be associated with the late Ernie Bevin who brought into being the Brussels Treaty Organisation and the Marshall Plan. Without that co-operation in Europe none of us, in whatever part of Western Europe we live, could have ben as prosperous as we are today. That was a practical example of European united co-operation.
Let us remind ourselves that Europe is the cradle of our modern civilisation, our art, our literature, our scientific and technical knowledge, but we are losing out in science and technology because we do not have the large-scale organisation to back research and carry out the development that is required. The most dramatic thing that has ever happened is probably getting a man to the moon. Could that man have got to the moon without European skill and initiative? It was the Germans who invented the rocket, and the British, radar, but, because we did not have the technical, scientific and financial resources to back it, the United States and the Russians got there instead of Europeans. I believe that in many other fields of scientific and technical development
1510
we shall lose out unless we go into Europe.
It is known that I am first and foremost a very strong supporter of the Commonwealth. I confess that if the choice was between the Commonwealth and Europe I should choose the Commonwealth. It is because I think they are complementary that I want to go into Europe. I do not want to take up much of the time of the House, so I shall say what I want to say in shorthand.
The one thing that the Commonwealth wants today, above all else, is investment. At one time Britain could provide it. We cannot do so today, and I believe that if we are a member of this giant Common Market, with the scientific, technical and financial resources that will be available, such investment can take place. I know that somebody will say that the European countries will make sure that the investment goes not just to the Commonwealth but to the world as a whole. I accept that, but let us remind ourselves that the largest part of the developing world is the Commonwealth, and therefore the Commonwealth must benefit more than other parts of the world.
Sir Robin Turton: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition stated quite clearly that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member said that they would not enter the Common Market unless there were provision for New Zealand for a generation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? Why is he now taking a different view?
Mr. Bottomley: I agree with that. Apparently the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is responsible for the negotiations on behalf of the Government says the same thing, so I accept it, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not do so as well.
We are all nervous of what could happen in the world. We are living in an age in which if war came again nobody could tell what the consequences would be. Many people are saying that war is not likely in Europe. I believe that to be partly true, and I think that it will be more certain if Britain goes into the Common Market.
The reason for my saying that is that West Germany at the moment is ruled

1511
by the most liberal-minded leaders, and I believe that they have the strength to remain there as long as they get support from like-minded people. But what is going to happen if Britain does not go in is that Germany, by peaceful means, will do what she failed to do by two world wars, dominate and control the economic and social facilities in Europe, and once she has those, without Britain in, other wild elements could rise in Germany and, with the strength that she has, demand to take back Eastern Germany. I believe that to be the real danger, and it astonishes me when I hear some people who are sympathetic to so-called Left causes cannot see the danger of that happening.
I see in a united Europe the possibility of ending for ever the conflicts which have damaged us and the Continent for so long. Together, the countries of Western Europe will be able to play a part in the world's affairs which will match their knowledge, their skill and their resources. The workers of all the countries will be better able to combine to improve their standards of living and their working conditions, and to ensure that they get their rightful share of the results of a Common Market which will develop and prosper. A rise in general living standards will be achieved by abolishing outdated economic strictures, and by pooling resources we shall be able to build up technological progress and achieve greater efficiency.
But perhaps the most important aspect of the E.E.C. is that of being able to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is my belief that the struggle in the world today is not so much one of ideology as one between the haves and the have-nots. I believe that we must do everything posible to build up the standards of those people, and that can be done only by prosperous regions anxious to do it. Europe in fragmentation can play its part, and we heard today that some European countries are giving more aid than we are, but a combined Europe can make this great and substantial contribution and play no small part in making what I think is possible, a settlement of the greatest problem that confronts humanity today. The E.E.C. could play no small part in this great task of making one world.
1512
It is my hope that when the vote is finally taken this country will decide that its best interests lie in association with Europe.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: As I was fortunate enough to be able to take part in the debate in January, and to put my views in some detail on that occasion, I shall not take up more than a few moments of the time of the House on this occasion.
I said then that I had been a supporter of uniting Europe since the meeting with M. Spaak in June, 1941, and that I supported the negotiations with one reservation, that one hoped and believed that the terms which would be obtained would be reasonable. In my opinion the White Paper creates for the United Kingdom such a closer association with the Continent on reasonable terms. It could, and I believe will, be of benefit to all concerned, not only in this country, and in the present Community, but far beyond it in ways that have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). I have never believed that this should be, or was, a matter of party politics. In my experience, members of all parties have laboured since 1945 to bring about a closer association, on differing terms at different times, with the countries of the Continent.
I recall Ernest Bevin saying something about going to Victoria Station to buy a ticket to anywhere. We may not have achieved that, but we have made a substantial move towards it, and so I give the fullest support to the White Paper and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing the negotiations to the point that he has done. I salute, too, the work done by previous negotiators, the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and the Foreign Secretaries of both parties who have laboured in this cause. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition may have said this afternoon, I still salute those who have worked so hard for 10 years.
There are just two quick points that I should like to make. The first is on the Commonwealth. I happened to pick

1513
up a book in the Library on British colonial policy from 1945 to 1961. It reminded me of the continuous efforts made by members of both parties in the 10 years after 1945, and particularly the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon-Walker), the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton), to create a mutually supporting Commonwealth, economically, politically and from the point of view of defence. Our efforts fell short of our ideals, and yet today there remains a great deal of bilateral co-operation, although there is none that embraces all the 32 members of the Commonwealth. They all felt that it was in their long-term interests to develop in other directions. So we in the United Kingdom, step by step, came to accept this, although often it was to our detriment. I remember vividly in 1955 when the Australian Government decided to cut Imperial Preference from 15 per cent. to 7½ per cent. The United Kingdom accepted that, as it was in Australia's long-term interests.
Many economic links can be continued from within the enlarged Community, when the United Kingdom is stronger and better able to help by trade and aid our Commonwealth friends in the way described by the Leader of the Liberal Party.
I believe that looking back from 1980. or later, future generations will regard this White Paper as an upward-turning point in this country's history. I take a different view from that of some hon. Members who mistrust those on the Continent who have been working so hard in the last 10 years to bring this country into closer association with them. I refer particularly to Chancellor Brandt who, although differing from me on domestic politics, I believe is aiming at the same long-term interests as I have been aiming at. Even today some people, strangely, say that the Community is more inward-look than is the United Kingdom. Those who have been fortunate enough to attend the Council of Europe and the joint meetings with the European Parliament are often impressed by what we hear there, and by the interest shown in and the help given to the world beyond the Community. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) laughs.
1514
He may like to study what the Leader of the Liberal Party had to say about U.N.C.T.A.D. and what the Community has done.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I said "Democratically elected?".
Mr. Dodds-Parker: That may one day come about. In the meantime, it is a start. A lot of work has been done, whatever the hon. Member may think about it. It is very important that we should look at what is being done at Strasbourg and elsewhere. Those who have been there come back and find that this country is increasingly concerned with domestic issues. No doubt they are vitally important to the future of this country, but compared with the situation that existed 10 or 20 years ago we have far fewer responsibilities—and we also have far fewer debates in the House on matters outside the United Kingdom. Among members of the Council of Europe there is great interest in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, to which countries many continentals have gone in the 25 years since the end of the war. They have set up close links with the Continent. I am not a Little Englander—a term referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I believe that this country has as great a contribution to make today as at any time since 1775 and the loss of the American colonies.
Mr. Speaker, you were present in Westminister Hall last week at the meeting of the American Bar Association, which reminded many of us of one major contribution that has been made throughout history by the United Kingdom—the establishment of political institutions to maintain freedom under the law. Such institutions, flexible and developing, are created not only by Parliamentarians but by the Chair and Table Office—who have done so much work at Strasbourg—and by civil servants. I suggest that my hon. Friend should study some of these things. It does not just mean—as one or two Americans sitting next to me commented—that we are lucky not to have a written constitution. Many of us have learned a lot from the last 200 years. I have—although I have not been present all that time! I am certain that a great deal is to be learned from the experience of the American Constitution. This country can

1515
contribute to working out the next phase of future institutions, in which I believe parliamentary control must be established over the Executive.
The E.F.T.A. set-up is one to which this country has contributed a great deal. It is a different institution from that of the Commission, but I believe that that sort of comparison can help in the period ahead.
So I believe—I hope without arrogance—listening to my friends in all parties on the Continent—leaving aside the Communists—that our acceptance of the White Paper can give us a new lease of creative endeavour to bring about a stronger Community. In the first place it will consist of the 10 countries and others who may wish to join or associate with the Community as time goes on ; from there it can look in friendship towards the great European countries to the East, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East—from the Atlantic to the Urals—helping other countries—many in Africa are already associated with the Community—with far greater effectiveness than in any of the ways that we have tried in the last 25 years.
6.25 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: The Prime Minister's opening performance today was just part of the continuing attempt to brainwash people into accepting the idea that we must go into the Common Market—that there is no alternative, and that we shall be confounded unless we do. I do not take that point of view. I have never been a supporter of the idea of entering the Common Market on the set-up that we see before us.
When I first came into Parliament, for four years I was a member of the Council of Europe and had the opportunity of seeing other Parliamentarians from European countries at work. I realised in those days that the entrenched reaction among them was very strong. Basically the situation has not changed very much since then.
I know that Willy Brandt is in West Germany, with a tenuous majority, rather like the Labour Party had in 1964. He is there only by courtesy of the F.D.P.—and if a few more of that party rat,
1516
as some already have done, he is lost. It is interesting to see how many pro-Marketeers are praying in aid Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik as a reason for going into the Common Market. We never heard it from them before, but now it is said to be one of the compelling reasons why we should go in. I do not remember those who are now supporting the Ostpolitik supporting those of us in the 1964 Parliament who were urging recognition of the Oder-Neisse line and the G.D.R., and the giving up of all claims to what the C.D.U. in West Germany called "the lost territories"—which is what the Ostpolitik is all about. I am delighted that so many have been converted.
I am concerned about the way in which the Press is dealing with this debate, in Parliament and outside. There has been a disgraceful attempt at character assassination of the Leader of the Labour Party. The reports of his speech on Saturday were quite disgraceful, as have been the interviews that have taken place on the radio and television since then. Those people who talk about a free Press in Britain are way off the mark. Journalists on all but two newspapers have been told to support entry into the Common Market and to do their damnedest to see that people are bludgeoned into believing that there has been a shift of opinion, and that it is inevitable that we should go in. The Prime Minister's attempt to paint a marvellously rosy picture will boomerang on him. I do not believe that our people will believe his "pie-in-the-sky" promises. Why should they? They have been taken in before, and most of them understand that they are likely to be taken in again.
Many problems face us, but going into the Common Market will not help us to solve them. They will be solved only by ourselves, with our own resources, if we are prepared to change our attitude and our system. We have tried the old system for too long. Successive Governments have failed. Only by changing the system shall we be able to resolve the problems facing us today.
What the Chancellor did the other day—putting a little more "go" in place of the 13 months' "stop" since the last election—will not alter anything. We have had 13 years of that. "Stop-go"

1517
does not solve anything. Of course, once the Government imagine that they have public opinion on their side by a bit more relaxation in the economy, it will not be very long before we shall be going through the same process as we did in the last Government, the same process as we did in the years from 1951 to 1964 ; when the economy gets over-heated and Ministers have to start cutting back again. This does not make progress or deal with any of our problems.
The Prime Minister tells us how little it will cost us to get into the Common Market. I forget his basic figure—half a new penny a year or something fantastic like that—but the White Paper says that we shall see an increase in food prices over six years, during the transitional period and then onwards, of about 2½ per cent. per annum. Over that six-year period there will be at least a 16 per cent. increase in food prices due specifically to the increase because of our entry of the Common Market ; and that 16 per cent. will be over and above whatever inflation goes on from now to the end of the transitional period. It is not instead of it ; it is as well as it. It is also over and above the increases which we are now paying because of the change in the method of financing agriculture—from support costs to import levies. These increases must be taken into account when calculating the overall cost of food, the increase in the cost of living and, therefore, the cost of entry of the Common Market.
The Labour Government's White Paper forecast an increase in food prices of between 18 and 26 per cent. Sir John Winnifrith said in the precincts of the House yesterday that the increase in food prices will be about 50 per cent. He is a very experienced civil servant and there is no reason to believe that his estimate is worse than the Government's.
Hidden away in paragraph 43 of the White Paper, we are told, in effect, that, whatever the increase in the cost of living is likely to be, that will not be a reason for demanding higher wages :
"The influence on wage movements of the increase in the cost of living is not expected to have any significant effect on the costs of industry. …"
If that means anything at all, it means that the Government are expecting the working people of this country to continue
1518
to carry the additional burden of the rising cost of living attached to entry of the Common Market. It is not surprising, therefore, that almost all the trade unions have now come out against entry.
It looks rather at odds with the propaganda of the Marketeers, who say that, as soon as we go in, working people will find £7 a week more in their wage packets, and that all sorts of things will be much better—holidays and social security benefits, for instance, will all come out of the air, just like that. But, if what paragraph 43 says is so, it means a severe reduction in the standard of living of the people of this country.
This 2½ per cent. increase in the cost of food means in money terms that at least another £150 million a year will have to be found by the British housewife on our present imported food bill. Over six years, that is £900 million that the housewives will have to find. The White Paper had the grace to admit that butter, cheese and beef will become much more expensive, that many more food prices will rise. Of course, immediately after we sign the Treaty of Rome, these increases will have to be borne by our housewives.
In the lower wage rates, that means that, to feed a family where a housewife is now spending £8.60p, this will immediately be increased to a minimum of £10 a week. If the Government say that this will be done without having any effect on wages, they will be in for a very big surprise.
The other leg on which they base their case—that we shall not lose a significant amount of trade in other parts of the world—will also collapse. It means that if these increased costs are to be retrieved by increased wages and salaries, our industrial costs will become that much more expensive, that our exports will become less competitive in other markets outside the Six and that, therefore, our balance of trade will suffer a severe blow through increased imports and falling exports.
Of course, we are to have the value-added tax. The White Paper admits that we have to pay part of the proceeds of the value-added tax, that 1 per cent. has to be handed over to the Community. But it makes no attempt to assess the size of this contribution, the burden that

1519
it will be on the people of this country. But I dare say that it will be a minimum of at least £200 million a year added to additional food costs.
Then we come to what has been regarded as a part of the Chancellor of the Duchy's package deal—the contribution to the Common Market budget : the "entry fee". Hon. Members will remember that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman started his negotiations he suggested a figure of 3 per cent. So far as I know, when our application was made there was no suggestion at all of what our contribution would be. Therefore, for any hon. Member on this side to say that he would have accepted the deal is very curious.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested 3 per cent. the French said that it was a derisory offer and regarded it as an example of Anglo-Saxon humour. He was invited to think again, and he thought aloud on a television programme soon after his return from that visit to Brussels. He said casually that if the French did not like it we should have to make another offer. He has now agreed that the initial contribution shall be no less than 8·64 per cent.—almost three times what he originally offered—and we are supposed to regard this as a jolly good bargain. It is to rise to 19 per cent. by the fifth year, so the original French demand, which we were told was 20 or 21 per cent., appears to have won the day.
This is an open-ended commitment, because this contribution will rise each year as the gross national product of the Six expands. This could mean anything, from another £200 million a year to £450 million. The White Paper does not tell us : perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to clear this up.
So this means that, in additional financial burdens directly paid by the people of this country, we shall have to fork out between £550 million and £800 million per annum. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with that, I shall be pleased to hear his thesis.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Even if we paid 50 per cent. ultimately, does not the hon. Lady think that that must mean that our G.D.P.
1520
had risen massively and that the standard of living had been improved? Some taxpayers are even glad to pay more taxes, because it means that they are doing well.
Mrs. Short: I will come to the question of how we shall find the money if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way.
The other part of this package deal which is not described at all in the White Paper is that once we are in the Common Market, if we go in, we are committed irrevocably to the high prices which obtain because of the acceptance of the common agricultural policy. We can do nothing about that. Common agricultural prices have no relation whatever to world prices. They are simply designed to bolster up incompetent, inefficient and foolish agricultural systems and a whole lot of inefficient farmers.
It is obvious that if we join the E.E.C. we shall pay the high prices that result from these common agricultural policies. We shall not, therefore, be in a position to gain any benefit from falling world prices. I absolutely disagree with what the Prime Minister said on this score. All the signs are—leading economists are agreed on this—that food prices are likely to fall in the near future.
If we join we shall not be able to take advantage of that fall because we shall be prevented from buying from the Commonwealth. We shall lose Commonwealth preference, something which has been our mainstay for a century. Speaking in Bristol in 1966, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said :
"We have bought in the cheap Commonwealth market for 100 years".
If we have anything to do with it, we shall continue to buy that way because it has brought enormous benefit to the British people, in times of both peace and war.
The present position means, in effect, that the Government have swallowed the bitter pill of the loss of British sovereignty. However much they try to deny it, they have taken on board the whole of the C.A.P. We shall be told where to buy our food, we shall have to accept the method of financing the Community budget and, having been dictated to, we shall have to pay over 90 per cent.

1521
of levies on our imported food, over 90 per cent. of Customs on manufactured goods, plus a percentage of the proceeds from V.A.T.
Above all, we shall have to abide by the whole of the Treaty of Rome—its rules, regulations and directives, and 15,000 of them have been passed since the Treaty was signed in 1957. Let us have no more of the Prime Minister talking about the Dutch being no less Dutch and the French being no less French since it was signed. That is an utterly irrelevant argument.
One of the most appalling aspects of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and our entry into the E.E.C. will be the effect it will have not only on New Zealand and Australia, with which I will not deal because other hon. Members have done that, but on the under-developed countries, and particularly India. It is a sad reflection that no one has been willing to put forward the case for this enormous Continent that relies on us in great measure and looks to us for help, encouragement and succour.
At present we are doing only about £100 million worth of import trade with India, and that is disgraceful. If we enter the E.E.C. many of the products that India sends to us will be in direct conflict with goods produced in some of the Common Market countries or with natural products that the E.E.C. now gets from some of the countries associated with it.
I need only mention tobacco, coir matting, rugs and rice for hon. Members to understand that India's economy is likely to suffer considerably if we join the E.E.C. Representations to this effect have been made by the Government of India and by the Indian High Commission ever since Britain first made application to join. In other words, India is likely to suffer the same fate as the African States that now enjoy, if that is the correct verb to use, associate status with the Common Market.
Like them, India will be forced to become an exporter of primary products and there will be no interest in her indus-rial goods. If India is fated to provide cheap raw materials and cheap tropical fruit and nuts and so on, and if her industrial goods are to be kept out of the more sophisticated markets of the Six,
1522
then only one phrase can be used to describe that state of affairs—brutal colonialism.
It will be a blow to India. The African States are now suffering as a result of their associated status. Like them, India will be exploited by huge international monopolies such as those which are now exploiting them. She will receive lower prices for her natural products but have to pay ever-increasing prices for the industrial goods which she will import from the countries of the Six.
The President of Senegal recently said that his country, which is one of the associated States, was being slowly strangled. He pointed out that Senegal had increased her exports to the Six by 30 per cent. but, in return, was receiving only 3 per cent. more cash. When we appreciate the difficulties that some of these associated African States have to meet when exporting their basic raw materials to the Six, we begin to see just how difficult a situation they are facing. For example, in West Germany there is a 180 per cent. tax on green coffee coming from those countries. In Italy there is a 148 per cent. tax on cocoa coming from the associated African States.
To get those countries to accept association in the first place, the bribe of the so-called development fund was offered. This fund was supposed to be used to assist the economic growth of those countries. In the first five years, from 1958 to 1962, £200 million was allocated. Hon. Members will no doubt say that it was a generous allocation. From 1963 to 1967 £260 million was allocated. Those figures, spread over the 60 million people in the 18 associated States, work out at less than two-thirds of one old penny per person per day.
Hon. Members can imagine how much industrial or agricultural development can take place on that sort of money. For 1969–74 the amount allocated to the fund is £330 million, which I agree is a bit more, but £250 million of it is non-fund-able aid and the rest is in the form of loans on which interest will have to be paid.
The control of the use of this money is completely in the hands of the Six. Very little of it is allowed to be spent on developing new industries. The funds are, in fact, used to bolster up private enterprise and the influx of private

1523
western capital in those countries. No wonder the Observer said in June last :
"So far the experiences of the French-speaking African countries that have become associated States have been so disagreeable that, having begun as enthusiasts, they are now vociferously critical."
The same will be true of the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth, which will be pushed into precisely the same position. The guarantees which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought back are not worth the paper on which they are written because he is not in a position to commit the Six in four or five years' time. He does not know how the position will change, so that the so-called guarantees mean nothing.
I give the example of Surinam, a country which was part of the Dutch empire in the Far East, which thought it would do well out of the Sugar Agreement with the Six. Surinam was sending between 7,000 and 8,000 tons of sugar per annum to Holland. This continued up to 1968, when the Sugar Agreement with the Six was made. By 1970 the whip had been cracked over Holland and the five other members threatened legal action if she continued importing sugar from Surinam on the earlier basis. As a result, Surinam's sugar exports have been halved, with the figure currently running at 4,000 tons per annum. The position is to be renegotiated in 1974 when the Agreement is due for re-examination. This does not augur well for the sugar islands of the Caribbean.
Looking at the Commonwealth countries as a whole, the developed and underdeveloped parts—and this is part of the whole package deal—I cannot understand how many of my pro-Common Market friends on this side of the House can accept this state of affairs. It will mean that any opportunity we may have to regenerate the Commonwealth will be lost.
The hard-headed bureaucrats in Brussels do not give a damn for the economies of the Commonwealth countries. M. Pompidou has made it clear that the whole deal is to enable French farmers to find other markets in our country—and 55 million more people provide a useful market for the French farmers, particularly considering their present conditions.
Mr. Onslow Mr. Onslow rose——
Mrs. Short: I will not give way. I have given way once.
The Common Marketeers always sneer at Commonwealth trade. I remind the House that about 22 per cent. of our export trade is with the Commonwealth—£1,695 million out of a total of £8,000 million. That is not something to be cast lightly aside. It would take a great deal of making up in other markets. We sell £1,754 million worth of goods to the Common Market, which is only a little more than we sell to the Commonwealth, and £1,286 million to E.F.T.A.
Certainly, the rate of growth with Commonwealth countries has been slower during the last 10 years than our rate of growth with the Common Market, but it is only because of our flirtation with the Common Market that the rate of growth of our Commonwealth trade has declined. One cannot blame the countries of the Commonwealth for seeking other markets when they have seen that we have all our attention on the countries of the Common Market.
Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
Mrs. Short: No.
So then we come to the very interesting——
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. I am sorry to do it this way Mr. Speaker, but my purpose in intervening was to point out to the hon. Lady, as I now seek to point out to the House, that she has been speaking for 25 minutes. If that is compression, it is very difficult to recognise it.
Mr. Speaker: That has probably lengthened the proceedings. Perhaps, however, the hon. Lady will note what has been said.
Mrs. Short: I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker, but these pompous interruptions do not help.
Mr. Onslow: Twenty-five minutes.
Mrs. Short: If we may look now at the alleged dynamic effects on British industry and tie them in with the regional policies, which do not appear in the White Paper, I as a Member of Parliament for the West Midlands have been

1525
concerned for some time at the decline in West Midlands industry and the increase in unemployment there. As the Prime Minister knows, hardly a week goes by without our having indications in Wolverhampton and the West Midlands of firms which are closing down or sacking redundant workers. This situation has been going on for the last 13 or 14 months.
My opposition to the economic policies pursued by the Six was clinched when at the end of last summer one of the larger factories in my constituency closed down. It happened to be a branch of a large international firm with many branches in France, Italy and other parts of the Continent.
Mr. Percy Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Short: No.
I refer to the closure of the Courtaulds factory in my constituency, which put 1,300 workers out of work. At the time Courtaulds was doing this, it was exporting capital from this country to increase its capability in Northern France and Italy. It was, therefore, cutting down on jobs in my constituency and providing additional jobs in France and Italy. If that is the sort of thing that is to go on if we enter the Common Market, with the free movement of capital that will be allowed, it is clear that many firms will prefer to close down. Scotland and the North-East are depressed areas. The Midlands is rapidly becoming one. All the pressure and the push will be to invest either in the South-East of this country, as my right hon. Friend has said, or in France, Italy or Germany. What sort of prospect does this hold for people in this country?
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Mrs. Short: These are grounds for serious concern. They are problems that are not dealt with in the White Paper. They are problems that hon. Members, on this side at least, will need to examine carefully. They are problems that the people will certainly weigh in the balance when they decide whether to urge Members of Parliament to support entry into the Common Market.
6.54 p.m.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) will forgive me if I do not comment on many of the points she made, but I hope to compress my speech as you, Mr. Speaker, have requested.
First, I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the importance of our entry into the European Economic Community from the viewpoint of our joint strength and cooperation making a major contribution to peace as against the threat of war which has so frequently torn us asunder. I want particularly, however, to deal with the outlook and the dramatic changes which have taken place in Commonwealth trade.
To me, the saddest thing about so many of the criticisms I have heard about our entry is the outdated and outmoded pastoral vision which so many critics have today of our former dominions. I have had the opportunity of visiting Australia and New Zealand and I have endeavoured to export to Canada. Too many people still think of the Commonwealth, particularly the former dominions, in terms of the days of the Ottawa Agreements.
When those agreements were made in the 1930s, Australia and Canada were overwhelmingly agricultural countries. Today their joint agricultural output is not as large as the agricultural gross national product of the United Kingdom. They are now overwhelmingly successfully thrusting and industrially developing nations. As they develop, we are in many ways in competition with them.
In the pre-war days, their food and raw materials poured into this country substantially free of duty or with low commodity quotas. Those goods still pour in—80 per cent. of them from Canada and a vast percentage from Australia—free of duty or on very low quotas. Before the war our manufactured goods were bought in exchange and they entered those countries under marginal tariffs or on British preferential tariffs, which gave us substantial advantages in their markets—then, but not now. Australia and Canada have become highly and substantially industrialised. I rejoice in that industrialisation and in

1527
their growing strength, to which this country has contributed in very large measure by way of investments which have brought about the rapid industrial development, particularly of Australia.
United Kingdom companies opened subsidiaries in the Commonwealth. Those subsidiaries then export from their Commonwealth bases and challenge the markets in which the parent company in this country has hitherto operated. It is true that there may be a measure of profits and dividends, but the employment is local.
There is in my constituency a small industrial enclave which a former President of the Board of Trade told me had, for its size, one of the best export levels in this country. Because of the increasing tariffs imposed by our Commonwealth partners, Klinger's, Kolster-Brandes, Morphy-Richards and, from Kent, Wiggins Teape, because they could not ride the Commonwealth tariffs, have opened up subsidiaries in Australia. It would give little comfort to the 3,000 people who were declared redundant at Morphy-Richards some months ago to be told that they should take comfort because their company had opened a branch in New South Wales.
I am old-fashioned enough to think that my prime duty in this House is to consider to the best of my ability the future of my country and my constituents, because only if Britain is strong, only if we find new markets, as a result of which we can give aid to the 100 countries to which we give it, and as a result of which we can buy twice as much from Canada as she buys from us and we can buy twice as much from New Zealand as she buys from us—only if we find alternative markets as, rightly and justifiably, more avenues are closed to us by the increasing industrialisation of some of the Commonwealth countries, shall we be able to continue the aid and help which we all seek to give. This is not a priority exclusive to hon. Members opposite. I have been an Imperialist all my life, but I hope most sincerely that we will take note of the dramatic changes which have occurred and that we will face the new outlook and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put it, the hard trade
1528
bargaining of the new and great Commonwealth countries.
I want to draw attention to what is happening with Canadian tariffs, about which so many critics write, and about the advantages which we are alleged to have. By and large, there is a considerable percentage benefit between the Standard Canadian Tariffs and the British Preferential Tariff. But what very few people realise is that 97 nations have been given most-favoured nation rates by Canada and that they have whittled away, in some instances to nothing, our entire preference in Canada. Those 97 countries include the U.S.S.R., Japan, America, as one would expect as a next-door neighbour, all Latin America, all the E.E.C. and the U.A.R.
I mention three products affected by these tariffs. Our textile industry is our sixth largest exporting industry. Clothing, wearing apparel and the like, fashions, woollens and so on bear a general tariff of 55 per cent. and the British preferential tariff is 23 per cent. But 97 countries, including our competitors in Japan and Korea, another great textile country which is exporting a great deal, have had that 55 per cent. reduced to 25½ per cent., which makes a dramatic difference to our exports of textiles. With man-made fibres those 97 countries have a better deal than we have, because we have a 20 per cent. tariff, the Standard Tariff is 35 per cent., and the tariff for the M.F.N., Japan and the others, is 12½ per cent.
Let us come down to earth. I am not for a moment criticising the right of sovereign nations to do what they honestly believe to be in the best interests of their own people, their employment and their expanding industry. But our own people should wake up to the economic facts of life as they are in the flourishing countries of our competitors.
For those who are Scots and proud of that great export, whisky, I remind the House that only a few years ago there was a Standard Tariff of six dollars a gallon on whisky going into Canada, but for us it was only 50 cents, a wonderful tariff preference. Today, those among those 97 countries making what they presume to call whisky pay exactly the same tariff as do the Scottish distillers.
I could give 20 or 30 similar examples but I will not. I hope that it will be

1529
understood that many of us believe that, by going into the Common Market, we shall find new markets, expand our industries and create the greater employment opportunities which we require. From that strength we shall be in a better position to help other countries, and to continue to buy the surplus of goods which we buy overall from the Commonwealth, because otherwise we shall shrink in competition with the growing giants of the Commonwealth and be unable to play the part which all of us, from whatever party and whatever division there may be on this issue, sincerely hope we will play.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: This debate and the debate in the country seem to be conducted at two levels, and that creates a certain confusion. There is a surface level which is concerned with the terms of the White Paper, the terms which many of us have been discussing, and the deeper level of underlying feelings and attitudes to the whole subject of connection with Europe. We must separate them a little and take each in turn.
Part of the confusion arises from the tendency of many anti-Marketeers to stick on terms, to stick first on sugar and then, when that problem is solved, to stick on New Zealand and, when that seems less urgent, to turn to regional policy and, when that has been explained to protest about the level of Britain's financial contribution. The anti-Marketeers go from one issue to the other as each seems most likely to support their underlying desire to have nothing to do with Europe. That is why the argument about terms is slightly unreal. But I doubt whether any person who is genuinely a European and who wants to join Europe, in the sense of liking the whole idea of the Common Market and a more united Europe, would in any way be deflected by the terms as set out in the White Paper.
To take these points in turn, it seems that we have got terms for the sugar islands, and their Ministers have said so, which are about as much as could be expected. It is asked whether the guarantees are bankable. A colleague of mine asked Barclays D.C.O., which provides the greater part of credit finance in the sugar islands about this. He was told
1530
the bank was now advancing credit for the planting of cane over a seven-year transitional period because it was confident that the terms as read into the record and accepted by the E.E.C. countries were as good as a signed agreement. It seems to me that if the E.E.C. ignores this, they would break even a written guarantee and we cannot proceed on that assumption. So in that sense the terms are bankable in the view of the major credit supplier to the sugar islands. This issue could not, I believe, be regarded as a major difficulty by someone who genuinely wanted to join.
Much has been said about New Zealand. I quote the words of Sir Keith Holyoake :
"Any impartial person would agree that this is a major achievement and one which is very satisfactory to New Zealand."
That is what was said about the terms by the New Zealand Prime Minister. I am not surprised that the Leader of the New Zealand Opposition objects. If he had said that he accepted the terms, I should have been as surprised as if the Leader of the Opposition here agreed with the Government on a major political issue. I am not at all surprised by Mr. Kirk's view, but it is more reassuring when it is the Leader of the Government who accepts the terms.
Mr. Rippon: It was Mr. Marshall who said that.
Mr. Mackintosh: I apologise ; it was the Deputy Prime Minister who made that remark. When asked by Mr. Kirk what prompted him to accept the terms, Sir Keith Holyoake said :
"Because this is easily the best possible deal we could get."
As I understand it, Britain will now be able in future to use its routine veto to block any proposals to diminish the amount of milk products which we import from New Zealand. We shall be able to veto any attempt to change it. This is the answer to the questions about the length of the transitional period.
I do not see why there is an objection to the fact that there is to be a review in three years. I should have been surprised if there had not been. There was a butter mountain in Europe a year ago and now there is a world butter scarcity. Prices have shot up and the situation is rapidly altering. It is in the interests of

1531
the producer countries that the position is reviewed. So again, it seems to me that if someone wants to enter Europe, the New Zealand terms would not constitute a genuine stumbling block.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is said to be "The best possible deal we can get". That is precisely the argument used by every shop steward and trade union negotiator who has been defeated in negotiations.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am not impressed by that point. I am looking at the actual merits of the terms. I wonder how many shop stewards come back with an 80 per cent. guarantee which gives the same export earnings to New Zealand over the five years as are earned now. I am looking at the merits and my hon. Friend is being too suspicious.
I now turn to the budgetary contribution. The point here is that I cannot see how anyone could regard this as an obstacle in itself if we have confidence in any element of the future of this country. The total balance of payments costs, even by the most frightening estimates which some people have given, is the equivalent of ½ of 1 per cent. of the growth rate in this country.
I cannot believe that by going in we will not get half of 1 per cent. more out of the British economy. I do not accept Professor Kaldor's view that British productive capacity is bound to diminish 1 per cent. per annum over the foreseeable future. This will require, according to him, a persistent series of devaluations. If that were the case, if Professor Kaldor were right, we would be finished, inside or outside the Market. The only thing I hope is that when we join the Common Market Professor Kaldor will be good enough to advise some of the countries of the Common Market about their economic prospects, and, if so, it will be the best possible thing for the British competitive position.
I turn to the fisheries position. I have a constituency with an inshore fishing fleet and again I believe this to be an entirely negotiable situation. The position over fisheries has to be clear. With the inshore fishing fleet, 70 per cent. of its catch is outside the 12 miles. Our problem is to safeguard the six to 12-mile area, where most E.E.C. countries
1532
already have traditional fishing rights. What we want to see is that they do not have increased rights in this area as compared with the present position.
Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Gentleman said that 70 per cent. of the inshore fishing fleet fishing was outside the area. I was out in the North Sea for two days last week with the fishery protection patrol and I was told by the British fishermen that 90 per cent. of their catch is inside the limit.
Mr. Mackintosh: This is the herring catch, which is confined in many cases to the inshore waters. I am talking about the total catch, demersal, pelagic and the lot, of which 70 per cent. is outside the limit. [Interruption.] Please excuse the technical phrases but I wish to show that I too have been out occasionally in a fishing boat. I cannot see, if one shifts round from sugar to New Zealand, to the budget, and to fisheries, that one comes to any point in the terms which are sufficient to make anyone who wants this type of larger economic and co-operative unity in Europe shy away.
So why do so many hon. Members, and I respect their views, object so deeply to the terms or to the whole prospect? There are two underlying reasons. One of them, to which hon. Members on this side of the House are ready to admit is the fear that somehow joining the Market is deeply inimical to the long-term philosophy and policy of the Labour Party. That is a genuine and deeply-held fear.
The other fear, which people are less willing to admit, is a general dislike and suspicion of foreigners.
Mrs. Renée Short: Oh!
Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Lady denies this, as I knew she would.
Mrs. Short: Too silly for words.
Mr. Mackintosh: I should like to give some examples. Take the way in which hon. Members and people outside this House have talked about the common agricultural policy. I heard someone on Saturday describe it as a criminal agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) once referred to it as an obscenity.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I will say it again.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have heard other people talk about the whole object of this policy, as the hon. Lady said, being to subsidise inefficient French——
Mrs. Renée Short: Farmers——
Mr. Mackintosh:—peasants is the usual phrase. Let me put it to the hon. Lady that the main object of the common agricultural policy is to keep floating 3 million marginal farmers who operate in extremely difficult, arid land conditions in the Massif Centrale, Sicily, Sardinia, Brittany and Bavaria. They are farmers with problems identical to those experienced by the crofters in the Highlands or the small farmers in North Wales. They are people who are inefficient only in the sense that their land is poor or their units are too small. The way in which the word "inefficient" is used, suggests that somehow they are idle, slovenly, miserable people.
I was engaged in a debate with one of my colleagues, who chose to use this phrase about the inefficient French peasants. I made the point about inefficiency and pointed out that it was not a crime to be born French and after all we had people working the same type of peasant-holding in this country. He leapt up and said. "No one in Britain is a peasant." This is the point I find so surprising.
Take the question of prejudice. Hon. Members are full of morality and I like to be full of morality too. Where is the morality in someone saying to the British negotiator, "Will you go to Brussels and insist that British marginal hill farmers get special treatment, that we are allowed to continue our production grants and subsidies, to keep our marginal, small agricultural producers floating, and at the same time will you get changes in the Common Market agricultural policy so as to ditch precisely the same group of people in Europe?"
Mr. R. T. Paget: Would it not be all right if we said, "May we help our marginal fanners and cannot the French help theirs."?
Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It is true that the Common Market agricultural policy is designed to keep marginal European
1534
farmers going, and we have fewer marginal farmers, due to a shocking policy in the nineteenth century by which we destroyed our countryside and so depopulated the land—not a thing of which we ned to be very produd. We did this, the European countries did not, and they have more of these marginal farms. But I have no objection, for some period of time during and after the transitional period to helping these people. I have no objection partly because of the general old-fashioned Socialist principle that if we join a large unit there should be no objection to sharing the burden. Secondly, on this point, it has to be remembered that this is, for practical purposes, a diminishing problem. The average age of these marginal farmers is 57. They are not pouring off the land, they are simply dying and not being replaced. On the Continent, as here, industrial wages are 30 per cent. higher than agricultural wages, and boys and girls will not stay on the land.
At the present rate of decline on these marginal farms, the European agricultural structure will not be much different from ours by 1980. What we are asked to do is to contribute to a farming policy which lets these elderly, weak, defenceless people down lightly in their last years. That is what it amounts to. What is the great merit of people, inside and outside the House, shouting the odds that this is criminal, obscene, immoral and disgusting?
Mrs. Renée Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?
An Hon. Member: The hon. Lady did not.
Mrs. Short: I did. Does my hon. Friend not see something immoral in the over-production of enormous quantities of fruit and vegetables, quite apart from butter, which are then left to rot because the prices are so high that housewives cannot afford to buy them?
Mr. Mackintosh: No, I do not. Here again the hon. Lady misunderstands the policy. The point is that the E.E.C. is working a sufficiency system. It produces almost enough for the E.E.C. countries to eat—altogether. When there are such vast quantities involved a slight over- or under-calculation is not difficult. The margins of surplus are small in relation to the total production. The hon. Lady

1535
must realise that the butter mountain of last year has disappeared this year. There is no surplus in grain this year, there is a slight scarcity.
We must remember that we in our country subsidise inefficient industries other than agriculture. For example, at times we have had to stockpile coal. It does not look so bad because it does not have to be destroyed and it can be used up at a time of shortage. That is the same situation. I cannot see that this has the horrible overtones that the hon. Lady suggests.
Mr. Richard Body: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that 90 per cent. of F.E.O.G.A. indirectly or directly goes on subsidising exports?
Mr. Mackintosh: No, this is quite untrue. The vast majority has gone on support buying.
A more serious point about the Common Market agricultural policy is that while it keeps the marginal farmers floating and prevents them from reaching utter destitution, it also helps the rich farmers proportionately more. The difficulty is that the same is true of our own guaranteed price system. No one has as yet devised a system of agricultural support which, while keeping marginal farmers going, does not help the rich farmers. What we must do if we join the Common Market is so to develop the policy that prices are used as a method for regulating production while the social aspects of the policy are maintained by income guarantees.
I should add that I have no basic objection to an element of subsidy. We in the Labour Party set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We have done everything possible to subsidise life in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and in the rural areas because we believe that there is value in rural life. A highly developed rich country should think about this matter. I agree with the Bavarian Minister of Agriculture, with whom I spoke recently, who said, "We shall always want an element of subsidy. What will it be like to visit the alpine valleys if not a person lives there?" The countryside of Europe, largely unspoiled compared with our spoiled, over-industrialised countryside, is a European heritage
1536
and asset which, in a combined Europe, we should be prepared to do something to support and maintain.
I have talked about the dislike of foreigners. I hope that I have illustrated to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East how people are not prepared to think about European policies. If something happens in India or Uganda, for example, we lean over backwards to think about it and we try to understand it. How different is the attitude to the common agricultural policy. We use abusive words about it instead of trying to understand, alter and adapt it.
I now wish to refer to the deep fear in my party that the objects of the Common Market are inimical to the Labour Party's philosophy and its desire for a classless, egalitarian society in Britain. There are two confusions about this matter. The first concerns the phrase "Common Market". The word "market" among my colleagues seems to convey the idea of despicable people buying and selling, bartering and haggling. But, in practice, the point about the Market is that it gives consumer sovereignty and enables the purchaser to look for the cheapest products wherever he can find them. This is an estimable and admirable fact. It does not detract in any way from one's control over production or the distribution of income.
I wished to say something about regional policy, but my time is running out. I end with a point which concerns the cheers which I heard on Saturday by members of my party when it was said, "It is good for the C.B.I. to go into Europe. They want to go in because they believe that British industry will expand. But if it is good for them, it is bad for us." A more ludicrous heap of nonsense I have never heard in my life. Is it possible to have profits without factories, without employment or without production? It is out of production that we get the goods which our people need. It is out of taxed profits and incomes that we build schools, roads and houses.
I do not know what many of my hon. Friends want as their long-term objective for our people, but I want a higher standard of living for them. My constituency is not in an affluent area. There are, for instance, still many old ladies in my constituency whose hands are

1537
doubled up with rheumatism and arthritis. If they had had dish-washing machines and clothes-washing machines it need never have happened. It need not now happen to their daughters. We can spread the benefit of these and other consumer durables but only with a prosperous industry. The idea that if industry is in difficulties, whether private or nationalised, it will do good to the people I represent is absolute rubbish.
I am fortified by the fact that industrialists, technocrats, managers of industry, both public and private, think that they will do better in Europe. I hope that by entry we shall achieve the internationalism which might even teach my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East to be a little more kind about Europeans. We might achieve the sort of internationalism which teaches people to understand what is going on across the Channel. We might get, and I think that we would, the greater, extra prosperity which would allow us to achieve a higher standard of living and a greater degree of comfort for the hardworking people of this country, which is one of my main objectives in politics.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has spoken most eloquently about the great panacea that far too many industrialists are aiming at as the solution which will put our nation right. I believe that joining the Common Market will not of itself get this nation out of its present problems. The need is for greater efficiency, harder work and greater willingness to continue work.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) mentioned that 3,000 jobs in her constituency had vanished to a Cour-taulds factory in Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) mentioned the moves away from her constituency. I believe that many industrialists move their work to other countries because they are dissatisfied with the quality of workmanship that they are getting here. Joining Europe will not put this right. Nor is the move towards increased size of itself necessarily a good point. It is noticeable that there will be far more civil servants, not only at Brussels
1538
but in the member nations, if we join.
Let us consider the effects of the common agricultural policy. It will be necessary to have more inspectors for grading of fruit and vegetables. Officials are necessary to operate the common agricultural policy. O.N.I.C. and the German counterpart have between them 1,500 public servants employed in France and Germany, whereas our cereals authority has, I believe, 50 employees. This is a very big difference. Therefore, if we join, more officials will be needed. The value-added tax involves the employment of a great many new officials. There will be large increases in the public service.
At the last General Election the Prime Minister gave a clear pledge that if the Conservative Party were elected it would, to use his phrase, get the Government off the backs of the people. If we join, not only will more officials be employed here, but there will be extra officials in Brussels. I hope that if we join our negotiating team will look most closely at the Government's previous stand on reducing officialdom.
Mr. John E. B. Hill Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South) rose——
Mr. Wells: No. We have been asked to get on and I want to be brief.
We believe in a parliamentary democracy. But the Labour Government, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, have in recent years done more than has ever been done before to weaken this Parliament. The performance of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was long-winded and tedious and amounted to almost nothing but a series of quotes from his previous utterances, which were welcomed or not welcomed depending on how one looked at them. One of my great fears if we join the Common Market is that our parliamentary system will be devalued. The Parliaments of Western Europe are not the same sorts of institutions as ours. The officials are far more numerous. Much greater authority is given to officials. This seems to me a move away from our fundamental system.
The Prime Minister, in answering interventions today, said that we were in no position to deal with the negotiations of the E.F.T.A. countries ; they must negotiate themselves. I wish to make

1539
a constituency point. The paper-making industry is the most important in my constituency. Paper makers there are extremely worried about the present state of their industry due to what they allege to be the unfair competition of E.F.T.A.
Mr. David Crouch Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury) indicated dissent.
Mr. Wells: It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. This is what the paper makers tell us, and we must believe our constituents, to the best of our ability.
I hope that the Minister, when he deals with the E.F.T.A. position, will indicate where the paper industry stands, because this matter affects the whole of Kent, and particularly the North Kent coast. Hon. Members opposite who have spoken about development districts and the difficulties in their constituencies must bear in mind that the South-East is not a development district and could never be one. We, too, have our employment problems, and we must endeavour to solve them, but we look to the Government to give us a lead.
Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend has been talking about the paper industry. He may be interested to know that I had a letter only this morning from a large paper firm in my own constituency telling me that if this country were to join the Common Market that firm would prosper very much.
Mr. Wells: I am afraid that my hon. Friend cannot have listened to what I said. I was saying, or I sought to say, that we wanted some clarification of the E.F.T.A. position if we go into the Common Market, because if the E.F.T.A. people are to continue to get the full advantages which they are now getting our paper-making industry will continue to suffer as it is now. I honestly cannot imagine that there is a large paper mill in my hon. Friend's constituency. He may have there a business which employs a few hundreds of workers, but I was speaking of mills employing 5,000 and 6,000 people. In constituencies such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) there are paper-making businesses employing large numbers of people.
1540
However, I want to turn away from this to horticulture, which, I am sure, will warm the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). We must look for further assurances in the realms of horticulture. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian did a very good service to the House when he pointed out that French peasants are perfectly reasonable people who are producing crops to the best of their ability in very difficult surroundings which are due to no fault of theirs, and that they are a declining number. He made good points on behalf of those people, the French peasants—and I use the word honourably, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian did. If we are to support them in their decline, in their rundown, and the hon. Member spoke of their average age as 53–—
Mr. Mackintosh: Fifty-seven.
Mr. Wells: Yes. If the average age of those peasants is 57, then I believe that the problem will not be with us for very many years, but if we are to support them I hope the Government will look truly sympathetically at the smaller British horticulturist who through lack of capital and similar problems cannot expand, who, perhaps, in the past has not had the desire to expand, but who is now caught by a grave dilemma and sees himself unable to buy more land and facing declining prices.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made an intervention saying that prices were too high ; she said fruit and vegetables were dumped because prices were too high. How wrong she is. Fruit and vegetables are dumped because of the structural surplus which there is in the European Community, and till the structural surplus is done away with our fruit growers have very little prospect of getting fair prices. I hope that our negotiating team will take very serious note indeed of the need to get rid of the structural surpluses which exist in Europe, particularly of apples and pears. Field vegetable crops have little to fear if we go in, but some of our glasshouse growers will face a very real problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture have at various times over the

1541
past four years given a series of pledges that this party of ours will compensate agriculturists and particularly horticulturists who find that they cannot compete on fair terms if we go in. I hope that the pledge will be reiterated. One realises that it is very difficult for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy to give such a pledge when he is negotiating, but at least some assurance should be given to this House that if we are to compensate the growers of Europe we should at least compensate the growers of our own country if we are to give them a good passage in the future.
A very important section of our horticulturists is the bulb section. We are producing in this country more bulbs already than are produced in Holland. I am told by one of my hon. Friends that we are producing more in Holland. Lincolnshire, than are produced in Holland, Europe. It is of great importance to this country that it should be heard in the formulation of any future bulb regulations, because the regulations which have been produced to date are not entirely satisfactory to us, and we hope that our Government will stand firm and not sign as accepting the existing regulations.
Grubbing-up grants offered so far for top fruit are acceptable enough, but we want to be assured this will not be the only compensation forthcoming. We want to know that the small traditional growers and the glasshouse growers and other sectors who may face difficulties are properly looked after.
Because of my horticultural interests, over the past few years I have got to know the Channel Islands fairly well, and I am very perturbed about the phraseology of paragraph 124 of the White Paper. While one accepts that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing his best to meet the desire of the Channel Islands negotiators, I very much dislike the word "might" which appears in paragraph 124, which states :
"We have proposed that a form of association under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome might be an appropriate way of dealing with the question."
My right hon. Friend will recollect that Article 238 says that unanimous agreement is required by all the member countries before such associated membership can be offered, and I would like to know whether my right hon. Friend has met
1542
yet any real signs whether Article 238 will be acceptable to all member countries at the moment.
Mr. Rippon: Perhaps I might answer that straight away. We are in negotiation about this. I cannot say more at the moment than that this might be a reasonable solution. All the matters of agreement in the negotiations have been unanimous.
Mr. Wells: I am very glad to hear that, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend's words will give great comfort to many people in the Channel Islands who have been experiencing great anxiety in recent weeks.
The horticultural industry depends on a great deal of good faith in these promises which have been given by the Prime Minister and others, and those of us who represent horiticultural constituencies must pin our faith on the good faith, the good intent and the good will of the leader of our party, and we trust that our confidence in him will not be misplaced.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I am glad the debate has opened without excessive rancour. The British people expect a searching scrutiny of the White Paper and a debate which is not degraded by personal abuse. By common consent, the outcome of the debate on which we are now embarked will affect almost every aspect and detail of the lives of every man, woman and child in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothhian (Mr. Mackintosh) said my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) dislikes foreigners. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, is well able to look after herself, but I am sure she would reply that she does not restrict her liking for foreigners to those who live on our doorstep.
I accept the honour of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the argument. It is known that there is a very deep division between my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and myself. In the debate in May 1967 I said I would not support the application. I did not support the application. Moreover, it was widely

1543
noticed during the General Election that I was a strong opponent of British entry to the Common Market on any terms likely to be negotiated. Like other hon. and right hon. Members, I feel strongly that we should all say with complete frankness exactly what we think on this great issue.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for drawing attention to the importance of my Motion calling for a Select Committee on the White Paper. The Motion says :
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the evidence upon which were founded the conclusions in the White Paper, United Kingdom and the European Communities ; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time, that the Committee have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House ; and that it be an instruction to the Committee to report before the House is called upon to give its approval of the White Paper.
That is a modest request for us to have made to the Prime Minister, right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and their colleagues, and it will be seen that the Motion has the support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Many of us regard the White Paper as propagandist, disingenuous, crudely selective, at times emotional, tendentious and, above all, shifty and evasive. The shorter version is an even cruder attempt to persuade the people of this country of the wisdom of a deeply controversial policy. Whatever view is taken of the Common Market, I hope it will be agreed that it is utterly wrong that public money should be used to distribute what is a propagandist rather than a factual statement. It is well known that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have plans for hiving off part of the activities of our great public corporations. I am sure I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends when I say that this propaganda should be hived off from the Post Office at the earliest date.
The best text on this subject is a study of the information services published in 1965 by the Institute of Public Administration under the title "The Government Explains". This book, which was prepared by an all-party group of experts and included civil servants, stands as an authoritative text on this subject and the
1544
most reliable guide to legitimate practice. One of the key passages reads :
"Paid-for publicity material should surely be impartial. Facts about matters under political discussion can be given to the Press when they ask for it, but public money is not spent on producing paid publicity about a controversial subject still under consideration. There is a difference between spending only staff time on answering questions or supplying information for the Press and broadcasting and a deliberate spending of public moneys to produce an advertisement or book or pamphlet to advocate or even explain Government proposals. Comment in such publications should be conspicuous by its absence and arguments should be left to Parliament and the Press. Surely the information services could leave it to the Opposition to establish that there are two sides to a question."
The shorter version of the White Paper is a document which, by the test of the rule I have quoted, should not have been distributed at public expense. We should all agree now that the spending of public money on distributing that document is a wrongful expenditure, especially since it is public expenditure which has not been authorised by Parliament.
I am not alone in saying that the White Paper is crudely selective. Even the Daily Telegraph has condemned its "skeletal economic arithmetic". The Guardian accuses the Government of distributing half truths. I would remind the House that half truths are also half lies. Miss Hella Pick of The Guardian had this to say :
"The unanswered questions range far and wide. The Government has not attempted to calculate the cost of membership beyond the first five years. It carefully avoids any attempt to measure the effect of membership on Britain's trade. It does not categorically assert that national income will grow as a consequence of membership."
My assessment of the White Paper is that it offers few, if any, of the vital safeguards which were promised. The Government have already accepted the entire Rome Treaty, the multifarious rules and regulations made under it, the Common Market's dear food policy and a budget payment falling heavily and unfairly on Britain. No lasting safeguards have been obtained for Commonwealth countries, whether rich or poor. It is an extremely serious matter that the White Paper makes no attempt to estimate the total balance of payments cost of entry. It would be one of the first tasks of the Select Committee I have proposed to establish a figure for the balance of payments cost of entry.

1545
Many of us on this side of the House have said in previous debates how concerned we are about the heavy increase in food prices that will inevitably follow British entry to the Common Market. It is not just the common agricultural policy which threatens the standard of living of our working people. The value-added tax may be an even more serious threat. That form of indirect taxation will certainly be applied to necessities if we enter the Common Market. The White Paper says that food prices will increase but not industrial costs. If that is so, the standard of living of our working people will fall. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) will agree that none of us on this side could accept a sharp rise in food prices without compensating increases in wages, salaries and social payments.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has made light of the inevitable increases in food prices. To elderly people, widows, disabled people and others on fixed incomes, the cost of food is a deadly serious matter, for people on fixed incomes, especially those on lower fixed incomes, spend a much higher proportion of their income on food than does the average wage earner. We on this side take an extremely anxious view of the anticipated increase in food prices. Nor are we certain that the Government have told the whole truth on this matter.
There are many of us who feel that the increase in food prices will be at least 20 per cent. That increase, combined with the effect of a value-added tax, would be a very deeply serious factor for millions of working people of this country. We should also remind ourselves that the increase in food prices would be an unnecessary increase. For more than a century, we have been supplied by the most efficient producers of food in the world. Now we are asked to opt for high-cost producers. It is my view that this will do great damage to many countries which have been the traditional friends of this country in good times and bad.
I do not divide the issue only into political questions and economic questions. Certainly there are important political and economic questions, but there are also important moral questions which
1546
all of us must face before we make our decision later this year. It would be a breach of honour to say to New Zealand that she is to be denied any lasting guarantees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) infers from the White Paper that there is a guarantee to New Zealand that her interests will be protected for a generation. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will want to address himself to that point. For my part, I can see no guarantee that will protect New Zealand for anything like a generation.
There are many important points of special concern in the area I represent in this House. There has been much talk recently of controlling multi-national companies. It has been argued that if we enter the Common Market we shall have more control of these companies. I do not accept that. Indeed, I would emphasise that we shall have less control over some of our most important industries in this country. A document from the Community says :
"… the Community delegation considers that the power held by the British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (in whose province the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board fall) to give general directives to these bodies under the terms of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946 and of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967 is inconsistent with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty."
That is not a statement we on this side of the House can accept. The power of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House would be diminished were we to accept that expert definition of the E.C.S.C. Treaty.
There are also important questions of regional policy which affect the Northwest of England, just as they affect the North-East, Scotland, Wales and the South-West. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will accept that far too little is said in the White Paper about regional policy. He has incurred the suspicions of many Members of the House because of the paucity of official information on this very important matter.
There is also the important question of defence. Far too little has been said

1547
so far in the debate about the arrangements which may ensue in the field of defence from our adherence to the Treaty of Rome. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister passionately believes that there should be an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. In his Godkin lecture, delivered at Harvard University, he strongly emphasised that he wants to see Anglo-French nuclear sharing. On this side of the House there is no support whatever for Anglo-French nuclear sharing. I have pointed out elsewhere that, for us to accept the Prime Minister's thesis, would be to breach the non-proliferation treaty and would have other effects which would be very unfortunate for the reputation of this country. That is one reason why very few of us on this side can accept the Prime Minister's leadership on this issue. What is more, defence policy is an extremely important political issue.
Notwithstanding all that has been said about the phrase aura à coeur, the Brussels arrangement on sugar could be deeply unfortunate for many of the poorest countries in the Commonwealth. I refer to countries like Fiji, Mauritius, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Swaziland. It was Joseph Conrad who said of the people of Mauritius that :
"Sugar is their daily bread."
I am not satisfied that the people of Mauritius have bankable assurances under the arrangement made in Brussels.
There is very deep concern in the countries I have mentioned about the vagueness of the Brussels arrangement. Its unilateralism has caused widespread concern in the developing Commonwealth countries. But I am also concerned about the position of Queensland, Australia. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave an important pledge in a speech he made in Canberra on 16th September, 1970. I was interested to see a statement on that speech by that distinguished Australian, Sir John Dunlop, who said recently :
"The White Paper, and enquiries in Europe, show that Mr. Rippon's promise has not been kept. Nor has the British Government's formal request to the Six been met. All the evidence suggests that in fact no serious effort was made by Britain to obtain what it initially sought."
1548
That is the view of many representative people in Australia. It is, of course, a mistake to think that Australians are not concerned about the poorer countries of the Commonwealth. In fact, they know that if their sugar goes on the world market, this would have a most unfortunate effect on the world price of sugar. This in turn would mean great suffering for many of the poorer Commonwealth countries.
We talk a great deal both in this House and outside about participatory democracy. Yet there are many leading participants in this debate whose message to the British people is that they are going into the Common Market whether they like it or not and whether they agree or disagree. That is a profoundly serious statement for pro-Marketeers to have made. I also resent their defeatism. Their attitude seems to be summed up in the slogan : Europe or bust. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister may not have said that, but that is how his approach is interpreted by wide sections of public opinion and by many Conservative newspapers.
Let us have an end of defeatism. Our responsibilities as representatives of the British people require more of us than the abject defeatism of which we have already heard far too much in the debate. There will be a massive Government campaign during the summer to convert public opinion.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: At taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Morris: At taxpayers' expense. The Government are determined to convert public opinion. They are as frenetic in their enthusiasm to convert public opinion as the Chinese Christian who decided to baptise his troops with a hosepipe. I warn the Prime Minister and his colleagues that the British people are in no mood to be hosepiped on this issue. There are those of us who will endeavour to see that the debate is evenly balanced. The White Paper contains a great deal of propaganda. Throughout the debate, we shall be endeavouring to ensure that the British people have the full facts on this issue. That is our task in the weeks and months ahead.
8.1 p.m.
Sir Robert Cary: I am aware that about 200 Members wish to participate in the debate, and I shall act accordingly.
I have the privilege to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). We share the same area of southern Manchester and have much the same electorate. Towards the end, his speech contained some rather gross exaggerations of accusation against those who he considers wish merely to rush into the Common Market whether the terms are good, bad or indifferent. That is not the mood which propels many Members on both sides of the House who look at the White Paper seriously. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one sentiment. This is a matter of deep concern not only to the people of our area but also to every individual in the country. This matter is something more than tariffs and taxes. It runs far deeper than that.
In the years I have known the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, he has always been absolutely consistent in his attitude about the Common Market. Originally he did not want to join, and he is no closer to joining now. In the end, whatever the terms, he would be opposed.
I do not know whether that would apply to his right hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), a former Minister of Agriculture and Leader of the House. But the hon. Member for Wythenshawe has been absolutely honourable and consistent in his views.
From the beginning, ten years ago, I have always been a little sceptical about entering the Common Market. I have never been happy with the thought of Great Britain becoming part of a great constellation of countries under the terms of a treaty of which it was not an architect. Therefore, over the last ten years, I accepted the "No" from General de Gaulle against our entry with some degree of confidence, as much as, in another context and on an earlier occasion, I welcomed something that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House, that the Common Market was a "dead duck". I hope I do not misquote him.
Mr. Harold Lever: A lame duck, perhaps.
Sir R. Cary: A lame duck. There is some degree of difference.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): It was a dead duck, but only for a time.
Sir R. Cary: That is an adequate clarification. However, this is a matter that strikes deeply, beyond matters of trade, tariffs and taxes. There is something deep and fundamental in taking Britain into another constellation of countries under a treaty many parts of which it would like now to revise. This has led me to spend much of the past few years in what might be called sitting on the fence about the Common Market. With my constituents I have neither been pro nor anti on the issue. The debate gives me an opportunity to come off the fence. In spite of my original fears and objections, having read and digested the White Paper, I shall support entry on the terms offered.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and a few others present will remember that able and distinguished Parliamentarian the late Lord Crook-shank, who was Leader of the House from 1951 until 1955. He was a deeply honourable and sincere man who loved Parliament and would do anything to protect it. That it should be devalued or invaded by taking it elsewhere was never in his thoughts. I hope that I am not betraying a trust to him when I say that when it was proposed that three Malta Members should be brought here to sit in this Parliament, if that had happened it would have led to him resigning from the Cabinet. It did not happen. That comment is not against the Maltese people. But to Lord Crook-shank the mere minor operation of bringing three Maltese to sit in this Parliament would have been a fracture of everything we did and of the United Kingdom Parliament. When I think of it in that way, I like to think of what might have been the attitude of those who have gone before us in the House about what we are discussing now.
Union is not unfamiliar to us. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will remember the views brought to us in 1938 from the United States asking for "union now". My right hon. Friend will recall the gesture made in Paris by

1551
Sir Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, when he offered the French union with us if they would come and fight on. So the suggestion that we go elsewhere is not altogether new. But in the circumstances that have overtaken our country in the last ten years, we must seriously consider whether we can thrive and strive alone.
In addressing the House today, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that outside the Community—which will become stronger—we should thrive and prosper and devise a completely new platform for ourselves. I wonder just how true that is. Perhaps it may serve our interests if we were to go into the Common Market on the reasonable and fair terms offered by it.
As an ounce of fact is worth a ton of generalities, I come to the matter of regional policies, mentioned by the hon. Member for Wythenshaw and in a wider context, by the Leader of the Opposition. He talked of the Leyland bus factory, which is important in terms of regional policy. But I have no fears about that. There is, however, one item which fills me with foreboding if we are not careful to preserve the regional policies the authority for which should always belong to the House of Commons. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will say a word about it when he winds up this part of the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree that unemployment in the Manchester area is approaching what might be described as an unapproachable level. We are threatened with the closing of the Irlam steel works, which will mean another 5,000 men unemployed in the Manchester area. The Leader of the Opposition talked of new authorities of the Common Market taking over regional dispositions, not only in the Market but perhaps in our own country. If that happened, the plans which we are now making to keep some of the Irlam steel workers in employment might be destroyed. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us a little more information than exists in the White Paper about the probable future of regional policy.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe knows how strongly the people in the
1552
area that we both represent feel about a referendum, and that their voices should be heard through that agency. It so happened that the Leader of the Opposition expressed his own agreement with the idea. It arose out of a supplementary question which I put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 8th July. I asked my right hon. Friend :
"If a referendum were held, would it not be almost impossible to compile a suitable questionnaire to put before the electors?"
My right hon. Friend replied :
"Those who have studied referenda, and especially the experience of certain other countries, have always come to the conclusion that one of the greatest disadvantages lies in the method of framing the questions. One has seen other countries in which this has quite obviously led to abuse. This has been one of the strongest arguments against the referendum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1971 ; Vol. 820, c. 1515.]
On that occasion, the Leader of the Opposition agreed with my right hon. Friend. In view of that, it was rather pointless of him to raise the possibility of a referendum again.
Mr. Harold Lever: I am not quite clear. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my right hon. Friend today raised the possibility of a referendum in the form of voicing his support for a referendum?
Sir R. Cary: I am saying that, when my right hon. Friend gave the answer to which I have just referred, the Leader of the Opposition nodded his agreement about the difficulty of framing the questions.
Mr. Lever: My right hon. Friend is still in agreement.
Sir R. Cary: I am glad to hear that. However, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) will know the area that I am discussing. What I had said applies just as much to Cheetham as it does to With-ington and Wythenshawe. There is a strong desire for a referendum.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman must speak for his own constituency. I dare say that he is better acquainted with my constituency than I am, but I have not been made aware of any desire for such a device to be imported into our parliamentary institutions. I would oppose it if there were.
Sir R. Cary: I had said that already.

1553
The Leader of the Opposition concluded his speech with his attitude to New Zealand. It was for that that we were all waiting. It is on the basis of the protection which will be given to New Zealand that I have come off the fence and decided to support entry.
If the Leader of the Opposition resents the terms for New Zealand, why is it that they are so welcome in New Zealand itself? They have been well received there. I have been in contact with New Zealand House, and I have been provided with an analysis of Press comment in New Zealand. The newspapers of that country have contained, amongst others, the following comments :
"The terms to new Zealand are good and present a great opportunity."
"The terras are exceptional for a third party country of its size."
"The agreement provides an incentive for the country to make every effort to develop new markets for dairy products, and to increase diversification of manufactured exports."
"Subject to agreement on final details, New Zealand has a basis for trade with Britain (as a member of the European Economic Community) which it has not had previously."
"The New Zealand Dairy Board has already been successful in diversifying exports away from the British market."
"In the year to last May. some 38 per cent. of dairy products were sold to markets outside Great Britain, compared with only 17 per cent. ten years ago."
Those are important figures and averages which apply to New Zealand alone, but the terms negotiated for New Zealand have been generally welcomed and received favourably in that country. In view of that, the Leader of the Opposition is a little off beam.
I have heard it said that the strength of the Community as a result of Britain joining it will be so greatly improved that it will provide a further insulation against war and that the circumstances of 1914 and 1939 will never occur again, with these three great countries, Britain, France and Germany, fighting one another in two terrible world wars. I do not see any possibility of the countries of the Common Market repeating that history. But the world is a dangerous place, and there are other areas today with the capacity and capability of doing it. I cannot believe that any Common Market country would wish to return to those conditions.
1554
As a boy, in the school holidays, I was with that great crowd in Downing Street on 4th August, 1914. It was almost a day of festival. People cheered and thought that it was wonderful. Here was a conflict which would be over in six months. Everyone rushed to recruiting offices to enlist. I had the sad duty a year later of being released from an O.T.C. to become the youngest cadet at Sandhurst. Most of the sixth form of my school had been there. They had gone, half of them to die in some foul, stagnant ditch in Flanders. I cannot believe that history will repeat itself.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: But it did.
Sir R. Cary: It did, but the mood had changed completely. In 1939, there was an alert which made it necessary for it to take place again. However, I do not see that there is anything to be said in favour of the Common Market on the basis of its providing an insurance against a further world war. What it does is bring opportunities to this country in terms of what I think is the hinge clause. I refer to paragraph 55 of the White Paper, entitled, "Prospects for our economy". When one thinks of the benefits that have accrued to the Six members of the Common Market, to their institutions, to their prosperity and to their trade unions, there is every reason for us to enter the Community on the terms offered to the Government.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. David Ginsburg: I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that this is the supreme political issue of our time. On it, hon. Members must speak up and make their views clearly known.
Inevitably, however, there is a sense of sadness for me and for many of my colleagues in that we were deprived of a Labour Government and the chance to enter Europe under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huy-ton (Mr. Harold Wilson). Many of the fears of the public about European price levels and many trade union reactions would have been met more easily by a Labour Government. People would have been more confident of the readiness of my right hon. and hon. Friends to make the easier transitional arrangements which are bound to be necessary in an exercise of such complexity and delicacy.

1555
In a sense we are holding a limited debate only on the terms. I remind the House that Parliament decided the issue of principle when we made our application in 1967. There was surely no point in looking for adequate terms if the basic idea of joining the Community was repugnant. Indeed, the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House opposed the initiative is proof of that. Inevitably a debate on the terms is bound to be overlaid by a debate on the principle. It is sufficient to say that the political and economic case for Britain and the other three nations joining the European Economic Community is overwhelming.
I find the terms acceptable. Indeed, for reasons which I shall give later, I doubt whether in 1967 better terms for this country were on. But, apart from examining the terms, it is our duty to be able to reassure our constituents and the public generally that going into the Common Market does not impose burdens which our economy could not bear. Concerning our contribution to the Community budget, our balance of payments position and even the cost of living, nothing significant emerges from the White Paper which was not already known and with which an expanding economy and satisfactory social service arrangements could not cope.
We should not imagine that all the burdens and risks are one way. If we do not join the Common Market we shall face unquantifiable pressures on our cost of living and on the balance of payments. There are risks in life whatever one does. If a hypochondriac takes to his bed, he is at risk even in such circumstances.
It is argued by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that things have changed between 1967 and 1971 and that therefore we are justified in reconsidering our position. We are always justified in reconsiderating our position on any issue, especially an issue of such importance as this, but we owe it to ourselves to try to summarise some of the main changes which have taken place since that date.
We have had, for example, the United Kingdom devaluation, the French devaluation and the German revaluation. I submit that the cumulative effects of
1556
those three changes are significantly in favour of and make easier our entry into the E.E.C.
There was the death of General de Gaulle. Whatever his great contribution to history, no one would surely argue that General de Gaulle's departure from power in France made our application more difficult. Quite the contrary. His departure from the political scene immeasurably eased our negotiations to the stage which they have reached. Moreover, apart from the departure of General de Gaulle, we had the arrival on the scene of Willy Brandt. That, again, eased our position.
Over and above that—this is a factor of considerable importance—we have a substantial balance of payments surplus. Had we been successful in pursuing our application in 1967 we would have gone in in a position of much greater weakness. But today, with the balance of payments surplus which was built up under the Labour Government, we are in a stronger position to face the problems of the Common Market.
Only on the one issue of the agricultural regulations can we say that things have got a little more difficult than in 1967. Therefore, striking the balance at this point, I suggest that historically this is probably about the easiest chance that we are likely to get to enter Europe.
One argument which can be put against this, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like, is that, as we have a Conservative Government, that is a reason for not going into the Common Market. But we can always make the point that they will not always be the Government. Indeed, for most of the transitional period we may hope to have a Labour Government.
I venture one other important argument which arises here, namely, the price level in this country. If we had been successful in going into the Common Market in 1967 this would still have been a comparatively cheap country with a level of prices significantly lower than in Europe. That would have meant very serious adjustment problems. But by 1971 our prices have risen considerably. [Interruption.] I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that, for better

1557
or worse, we have already paid part of the entrance fee of going in. Therefore, it would be an act of political masochism to reject entry into Europe because we do not like the complexion of the Government and what they have done.
A much bigger question now arises : what would happen to this country and to Europe if we lost the opportunity of going in? If this negotiation were to sunder because Parliament rejected the terms? I take a gloomier view of the position than many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If, on 28th October, Parliament in its wisdom were to reject the White Paper and there were to be no signature on the Treaty of Rome, there would, to my mind, be an immediate loss of business confidence in this country and investment plans would suffer seriously. If Britain does not go into Europe, I believe that the investment of American companies will inexorably be shifted from these shores to the Continent. Our industries—for example, the wool textile industry in my constituency—would be denied the opportunity of expansion into Europe on which they are counting. We would be introducing an immediate deflationary element into the economy as serious as a major rise in taxation or in Bank Rate. The first casualty of such a decision by Parliament would be that employment would suffer.
There would also be effects on Europe. The economic impacts would be harmful and the institutions of Europe would coalesce without Britain. There would be no renegotiation, whatever the Government of the day, for many years. Much of what could happen we would deplore, but it would be our fault. We would have bolted the door on ourselves and history would never forgive us.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: Apart from his speculation about the result of the next General Election, I warmed to nearly everything said by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg). I welcome the White Paper and the debate. This is a useful preliminatory opportunity to clear our minds before the debate in October. I think it is equally useful for a better understanding by the public if, as I hope, the debate is fully and fairly reported.
In three months' time we are to be asked to make the decision. I have little
1558
doubt that the decision by this House will be a positive and affirmative one. It is more uncertain what will be the state of public opinion at that time, and it seems to me that this is the most important single element in the three months which lie ahead of us, because without substantial public support any decision here in October will be a hollow one.
I am glad that the leaders of all three parties in the House have declared themselves against a referendum. Parliament has to take this responsibility, which we do not shirk and should not cloud ; but if we are to have no referendum, we owe to the constituents whom we represent the most thorough possible discussion of the issues and sounding of their opinion in the constituencies.
We are all aware of the public's anxieties, and most of us are trying to remove them through these discussions because we have the impression that much of the opposition is coming not from settled conviction against joining but from fear and uncertainty. I should like to mention four of the anxieties on which I hope my right hon. Friends will concentrate in their exposition of the Government's point of view during the crucial weeks ahead.
The first is the cost of living. I deplore the scare estimates put out by many of the opponents of entry. Of course there will be a rise. No one is seeking to disguise it, and the Government have made their best possible calculation. It may be right or it may be slightly wrong one way or the other, but let us keep a sense of proportion about this and remind people that, thanks to the negotiations, the transition is to be a gradual one and that the nightmarish fears which some people have over this are not going to materialise.
But there are real worries among pensioners—State and private occupational—of which we are all aware. There are anxieties, too, among older people still at work about what they will get out of this even if the next generation, as they admit, may well benefit. I believe that we have all to explain much more clearly to this very anxious section of the population how they will share in the general benefits of joining.
Second, there is the anxiety about democracy versus bureaucracy, this spectre of the Treaty of Rome which is

1559
hanging over so many people, often those who have not troubled to read it or find out what is really in it. We have to make it clear that the treaty covers a strictly limited area of our national life and, equally, that the decisions and activities of the Commission in Brussels, under the supervision of the democratic Council of Ministers, are very strictly circumscribed. Here again there is a need for much more reassurance among members of the public who are genuinely troubled.
Third, there is the problem of fisheries. I assure my right hon. Friend that this is causing anxiety, as I gathered again at a meeting only last weekend in my constituency, not only in the coastal areas but in many inland places, too. We must not under-estimate the worries of many of our fellow-citizens on behalf of fishermen, and I hope that the Government will insist, during the resumed negotiations after the summer holidays, on a fair deal for fishing for ourselves and the other applicant countries before there is any question of our signing the treaty.
The fourth particular anxiety is about the Commonwealth, and I think that there are two elements in this, sometimes overlapping. There is first the feeling of many that we are turning our backs on the older Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The other element is that we may be jeopardising the development of many of the newer Commonwealth countries in other continents, and that has been brought out in a number of speeches today, particularly from the other side of the House.
I suggest that we must make clearer than we have so far done, first, that our Commonwealth attachments will continue strong and meaningful, even if trading patterns go on changing over the years ahead as they have over the years past. We must not let our enthusiasm for Europe make us in any way neglect or minimise the common interests and benefits of the Commonwealth. Equally, we have to make clear that the Common Market is not simply a rich Western club but something out of which the third world will benefit, too, and benefit not only materially—because too much of the discussion perhaps has been in material terms—but in terms of peacemaking and developing a better understanding across the continents.
1560
I believe that the present links that we have with our British Commonwealth partners will be replaced by broader links between an enlarged Community and a greater number of overseas territories, including all the former dependencies of the member countries. Here, surely, is the answer to the worry that was put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who says that he always prefers the open seas. The kind of development of the Community which I foresee, and which I should support, is one in which the Community will be looking outwards across open seas to all the continents to the East and to the West.
I have dwelt on the worries of the public, and the need to carry with us the maximum public support, because it is on this that most of us will be concentrating during the recess before we re-assemble.
If I may now make one personal appeal, it is that we should face this choice with more self-confidence and less apprehension and suspicion. If we consider the economic prospects, there is no doubt that there will be costs to pay. There is room for disagreement today and in future debates about how much the costs will be. The more the Government can tell us about the various alternative estimates the better. But the benefits, on which we spend far too little time, will depend on our taking advantage of the new opportunities that open up. I have faith in British Industry's ability to take those opportunities, not forgetting the much greater scope that there will be for our invisible exporters, mainly from the City of London. I missed most of what I gather was an inspiring speech from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), but I came in to hear him making the point that industry is overwhelmingly confident of its ability to prosper more in the wider market. Surely, that should carry weight with public opinion.
Looking at the political prospect, let us raise our eyes from the "nicely-calculated less or more "of economic forecasting to see this choice in the perspective of history. How can Britain best play her rôle in the changing world in the decades ahead?
During the first half of this century the European nations were fighting

1561
against each other ; in the second half we should surely concentrate on working with each other. We now have a real chance to bury for ever these old animosities in Europe and reassert Europe's influence for good through unity rather than rivalry. Today, as much as it ever did, the world needs Europe, and the Common Market nations need Britain if their grand design is to be enlarged and strengthened. It will be tragic if Europe's great expectations are disappointed at this time because of any failure of will or vision on our part. It is surely the vision of Europe in the late twentieth century which will have a special appeal to our younger people, for whom frontiers and narrow nationalism are increasingly irrelevant. I hope that we shall not disappoint those younger people, as well as our friends across the Channel.
It is sad to see among the Labour Party a loss of what was an exciting vision as my hon. Friends and I watched the party only two or three years ago. Too many of its members are falling below the level of events and going against the tide of others in their fraternal parties on the continent of Europe. There have been exceptions in the debate—notably the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). But what a contrast at the beginning of this afternoon between the well-balanced and wide-visioned speech of the Prime Minister and that which followed from the Leader of the Opposition, in which I could detect not a spark of inspiration and see not a gleam of vision! Adapting the words of Winston Churchill, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition wants to go down in history as the man who brought political credibility into disrepute. I regret that on this great issue so many hon. Members opposite seem to be sliding into political opportunism and personal manoeuvring. I hope that it is not too late—whatever form our vote in October may take—to appeal for the maximum bipartisan support for a policy which, in effect, has now been our national policy for a full decade.
Surely we can look at this choice not in a spirit of panic or defeatism, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was saying. I do not believe that this is a choice in terms of "join or disaster" ; I believe
1562
that it is a question of "join or continuing decline". I see no other practical alternative for this country that is so promising. With or without us, Europe will go ahead growing in prosperity and in influence. It has always been our natural habit to move out and reach out from this island and not turn in on ourselves. We have always thrived on challenges. I believe that we shall also thrive on this one and so help to open up better prospects for Britain, Europe and the world in the remaining decades of this century.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I know that it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to answer this point at the moment, but perhaps it could be considered later. The last speaker was the eleventh in this debate apart from the Front Bench speakers. It is the usual custom of the Chair to be meticulous in calling supporters and opponents of the Motion alternatively. But of those 11, eight have been in favour and only three against.
I know your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you might suggest to the powers that be that, when we want a full and frank and honest debate, and if we want to show democracy at work to our Continental brothers, it is a bit annoying when there are opponents present to see a Member told that he will be called, give a long speech in favour and then walk out. In the succeeding days, could we try to even this out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member knows that the House has, from time immemorial, entrusted the calling of speakers to Mr. Speaker. I carry out Mr. Speaker's wishes in this matter. He has been to immense trouble in this debate to ensure that all shades of opinion are heard. There are still three days to go so it is impossible to judge the matter yet. But the hon. Member may be sure that Mr. Speaker will carry out his duties as fairly as it is possible for them to be carried out.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: In this debate, which is of unique importance to our country, a barrage of propaganda unequalled in our history

1563
has been used by the Tory Government to try to sway the British people to support our accession to the Treaty of Rome, in spite of the fact that they have not been able to secure any amendments to the Treaty.
Every responsible commentator has observed the amazing imprecision in the White Paper, which has been succeeded in the shortened version by an even more deliberately vague statement, if that is possible. For a long time, the Government gave the British people little information, but they have now decided to woo the people.
In paragraphs 1 to 66 of the White Paper, they are almost lyrical, but in paragraph 45, dealing with a matter of supreme importance to Britain—the opportunities which we will have in the Common Market and the question of how industry will increase sales—the Government say that they do not believe :
"… that the overall response of British industry to membership can be quantified in terms of its effect on the balance of trade."
The Government will not, or cannot, say what figures they have. This is the weakest link in the case.
The Prime Minister says that assumptions are made, but they are always made on some basis of reckonable cost. Nothing like this has been given to the House. The Government are in effect saying to the nation, "Trust us." I submit that the nation will not trust them in this respect ; the British people are overwhelmingly against entry.
Paragraph 1 says :
"The prime objective of any British Government must be to safeguard the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom and its peoples."
But in the absence of any quantified statement of the benefits accruing to our country on accession, it is well to remember that trade between the E.E.C. and the United Kingdom is increasing and has increased two-and-a-half times in the last 10 years.
The Tory Government must have some idea of the extent to which the benefits, if any, will come to the United Kingdom. The Government must tell the people that they have agreed to sign without securing one amendment, thus completely surrendering our position.
1564
I have the honour to serve a constituency in South Wales and I regret that the White Paper does not say a word about Wales. Further, the Secretary of State for Wales is not in his place. I put it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this is a studied insult to a nation to which I do not have the honour to belong by birth but in which I live and serve.
No facts and figures have been given to the Welsh people to enable them to form a judgment on this issue. As I told the Secretary of State for Wales on Monday, these facts should have been given, because officials of the Welsh Office went to Brussels and secured reports. Why have not these reports been presented to the Welsh nation?
It is undeniable that in the E.E.C. industry has gravitated towards the centre. We have heard a lot about the Italians benefiting from the regional policy of the Community, but it is clear that the industrial boom is dead. The people are moving north. There are no industrial development certificates or negative controls, so that if an industrialist cannot, for one reason or another, send a factory to one area, he will go to another E.E.C. country. Belgium has recently been hauled before the Commission for interfering with the Community's rules by passing its own laws relating to regional policy.
I am not making a doctrinaire assertion but stating fact when I say that under the Conservatives, Wales is finding it diffi-cut to secure employment. Closures are occurring with amazing frequency in the Principality. If, by mischance, we enter the E.E.C, the people of Wales will look to the future not with confidence but with a great deal of apprehension.
The position would be made even worse because we would have to subscribe to the Werner plan for a common currency. The organ of the Community, "European Community", makes it clear that member States, of which we would be one, are not able to control their regional policies, and the Chancellor of the Duchy knows that only too well.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Rubbish.
Mr. McBride: It is not rubbish, though that is one subject in which the hon. Gentleman may be expert.

1565
Under the terms of Article 67, we would have no control over the outflow of capital and, as a result, Wales, being on the pheriphery of an enlarged Community, of which we would foe a member, would be in a disadvantageous position because industry would gravitate towards the centre, towards the Paris area, and, as investment would decrease in Wales, so industry would be attracted away from the Principality.
We in Wales have long memories, particularly of unemployment and the hardships it brings. If I am asked what I know about unemployment, I reply that I was one of the 3 million who suffered from it. This would be a great worry to the Principality. I do not want to see the country in which I live and work become like parts of Italy, without work or hope.
In another regard, Wales has a very real fear in the years immediately after entry. We are not unmindful of the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said—and this has been confirmed by a survey by one of the big banks—that there would be a serious downturn in trade. We believe that this could be harmful and the consequences in Wales serious. We should not be immune from them. We would suffer severely, and serious unemployment on top of the highest level of unemployment for 24 years would occur.
Mr. John Hall: I am not sure how the hon. Member arrives at the conclusion that there is likely to be a serious downturn in trade when most of our major industries welcome the opportunity of going into the Market because they think that it will increase their trade.
Mr. McBride: A famous personage said yesterday, I think, that industry in Britain was creaking. More importantly, an article in the Financial Times questioned whether British industry was able to meet the sudden, severe and savage competition that would immediately follow our joining.
We in Wales have a right to ask what industries or sections of industries will have advantages conferred on them by entry into the Common Market. So far, we do not know. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy can tell us how Wales will fare under the terms of the European
1566
Investment Bank, about which nothing has been said but which we shall have to finance with £187½ million and an initial contribution of £37½ million. Although the money may not leave this country, it will be under the complete control of the European Investment Bank, which provides loans for economic development, including finance for road construction and factory building.
The White Paper declares that after accession to the Treaty of Rome, development projects in the United Kingdom will be eligible for assistance from the Bank. To what extent will they be helped? What industries will benefit? How will this affect Wales? Perhaps we can be told. Wales is part of the United Kingdom and a development area. How will the Principality benefit?
I have spoken only about the effect upon the region in which my parliamentary constituency is located. I am conscious that generations of workers could be affected. We have not been told anything. Tonight, therefore, in no still, small voice for Wales, but in a voice of indignation because we have been denied the information, I ask that it be given to the people of Wales so that they can look at it, assess it and decide whether this is good or bad. In my view, it would be disadvantageous for the Principality if by any mischance we joined this inward-looking organisation.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: It might be very well if I began by saying that I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench and I intend to express my personal views in this debate—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I will explain why this is in a minute. [HON. MEMBERS : "We know."] I am not speaking on behalf of former Cabinet colleagues, or about what they did, or were likely to do. I must confess that I envy those of my other colleagues who are able to make these confident assertions about the future behaviour of their colleagues. I must confess that I never found my Cabinet colleagues quite as predictable on all other matters as did some of my right hon. Friends.
I also want to say that my freedom to speak tonight from this Front Bench is the clearest evidence giving the lie to the complete nonsense that is being put

1567
around that the opposition within my party to entering the Common Market derives from a desire to exploit this subject for party political gain. If we had intended so to do, it would have been quite inconceivable that a committed pro-Marketeer like myself would have been invited and allowed with complete freedom to express his views from this Front Bench.
Admittedly, it is known that the party has a division of opinion, but it is even suspected that there is not total unanimity on the other side about this question. That is nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, I am exceedingly proud to have the right to speak from the Opposition Front Bench at the invitation of the Leader of the party who, it is alleged, is anxious to make party political gain out of the Market issue. It is hardly the right way to set about doing that to put up a pro-Market speaker from the Front Bench who necessarily by implication, without attacking him personally, will be expressing views which in some respects differ fundamentally from his own on this question.
It would be as well if I took the time of the House for a moment to say a word about this whole question, because we are going to discuss it at fair length before we are finished and we are to discuss it again in October. It is too bad that hon. Members who are experienced in politics and who know what the truth is in these matters should project to a public less sophisticated in these matters totally unfounded suggestions about what conduct and speeches in the House mean on particular occasions.
The first thing that is projected from many Conservative newspapers is that in some way, if there are some hon. Members who either keep silent on this issue rather than speak in favour of the Conservative Government's proposals, or who may at some time vote against the Conservative Government's proposals because of a desire to keep party unity, this necessarily means that they are humbugs or are in some way guilty of cynicism and a desire to gain party advantage, when we all know that the question of voting very much depends on each individual's particular commitment on a particular issue ; it depends on
1568
his conviction ; it depends on his commitment.
The maintenance of a party's unity is not as ignoble objective, least of all on the part of its leader. If we did not have some semblance of party unity, the House would not work and no Government could run the parliamentary democracy of which we boast so much. Rigid party discipline and a coercive discipline that prevented hon. Members when they had a deep conviction or a commitment on a subject from voting against the party Whip, or abstaining, would be intolerable, too. It is absurd that hon. Members opposite taunt some hon. Members on this side about their concern for party unity. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would do if he could not count on party unity as a means of bringing into the Lobby on his behalf as supporters of the Common Market those whose convictions went the other way.
We have had enough of this kind of humbug. I hope that in the days before us we do not get engaged in rather pointless talk. On the whole this House works well because we each believe that these questions are best left to the individual conscience of each hon. Member. When that hon. Member has exercised his conscience most of us believe, however hard it is for us to take it if it does notsuit us, that he is acting on balance for what he in his conscience judges to be the national interest, which includes in some people's minds—although it seems amazing to some of us on this side of the House—keeping the Tory Government in existence.
I can understand that some hon. Gentlemen opposite and even, dare I whisper it, right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Government itself, will vote against their conviction, in favour of the Market, because on balance they believe it to be in the public interest that they should support the Tory Government.
It is equally reasonable that some people on this side of the House, depending on the degree of their conviction and their comitment will decide that their party loyalty is greater than their conviction or ranks higher even than this great issue. That is a matter for each individual hon. Member in his conscience to decide, and no one ought to be free with taunts of insincerity, least of

1569
all to the party leader who has this not ignoble objective of keeping some sort of unity in the party on this great issue. No one should taunt my colleagues. I have already said that I do not believe that those who have spoken against, and will speak against, entry into the Market, unlike myself who am strongly and heavily committed to the idea of entering the Market, should be assumed to be some kind of "Little Englanders" such as those whose letters to the Press disfigure so much of this debate.
Some of my colleagues have a very real conviction, wrongly judged in my view, that their wider obligations are imperilled by entry into the Market. I take only one example. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) is unsympathetic to the Market, partly because he, wrongly, again in my view, feels that it is prejudicial to the duty we owe to the developing countries. We bring the House into disrepute if we talk about such people as my right hon. Friend as a "Little Englander" just because he does not support entry.
It disfigures and debases the level of our debate that we should so describe a man who passionately and sincerely holds those views. Although I speak with complete freedom as to my own views I can say with sincerity that those of my colleagues who come to an opposite view are as much entitled to hold it—and with the same passionate firmness—as I hold mine.
I hope that people will not resent it, but in the nature of this debate it would be unwise of me to attempt to cover the whole range of the White Paper. There will be others from this Front Bench who will deal with other aspects. I want to concentrate on one or two obvious and blatant omissions from the White Paper that cause me, and I am sure many of my colleagues, concern. The White Paper talks in general terms of the economic growth which will come to us to more than offset the balance of payments obligations.
I have made my position clear and in case there is any doubt I begin by saying that I believe that if the opportunities are seized, as we must seize them—the opportunities offered to us by entry into Europe—the extra burden on the balance of payments will be many times outweighed by
1570
the successes open to us. It is not enough in the White Paper or in the House to say that ½ per cent. more growth over five years will cover twice the cost to the balance of payments. This is economic balderdash on the basis of the strategy we have so far pursued. What we ought to be saying, if we intend to continue the kind of economic and financial strategies we have had in the past, is that ½ per cent. less production per annum than we might otherwise have had will cover the balance of payments costs. On past strategy, the balance of payments has been the constraint on growth, and it is approaching the scandalous, in view of the many debates and comments in the House about the balance of payments cost and the great growth we must have to pay for it, to leave it at that and not to tell us what strategy will be adopted to achieve the desired end.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that we shall cover the extra balance of payments cost by sustained economic growth, does that mean that entry to the Common Market is a commitment to a sustained growth policy? If it is not, the argument is a straight cheat. If the argument is that ½ per cent. extra growth will pay for it, if we do not ensure that we get it and, in fact, we do not get it, I say here and now who will pay for it—the people of this country through their standard of living. It is therefore of vital importance that the people of this country should be told not merely that the Government are pledged to sustained growth but how they will achieve it. We have never had it in the post-war period. We have never had a period of sustained growth taking up the productivity increase year by year, thus encouraging more investment and more confidence among businessmen to invest and to deploy their plant.
Therefore, if this argument has any meaning except a kind of fraudulent sales talk meaning, if it has any real meaning, which I give it, it means that we have, first, a commitment to sustained growth and, secondly, a commitment to abandon the economic and financial strategies of the past because without the balance of payments burden, which could be anything—£300, £400 or £500 million—the old economic and financial strategy did not give us sustained growth even with lesser balance of payments burden.

1571
I wish to hear from the Minister why he says that we shall have sustained growth in future to pay for the extra balance of payments cost and whether it means, as I suggest it must mean, that he has abandoned the old strategy. If he is keeping the old strategy, he cannot cheerfully say to the House, "We shall achieve growth because everybody will be smartened and sharpened up by going into the Common Market", because that will take a considerable time. He must tell us why he has abandoned the old strategy.
It is sinister that there has been complete silence on this matter. The real question is how we get from the position that we are now in to the position where we have a soaring gross national product out of which we readily shift the £500 million—which is not a lot once we have the growth—to covering the balance of payments cost. But before that is not a lot we must have the sustained growth, not halted by the balance of payments pressure. It is a question of getting from A to B. It is all right when we are there, but we must be told how we get there.
I have never heard from the Government—and it is not in their White Paper—how they propose to do it. I have no doubt that it can be done, but what troubles me is whether the Government have even given a thought to it. They have not given an iota of evidence that they realise the questions involved or that it means ending the old economic and financial strategy. It means saying, "We shall not again employ the financial strategy which allows the marginal balance of payments tail to wag the whole economic dog." A deficit of £200 million on current account is allowed and has been allowed to mutilate ongoing production of £35,000 million or more, or nearly 200 times the deficit and mutilated that production's ongoing growth, because of the balance of payments problem.
The Government must have thought about it and we ought to be told how we are to get from point A to point B. None of us here has much doubt that if we get rapid growth without a sharp halt as in the past through balance of payments problems it becomes relatively easy to shifting the required amount of goods to cover the balance of payments cost.
1572
What I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has given any thought to this subject, and I am sure that he has, although neither he nor any of his right hon. Friends have given any public evidence of this, and if they have done good on this subject they have done it by such intense stealth that not even their most ardent supporters on the Common Market issue on either side of the House has heard the faintest whisper of what thought and effort have gone into the problem—what I want to ask is, are we going again to continue as in the past, if we meet with a temporary, a year or two, balance of payments deficit on current account, to tell the people of Britain that they have not been energetic enough, or something of that sort, and that we have to put the brakes on again? All I can say is that if that sort of process is applied after our entry into the Common Market the not inconsiderable difficulties with the balance of payments will be far worse than all the squeezes and stops of the past.
It is wholly unnecessary. The question then arises, if we are to have this new economic strategy, how will it work? The answer is very simple. Our partners are not going to allow an imbalance of trade to mutiliate the whole massive production of our country in the future at is has been mutilated in the past. We are the only country which can be called a land of stop-go, the only country which has done this every few years. Why have we done it? For two reasons. First, because of our antiquated external financial posture. The second is related to the sterling area system, unlimited capital investment in the sterling area or closely related to the working of the sterling area, and even with restrictions placed on that it is still virtually a free movement area. If there is a massive investment on capital account and our basic balance comes into deficit, the Government say to the people of this country, "You are living beyond your means."
It is not entirely obvious to the people of this country when a number of their institutional investors have placed money in large amounts in Australia that that is evidence that they have been living high on the hog. It is not immediately apparent to them. I am delighted that when the Prime Minister had his intimate tête-à-tête with M. Pompidou he seemed at last to have got down to this

1573
and agreed that our external financial posture should be in somewhat better order, so far as the sterling area is concerned, in the reasonably near future. But the idea ought to be broadened to make it quite clear that our strategy can never again accept stop-go. If it does the additional burden on the balance of payments will make our situation worse than ever it was before.
I believe that if the Government will show the imagination and courage required with the greater opportunity to solve the problem of ending stop-go they can maintain and sustain growth more surely than every before. Why do I say that? Because the basic balance of payments includes capital account. In the past capital account has been usually in deficit.
Many of my hon. Friends are disturbed about capital movements into Europe, but if the Government were slack on these matters their partners in the Common Market would call a halt to the movement and the Government would take under closer control the whole of the capital exit, so far as the sterling area is concerned, and, as far as Europe is concerned, they have got safety clauses which enable them to put the brake on capital investment when our balance of payments situation needs it. If we are, as we tend to be, in the British cycle of trade, in deficit for a year or two on current account, we can make the basic balance good, very likely, by attracting capital into this country In the years when we are in surplus on current account we can, of course, make good with a net outflow of capital.
I hope that none of my hon. Friends will remain in terror about the outflow of capital. Quite apart from the safety clauses, they are thinking in terms of 18th and early 19th century mercantilism. They imagine that if I write a cheque for £10 million to invest in Paris——
An Hon. Member: Yes, please.
Mr. Lever: I am speaking very notionally. If one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite writes a cheque for £10 million to invest in Paris, that remains a book entry until the Government decide to do something about it. When it comes home to roost and dollars, French francs or whatever it is are needed for it, if the Government, because the capital
1574
account is £10 million in deficit, start to squeeze the domestic economy, we pay for a capital outflow by deterioration in our industry and the capital available to it. But it need not be so. There is no reason why there should not be a vast flow to and fro to the benefit of all of us. One must realise that there is mutuality in these things. We must not just say that a capital investment going out is bad for us or bad for them because we are equipping their industries. The answer is in the free flow of capital and the way in which factors of production are organised to bring the richest reward to all of us ; and the freer that is, the better it is.
The Prime Minister smiles. He thinks that I am writing a Conservative Central Office pamphlet. I do not like to wipe the smile off his face because he looks so well and happy these days, but what we really need is a Labour Government to take control of the social result of this investment of capital in production and see that it is properly directed not to withdrawing school milk from children under seven, not to the obsessional removal, helter-skelter, of so-called deformities in rents by exacting rents from people who are already hardly pushed by the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves but to using this greater wealth for the good of the community and with greater regard for social justice than we have ever seen before.
But we must first get more wealth, and while the Tories are in, even if we get more wealth, it will not go where we should like it to go. But that should not excuse the Labour Party from seeking the same target of greater wealth, greater production and a greater availability of resources to use for the purposes of social justice and social amelioration.
Mr. Heffer: There are other ways.
Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend tells me that there are other ways of organising industry. I have no doubt there are, but within the present framework of the mixed economies of Europe——
Mr. Heffer: I do not believe in them.
Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend does not believe in mixed economies. So much the worse for my hon. Friend, because the mixed economy exists, and will until the democratic political will to change

1575
it occurs. I hope it will develop and become more progressive. Until there is the political will to change it, that is what we have to work with. It is no good my hon. Friend saying he likes it or does not like it. It is there and we have to work with it.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most pessimistic outlook from the Socialist point of view? There is another way which up to now this country has not tried. It is about time a Labour Government began to put into operation its fundamental principles and use the alternative methods that are available.
Mr. Lever: I am not opposed to that, but one starts from a mixed economy. That is what one has to develop and work upon in order to make changes, and one makes them with the assent of the electorate so that one is allowed to continue to make more changes.
The first thing that will gain the assent of the electorate is to make a success of the mixed economy. At the same time one must see that its products are not directed in the way adopted by the present Government with its weighted tax reliefs and so on, but directed to the poorer people and the working people of our land. [Interruption.] It is no good the Prime Minister saying, "Come off it" or whatever it was he said—or, as lawyers say, words to the like effect. The fact remains that the tax reliefs which have been granted—and I am all in favour of tax reliefs—have been granted without any regard at all to the low-paid workers and the worse-off section of our society.
The Government are pursuing the broad policy of looking after the very hard cases—the Government are not callous, and I am not suggesting they are—but the lower-paid workers, the people in the middle, get nothing out of tax reliefs. This is the point I want to make in relation to the Common Market.
When we enter the Common Market what are the Government going to do about the lower-paid workers in regard to the impact of rising prices and additional cost-of-living charges? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is entitled to say that he has pledged himself to look after the old-age pensioners,
1576
the unemployed, the sick and the like. I am sure he means that and will honour it. But that is not the end of the matter. This is a characteristic blind spot of the Government. They see the very poor and are prepared to help him ; they see the very rich and are prepared to help them, too. I do not dislike the benign smile the Prime Minister exchanges with me in this regard. But why do they have such a blind spot for all the people who, though not at poverty level at the very bottom of the scale in need of public assistance, are totally neglected and will have to meet the impact of rising prices when we enter the Common Market?
What are the Government going to do about those people? Are they going to say, "They had better become smarter, more talented, more energetic, more efficient", or are they going to leave such people in an extremely difficult situation, especially as increased rents bear upon them? If people earning £18, £19, £20 or £22 a week wish to earn an extra pound or two, they gain only a half to a fifth net of that sum because of the impact of the social security reliefs and the taxation system. The right hon. Gentleman ought to put this right. He should say that he will protect those people when we go into the Common Market. What is missing from the White Paper——
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point which concerns all Governments, and which certainly concerned the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he has said is that there are those who are in receipt of social service benefits, and they can be helped and the level at which they receive benefits can be raised. Similarly, he has referred to those who are having to pay taxation, and from this point of view that situation can be changed. Surely the problem which has faced both Conservative and Labour Governments is that there is a group of people just above the social security level who at the moment do not pay any sort of taxation. No Government up to the present have succeeded in finding a way of helping that particular group, but it does not need to be exaggerated as a group.
Mr. Lever: There is a more general problem than that. I was raising that problem as the sharpest point of the low-paid workers' anguish, if I may so put

1577
it. However, there is a much broader group of lower-paid workers who cannot stand the impact costs of going into the Common Market unless the Government do something about the situation. I should like to hear from the Government—if I may use economists' jargon, which I hate—about their macro-economic strategy which tells us what will be the new outlook which, despite the fact that we shall be bearing a heavier burden on balance of payments, will make us escape from the stop-go situations of the past when we had a lower balance of payments burden. Secondly, I want to hear about what economists call the micro-strategy. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the lower-paid citizens who will have to meet the impact costs?
I conclude on a more general note. Some of my hon. Friends are troubled that by going into Europe we shall build up a third Power bloc—or a fourth Power bloc ; there are three in being at present. I prefer to call it a grouping rather than a bloc. "Bloc" has a sinister connotation. I always use words to give a meaning to the surrounding area that is consistent with my thoughts. That is why, when anyone talks about a referendum over the Common Market, I always talk about plebiscites. Of course, I am against them.—[Laughter.] I talk about groups, rather than blocs, because I mean power groups. "Blocs" gives the impression that they are out to have a go at each other. That is not what is likely to happen, as one finds if one studies the modern world.
My hon. Friends are worried about this aspect and I understand their anxieties. But there is a European grouping in existence, whether they like it or not. It will stay in existence and it will develop, whether or not they like it. I beg them to try to understand why it came into existence. It came into existence because the European countries of ancient history and tradition found themselves without a voice in the world, without any influence and without any means of organising co-operatively to defend their prosperity, welfare and safety. In effect, they were regaining their inability in a world of super Powers after the suicidal devastations of the war.
1578
That is why they formed this grouping. It has been very successful and it is developing. It is not the new Jerusalem. I do not suggest that we shall die of starvation if we do not join them. But cannot my hon. Friends who have this worry about grouping appreciate that this grouping will benefit if Britain enters? If they are worried about it being inward looking, is it likely to be more inward looking or more liberal if we go in, under this Government or, even more so, when the Labour Party return to power?
If we do not want this European grouping to be denied the influence of Britain and the benign impact of our ideas and sense of world responsibility and the like, we enter it ; otherwise, we stay out. But the group will still be there.
People sometimes think that going into this grouping is a gamble. I beg my hon. Friends to realise that sometimes it is a bigger gamble to stay as one is than to make the move which all history seems to be urging us towards, that is, to join this grouping, to seek to influence it, and to seek to underpin the welfare and prosperity developing within it with political ideas of which we are rightly proud, at the same time ensuring our welfare, our future safety and our right to have a voice in the world in the interests of the British people as well as the people of all Europe.
9.28 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) has made a speech which was both cheerful and stimulating. As he will appreciate, much of what he had to say about questions of economic strategy will be best dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done pretty well this week in that regard. I must deal primarily with the issues arising in the negotiations and the terms we have agreed.
I shall have to deal, perhaps at some length, with what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the terms. He made an equally characteristic speech. He uses words to explain everything—except himself.

1579
On 10th May, 1967, as we know, the House approved by an overwhelming majority the statement of policy contained in the then Prime Minister's statement of 2nd May, published as a White Paper. We did not take a decision simply to negotiate. We approved that statement of policy, which contained not only the Government's decision to apply for membeship of the E.E.C., the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom, but a declaration of the basis on which the Labour Government had reached what it rightly termed "an historic decision which could well determine the future of Britain, of Europe and indeed of the world for decades to come."
Above all, the statement made it clear that, whatever the economic argument,
"… the Government purpose derives above all from our recognition that Europe is now faced with an opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and that we can—and must—play our full part in it."
As the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, said on 17th May of that year,
"I doubt if any decision of Government or Parliament has been preceded by so thorough, so deep, so searching an investigation of the issues involved as the Government's decision of the 2nd of May."
We all recognise that there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who never supported that decision. One thing is certain. It does not lie in the mouths of members of the Labour Government in 1967 to say that they did not know what they were doing, or that there was no commitment in principle.
I turn now to the negotiations which had to precede entry. These were set out in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3345), which gave the text of the then Foreign Secretary's statement in the W.E.U. Council on 4th July, 1967. It is worth recording that as late as 19th February, 1970, the previous Government confirmed in this House that that remained their position.
The 1967 statement, reaffirmed explicitly in February 1970, made it clear that the then Government accepted, as we do, all three treaties, subject only to the adjustments required to provide for the accession of a new member ; for example, our participation and voting in the Community's institutions and our contribution to its financial expenditure.
1580
In the case of Euratom, nothing more was sought than a 12-month interim period. That we have negotiated.
In the case of the European Coal and Steel Community, only a limited period of transition was sought. It was stated expressly that
"Thereafter we are prepared fully to implement these two treaties and all the arrangements made under them."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can discuss these arrangements in fuller detail.
What I have negotiated is transitional arrangements on terms which I set out in my statement to the House on 24th June. This was not a difficult part of the negotiations. From the earliest days, both our nationalised industries have been associated closely with the European Coal and Steel Community. The understanding about that is clearly shown by the Community's confirmation that it has no intention of calling in question the size or legal position of the British Steel Corporation or of the National Coal Board. That was not part of the negotiations, but I was glad to get that statement confirmed because it caused doubts over here. It also agreed to defer discussion on pricing policies until after we were members.
The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and others have referred to regional policies and to stories that the Community is proposing to adopt new regional policies which might cause difficulty for us. Those stories do not give an accurate impression. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will deal with the detailed points which the Leader of the Opposition raised in regard to the specific problems which are causing anxiety.
The Government remain confident, as the last Government were, that membership will not prevent us from continuing to carry out a varied and effective regional policy on a national basis. As the enlarged Community develops the more elaborate regional policy on a Community scale, we shall be able to offer our expertise and experience to make sure that it is a sensible policy, beneficial to us as well as to our fellow members.
Already, as soon as we join, there will be access to E.C.S.C. funds and to the Economic and Social Fund, and there

1581
will be the possibility of help from the European Investment Bank, which I can assure the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) will be available to Wales and to the other regions. We shall be represented fully on the board of the Bank. In the regional sphere, we shall find that we shall lose nothing and have the chance to gain much by membership.
The Leader of the Opposition has reiterated his belief that if we could get the right terms for entry, entry would be good for Britain and for Europe. But he has expressed dissatisfaction, as he is entitled to do, with the terms as he says he now understands them, notably as far as concerns the costs of joining, capital movements, sugar and New Zealand. I hope to be able to convince the House that his various anxieties, as he has expressed them, about the results of the negotiations are unjustified and that the terms negotiated are fair for us, fair for the Commonwealth and, be it added, fair for the existing members of the Community.
I will first deal with the agreement we have reached upon our contribution to the Community budget, which is central to the balance of payments issue. Here two things were clear from the outset and accepted by the Labour Government : namely, that it would not be possible to seek changes in the Community budget system any more than it would the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Peter Shore: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempt to justify that last statement, which is an interesting assertion?
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman will find in HANSARD of 8th May, 1967, c. 1066, a statement by the then Prime Minister :
"… we must be realistic in recognising that C.A.P. is an integral part of the Community… It is useless to think that we can wish it away, and I should be totally misleading the House if I suggested that this policy is negotiable. We have come to terms with it. But we can play our part in affecting its future development if, but only if, we are members of the Community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967 ; Vol. 746, c. 1066.]
Then the White Paper of February 1970, paragraph 43, states :
"…in the negotiations it will be necessary, not only to settle our starting contribution to the Fund, but also to settle the transitional arrangements under which we approach paying
1582
our full share of the recently agreed Community financing arrangements which will be changing from year to year."
Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that the first quotation which he made was from the 1967 statement, which was about three and a half years before the Community agreed to the financial system about which I asked him. As regards that curious sentence which he quoted, or, should I say, plundered, from the White Paper of February, 1970, if he has it in front of him, will he read the last sentence of the following paragraph on the same page? He will find that it contradicts his own selected quotation.
Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that I have not got that with me. It is all on the record. I think that I have said quite enough to make it clear that the previous Government accepted the common agricultural policy and the Community budget system.
Mr. Shore: I have the 1970 White Paper here. The last sentence of paragraph 44 reads :
"They have reached agreement in principle on arrangements for meeting the cost"—
that is the cost of the C.A.P.—
"but their application in a reasonable and equitable way to our situation must be a matter for negotiation, as has always been recognised."
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now withdraw?
Mr. Rippon: The 1970 White Paper indicated what that system was. It must be remembered that that 1967 statement, which was the basis of the negotiations, was reprinted in 1970 and was expressly stated to be the basis of the negotiations at that time. That is plainly set out in HANSARD of 19th February, 1970.
Mr. Shore: No, it is not.
Mr. Rippon: The objective, therefore, in the negotiations was to agree on reasonable transitional arrangements. The White Paper, in paragraphs 91 to 96, sets out what has been agreed. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may say that they do not think that the terms are as good as we asked for initially, but obviously in any negotiations there has to be give and take not only over each issue, but as between different issues. I have no doubt that if we had ignored

1583
the effect on, for example, the terms we wanted to achieve for New Zealand, we might have been able to get agreement to our initial contribution being reduced by some amount ; but I do not believe that the House would have wanted the Government to have acted in that way.
I think that in what we have negotiated with the Community as regards our arrangements during the transitional period, with full acceptance of the Community finance system, we have not done too badly. The terms envisage a possible net contribution to the Community budget of £100 million in 1973, rising gradually to a possible £200 million in 1977, after which there will be a further period of two years during which the size of our contribution will continue to be limited. Those are terms which meet our basic negotiating objective which we have stated from the outset, namely, to avoid too large a contribution at the beginning, when the dynamic effects of membership will not have had time to take full effect, and avoid, also, too abrupt a transition at the end. I think that they are about the best that any impartial observer expected us to get.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not really want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I want him to have plenty of time to answer the questions that I put this afternoon, but would he tell the House what it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in this position, said it would be impossible for any Government to accept in this context and which he has now accepted?
Mr. Rippon: I do not recall anything of that kind. It has been perfectly clear from the outset what we would seek to negotiate. I set out the position of our negotiations on 16th December last year. I said what we hoped to get. I said it was fair and reasonable, that the Community might think it too fair and too reasonable, and that that was what negotiations were all about.
Of course the figures, especially for the later years, are speculative in the sense that the size and shape of the budget may change as a greater share is devoted to regional, industrial and social policies, but what is important is that the balance of payments cost in the early years is
1584
measurably tolerable, and thereafter, when other factors come into play, we can expect industry to be reaping the positive and substantial benefits of access to a permanent, assured and greatly enlarged market.
It is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal in greater detail with the general effect on the balance of payments. It is, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham said, a matter of seizing the opportunities. This is not a matter which I could negotiate but I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to say, that in the short-term, if those opportunities are seized, the effect on the balance of payments should not be negative, but exceeding positive. One cannot give mathematical precision to that. It is much better for the House and the country to accept the truth that the laws of economics are statements of tendencies expressed in the indicative mood, and not ethical precepts in the imperative.
If we are to consider costs, let us consider also the cost of staying out. As the Leader of the Opposition told the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 23rd January, 1967 :
"If we fail—I want this to be understood—the fault will not lie at Britain's door. But the cost, and above all the cost of missed opportunities, will fall, and in increasing measure, on every one of us."
The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is concerned about the cost of going in in relation to prices. Let her take comfort from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the Daily Record on 9th June, 1970 :
"Any higher prices which result from membership should be more than counterbalanced by better exports, more jobs, and higher wages."
Mr. Elysian Morgan Mr. Elysian Morgan (Cardigan) rose——
Mr. Rippon: No.
I turn to the question of capital movements about which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) has expressed some bloodcurdling and false assertions about my having negotiated away all the safeguards against all sorts of horrors. As far as capital movements are concerned, the Labour Government

1585
made it clear in the 1967 White Paper, reaffirmed on 19th February, 1970, in paragraph 40, that they fully accepted the obligations of membership in this field, subject only to a transitional period during which we would bring our policies into line with the Community.
On 14th July I reported to the House the transitional arrangements which we had agreed both with regard to direct investment and to portfolio investment, and the right hon. Member for Huyton acknowledged in his statement on 10th February, 1970, at column 1081, that it was very difficult to give any meaningful estimate about capital movements, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to deal more fully with the questions of the impact of prospective exchange control safeguards as a whole.
What I can say, without fear of contradiction, is that no safeguards have been negotiated away. They are in the Treaty, and as far as the portfolio investment is concerned the Labour Government accepted that the problem of possible leaks to third countries would be dealt with ourselves under the provisions of Article 70(2) of the Treaty of Rome. That is in paragraph 41 of the 1967 White Paper.
As far as capital movements generally are concerned the Treaty expressly provides protective measures in Articles 73 and 109, and these are even now being employed by France, so it is nonsense to talk of safeguards being negotiated away.
I now turn to the arrangements made for the Commonwealth. I shall not go into all the details which are covered in paragraphs 97 to 122, and which show that we have been able to reach agreement with the Community on a wide range of issues of particular importance to the Commonwealth, notably on New Zealand, sugar and the primary products of the developing Commonwealth, and on the safeguards in regard to our existing patterns of trade with third countries. The way in which the Community has dealt with these matters shows that it understands the need to protect our Commonwealth ties, and to safeguard the primary products of the world.
1586
I fully endorse what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said, with all his experience as a former Commonwealth Secretary, that this is not really a choice between the Commonwealth and the Common Market ; it is a question of reconciliation, and that I believe we have achieved. There has been some misunderstanding about the position we took up with regard to Australia, to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) referred. As far as Australia is concerned, there will be an effective five-year transition period after 1973 for agricultural products such as mutton and lamb, canned fruit and dried fruit, all of which are protected by tariff in the E.E.C., and not by levy. The British market for Australia's wool is totally unaffected, being duty-free and levy-free.
As far as agricultural products subject to levy are concerned, we have had a quite specific undertaking with regard to trade with third countries, which I reported to the House on 17th May—that if circumstances arose during the transitional period in which significant volumes of trade risked serious disruption the enlarged Community would deal with the position. As far as can be seen at present the actual cases where problems might arise would be confined to sugar after 1974, butter, and certain fruits and vegetables.
Nevertheless, our agreement with the Community is not limited to any particular commodity. I can only reiterate that we have not in any way broken any promises as far as Australia is concerned.
I now turn to New Zealand. From the outset it has been understood that New Zealand dairy products posed special problems for which a special solution would have to be found. Here there is no question that we achieved far more than anyone expected right up to a few hours of the result. The details of what we achieved are set out in paragraphs 102–110 of the White Paper. I will not go over them again. Our objective and that of New Zealand was one of continuing arrangements, subject to review. That is what we have. Not permanent—we could not ask for permanent arrangements ; we have made that clear to New Zealand from the outset—but not limited to any period of time.

1587
There has been some discussion about how far the arrangements can be considered satisfactory to New Zealand. The statement by the Prime Minister of New Zealand on the review and the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the general position are on the record and I will not repeat them. But, as I said in the House on 24th June, I thought that I could fairly say that at the end of two days' arduous negotiations there was only one matter remaining which was of real concern to New Zealand ; namely, the prices formula. I then set out in detail the consideration that has been taken into account in this respect, and why New Zealand has argued for a formula which would have greater regard to the high level of recent prices.
If the Leader of the Opposition says that we should have negotiated a higher minimum price level he must modify his cry—expressed in such ringing terms to the Labour Party Special Conference last Saturday—that :
"Cheap New Zealand food is an essential part of the standard of life of nearly every family in Britain."
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misrepresented me. Let him tell the House when I used the phrase about higher prices. I have not said anything about higher prices. This afternoon he referred to the 20-year agreement. Will he say whether President Pompidou accepts that?
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman may be thinking about cheese. In respect of cheese it will be recalled that we made arrangements. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Pompidou. If he is not complaining about price arrangements, that was the only thing that New Zealand has expressed doubts about. It makes the right hon. Gentleman's case even more absurd.
In respect of cheese it will be recalled that we made arrangements for guaranteed minimum quantity to be reduced gradually to 20 per cent. in the fifth year. We do not think that there will be any great difficulty about the demand for New Zealand cheese in the years ahead, and that was the view of the Labour Government, which asked for no special arrangements for cheese. The
1588
House may be interested to know that Mr. Marshall had this to say in the debate in the New Zealand Parliament at the beginning of this month :
"In 1967 the British Labour Government 'without reference to us and without our approval' limited its claim for a special case for New Zealand to butter. Fortunately that application did not succeed. New Zealand was then able to persuade the Conservative Government to include cheese in its statement of claim."
I would not accept any limitation on the transitional period for butter. [Interruption] I said that for butter there would be a continuing arrangement, subject to review, and the guarantee for butter and the detailed criteria for the review are written into the agreement, and the Leader of the Opposition should not go on pretending that they are not. The review provisions, as the Prime Minister of New Zealand said, are highly satisfactory, and this is what the review clause says :
"During the third year after the United Kingdom's accession, the institutions of the enlarged Community will review the butter situation in the light of the supply and demand position and trends in the major producing and consuming countries of the world. particularly in the Community and in New Zealand.
The following considerations, inter alia, will be taken into account during this examination :

(a) Progress towards an effective world agreement on milk products to which the Community and the other important producing and consuming countries would be parties ;

(b) The extent of New Zealand's progress towards diversification of its economy and exports.

The Community will seek to pursue a trade policy which will not frustrate these efforts.
In the light of this examination, the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, will decide on suitable measures for ensuring, beyond 31st December, 1977, the continuation of the derogation system for New Zealand, and for determining the details of this system".
[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition keeps on saying "Not 20 years." Of course not. I said that I would not accept 20 years. I said that it was an unlimited period.
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Some of us, as opposed to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, regard this as an extremely important matter. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that we do not approve of the right hon. and learned Gentleman mumbling through his speech at such a rate of knots, with the obvious

1589
idea of stopping us taking in the points he is making?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is altogether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fault. There has been a certain amount of noise.
Mr. Rippon: I come to the question of sugar. The offer of association to the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and the Indian and Pacific Oceans made the problem of sugar easier to solve, but was not in itself sufficient. We therefore obtained a specific assurance from the Community, that they would have as their firm purpose a safeguarding after 1974 of the interest of the countries concerned, particularly as regards their exports of sugar. I did not accept that at once, and I wanted to consult with the sugar countries concerned.
The House will recognise that the very fact that more than a dozen countries from different parts of the world could send representatives to get round the table quickly to discuss and decide a common attitude to such a complex matter with far-reaching implications is in itself a testimony to Commonwealth ties.
Our objective was to obtain a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community for the sugar exports of the developing countries, members of the C.S.A., and this we have obtained. The details and the text of the assurance and of the communiqué issued after the Lancaster House conference are set out fully in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the White Paper, and I reported to the negotiating conference, as I promised, the text of the communiqué.
The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of being evasive, but I have throughout reported to the House exactly what happened. What has happened is that we have obtained an agreement with the Community, we have consulted the developing Commonwealth countries concerned and we have written into the record of the conference the understanding of what that agreement means in practical terms. The Commonwealth sugar producers—[Interruption.] Yes they have—[Interruption.] What I am saying is that the Commonwealth sugar producers have expressed their satisfaction
1590
with the safeguard offered them as a result of the negotiations. We have reached an agreement with the Community, and I have written into the record what we accept as the practical meaning of the agreement that we have reached. That is in the record of the conference——
Mrs. Renée Short Mrs. Renée Short rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Lady must resume her seat.
Mrs. Short: He was not looking. Will he give way?
Mr. Rippon: It would be out of place for hon. Members to be over-zealous in the pursuit of the sugar producers' interests by pretending that they know better than the sovereign Governments concerned. Lord Campbell of Eskan, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Sugar Exporters, wrote to me the day after our conference with the developing countries at Lancaster House about the settlement that we had then reached with them. He said :
"Had it been up to me and not to Governments, I personally should have accepted the settlement as satisfactory and constructive for the developing countries."
And I got his permission to quote that letter——
Mr. Harold Wilson: When?
Mr. Rippon: Yesterday.
Against that background of agreement, can the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else say that we must stay out of the Community because we cannot provide the Commonwealth, New Zealand, and the sugar producers with better terms than they have accepted?
Mr. Harold Wilson: Are you asking me?
Mr. Rippon: I certainly hope that, by 28th July, the Leader of the Opposition will somehow manage to rescue himself——
Mr. Harold Wilson Mr. Harold Wilson rose——
Mr. Rippon: I hope that he will manage to rescue himself from the toil
"of dropping buckets in empty wells
and growing old in bringing nothing up."
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted Lord Campbell, may I tell him that I had a phone call this morning from his office, saying—I quote—" If Rippon quotes that letter I wrote him the day after, he is not entitled to do it, because Rippon knows the real facts."
Mr. Rippon: I utterly, totally and completely repudiate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I got his express permission. What is clear is that what Lord Campbell of Eskan agreed—I said this quite clearly—is the settlement that we reached in Lancaster House on the terms of the understanding we got.
Mr. Russell Kerr: You have been reading too fast.
Mr. Rippon: We must remember that the Community too have their legitimate anxieties and interests to protect, but we cannot complain in any way of the treatment which they have given the Commonwealth.
1592
But of course we shall be talking in this debate not only about the price to be paid but also about the contribution that we can make to peace and prosperity at home and beyond our shores. We are not seeking to join the Community out of weakness, nor simply for what we can get out of it.
The truth is that Western Europe will not regain her eminence or even retain her effective independence unless we work together, and we cannot work truly together unless we are all in the Community together, pooling our resources and policies. Joining the Community is not our only choice, but it is our best choice. It is the best way in which we can honour our past and make a future worthy of our children. We have been too long in the wings, and it is time that we got on stage.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PURCHASE TAX
9.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I. 1971 No. 1078), dated 5th July 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
The reduction in all the rates of purchase tax announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 19th July is effected statutorily by the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1971, laid before the House on that day. That does not supersede or render any less necessary the present minor detailed alterations which we had introduced earlier and which I am now commending to the House. There is, of course, the connection that both the rates appropriate to the two groups with which this Order is concerned have been reduced. The reduced 30 per cent. rate will, as from Tuesday, 20th July, apply to the one item where we have extended the scope of the tax instead of 36⅔ per cent. as it has been since 12th July when the (No. 3) Order came into effect.
The effect of this Order is to introduce some minor adjustments to the purchase tax coverage at three points with a view to providing certain new reliefs and to removing a particular anomaly which has come to our attention. The correction of the anomaly involves increasing the scope of the tax to a very small degree and that is why it is necessary to have this Motion. It is desirable not to delay items of this kind and the Treasury Order procedure is provided for under the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, so that they can be dealt with at any time when it is evident that something needs to be done.
The first and third alterations are reliefs for certain equipment for invalids and the second is the correction of the anomaly. If the House is agreeable, I think it would be convenient if I discussed the first and third alterations together.
As regards the first, adjustable beds, Group 11 of the Purchase Tax Schedule charges furniture of a domestic nature. There are on the market certain adjustable beds, either mechanically or electrically operated, which are designed for invalids. In so far as these beds are advertised as suitable and sold for use
1594
in the home they fall within the description of domestic furniture, although they have much in common with certain hospital beds which are already outside the tax as non-domestic. It is to remove the rather artificial restrictions on their use and advertising that this Measure has been introduced. The list of exempt invalid aids to which the item is added was introduced in the summer of 1965 and I understand that this special sort of bed has been developed since then, so that what we are doing is, in effect, bringing the list up to date.
The third alteration introduces a new exemption from the charge under Group 12 on domestic appliances and apparatus. As the House will see, the new exemption is for chair lifts, stair lifts and hoists and lifters, provided that they are specially designed for invalids.
This exemption is being introduced for the same reason as the one for adjustable beds. These lifts are needed to enable certain disabled people to lead a more normal life and to be less dependent on other persons. The types of hoists for use in a hospital or as means of getting in and out of cars were already tax-free as non-domestic, but the use of similar articles in the home and the advertising of these articles for use in the home rendered them liable to tax as domestic articles on a par with pieces of ordinary domestic equipment. This was obviously not a particularly desirable state of affairs, and both my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and Westbury (Mr. Walters) and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) have drawn attention to it. We also received representations from the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled urging us to take action. I am sure that the general feeling of the House is in favour of this new exemption.
Turning lastly to the item where the scope of the tax is being extended, I come to parts of and accessories for waste disposal units. As I have already said, Group 12 of the Purchase Tax Schedule places a charge on domestic appliances and apparatus in general, and complete waste disposal units for use with the domestic sink are, therefore, taxable. However, the situation has arisen where, quite legitimately, one particular organisation has been able to regulate its affairs in such a way that

1595
two incomplete halves of a waste disposal unit are supplied by two separate companies in response to two separate orders.
In these circumstances, the Customs and Excise was unable to hold that either of the transactions attracted any tax because neither company's product was itself a domestic appliance, though one could very well see that it was part of one. We considered that action to remedy this situation was necessary because of the distortion of the market it produced. Other companies, for technical reasons being unable to adopt the same ploy, were losing business. This is the reason for introducing the charge, to put matters right. The amount of revenue involved is minimal.
If I have leave, I shall be glad to deal with any points which may be raised during this debate, but I have tried as briefly as possible to explain why we thought these amendments were necessary. For the reasons I have given, I ask the House to approve the Order.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. David Marquand: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that full and thorough explanation. I have no questions to ask.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I. 1971 No. 1078), dated 5th July 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

HOUSING CORPORATION ADVANCES
10.5 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
The purpose of this draft Order is to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, to lend £25 million to the Housing Corporation for the Corporation itself to lend to housing societies. The Housing Act, 1964, authorised the lending to the Corporation
1596
of £50 million as a start. It also provided for further amounts to be authorised by an Order or a series of Orders, up to another £50 million. An Order of this kind was made by the previous Government in 1969 covering another £25 million. The draft Order now under consideration would enable the last £25 million authorised by the 1964 Act to be lent to the Corporation. In other words, the £25 million in this draft Order would use up all the total of £100 million authorised by the 1964 Act.
The House is probably aware that the Housing Corporation was set up under the Housing Act, 1964, to sponsor, advise and lend money to cost-rent and co-ownership societies. A housing society is a housing association, but a housing association of a special type. A cost-rent or co-ownership society differs from the older, traditional type of association. The older associations were mainly charitable or philanthropic, providing for people who wanted rented accommodation but could not pay the full rent. The new type of cost-rent or co-ownership housing societies were introduced to provide housing of good quality, usually new accommodation, for people of modest means who could afford to pay for their requirements, but from the nature of their occupation, or for some other reason, did not wish to purchase a house for themselves.
Cost-rent and co-ownership societies were introduced with the Housing Act, 1961, the so-called pilot scheme, with a fund of £25 million lent direct by Departments to the societies. As the money was soon allocated to societies, it was plain that there was a demand for rented accommodation by people who did not want subsidised accommodation, but were not desirous of home-ownership, ranging from young people who had not yet settled down to elderly people who were beginning to find the burden of keeping up a home too much for them. So the Housing Corporation was set up by the 1964 Act to carry out as a full-time job the task of encouraging, advising and financing these societies.
As, however, the success of the pilot scheme had demonstrated the demand for this sort of accommodation, it was expected that building societies or other such financial institutions would lend part of the money required. The idea was

1597
that in the ordinary way a building society would lend two-thirds of the cost of a project, with the rest of the money coming from the Corporation on second mortgage.
In point of time, the Corporation began to lend money to a society first, but the building society is in law the first mortgagee. This dual mortgage system has, in fact, been carried on since 1964. The only modification has been that in early 1970, when building society loans were not proving easy to obtain, the Corporation was allowed to approve a project in which only half the cost was to be financed by a building society. Some building societies have found this concession helpful.
So far the Corporation has approved projects comprising some 31,000 new dwellings. It has not lent for the purpose of conversion, because it considers that, while it is its job to reckon whether there is likely to be a demand for new accommodation of certain kinds, it could not on its own say whether a particular house in a particular road ought to be converted, as the answer to this question depends on the local authority's plans for area improvement. Lending for conversion has always been thought, therefore, to be more appropriate for local authorities.
The 31,000 dwellings in projects approved are, therefore, all new dwellings, some 20,000 of which have now been completed. The total sum of money involved—that is, taking together lending by building societies and lending by the Corporation—is £148 million.
The Corporation is lending public money, and it is its duty to secure, as far as it reasonably can, that it does not lend on schemes that will not succeed or where the rent that can be obtained will not be enough to keep the property in repair and repay the loans of the building society and the Corporation. As second mortgagee, it is the Corporation which will be certain to lose if a scheme proves a failure. It has to consider whether there are likely to be people wanting to occupy the kind of accommodation proposed by the housing society at the sort of rents required.
I can go into details on the figures and the lending that has taken place up to now, but I will not weary the House
1598
with them unless I am asked any questions.
In considering this Order, which deals with the last £25 million available under the Act of 1964, it is perhaps relevant to touch very briefly on the future of the Corporation, for if the Corporation were to cease lending when the £100 million were exhausted, then it might be asked whether it was really worth while letting it have any more than the £75 million which it is entitled to lend in any case. The idea of a central agency lending to all sorts of associations was put forward in evidence to the Cohen Committee, and the Government published the evidence as a working paper of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. We accept the force of this idea.
The House will have seen from the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing", published recently, that there is a section on the voluntary housing movement, and in paragraph 78 it states that all associations providing for new building for letting should be able to approach the Housing Corporation for loans, not only the cost-rents and co-ownership societies. The tiresome distinction between association and society has been done away with.
We intend that the Corporation shall have a bigger rôle in future, but that will not exclude associations which wish to work closely with a local authority and are ready to give the authority the right to nominate at least half the tenants of the dwellings to be built from borrowing from the authority. That is a right but it is not necessarily one that will be exercised if the local authority does not wish to do so.
The Housing Corporation will be meeting a real need, a demand for rented accommodation by people who do not want council housing. This need the Corporation has met both by its own lending and by its efforts in getting building society finance. I hope that the House will authorise its drawing on the remaining £25 million available under the Housing Act, 1964. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend when he introduces legislation to deal with housing subsidies in the autumn, or at some early date, to deal also with the voluntary housing movement. The White Paper deals with the future of the Housing Corporation.
10.13 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: We shall support the Order, and we welcome the opportunity to put a number of questions and make some observations on the position regarding the Housing Corporation—an opportunity which does not often occur. From what the Minister has said, this will come before us in a bigger way towards the end of the year. I welcome this, not just as a leading Opposition spokesman on housing but as someone who has been personally very much involved and interested in the housing movement and, in particular, in the co-operative housing movement long before the original 1961 and 1964 Acts which gave rise to the Housing Corporation.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us broadly how much has been spent of the £75 million total permitted borrowing. I would like some indication, and I gather from what the Minister said that this might be possible. We would like an up-to-date picture of the position on the programme of building by the Housing Corporation. I have some figures here to which I will refer to probe this a little further.
I take it that, with the consideration of the future rôle of the Housing Corporation acting as a backer to all forms of housing association house projects it approves, there will be a raising of the legislative limits by further legislative process towards the end of the year. Or will some other form of financing be considered under the proposed legislation?
The Minister referred to the publication "Housing Associations", one of the most interesting documents produced on this subject, despite its earlier difficulties, which both he and I know. I think he inherited a recommendation which I placed on the desk of the previous Minister concerning the Cohen Committee.
Mr. Channon Mr. Channon indicated dissent.
Mr. Freeson: No doubt the officials repeated the recommendation which I made in another memorandum. "Housing Associations" is probably the most interesting of its kind produced for many years, and, apart from the particularly important issue of centralisation of financial sponsorship of all kinds of housing associations which the Minister has presaged,
1600
there is a whole series of other recommendations by individual bodies which gave evidence which is summarised and discussed, pro and contra, in the document.
I should like to know to what extent there is a distillation of these recommendations going on in the Department following any further discussion, study or consultation with relevant bodies in the housing association movement, in housing generally and in local government generally, which goes beyond this particular point, and whether we may expect administrative changes to be announced—because some are simply a matter of administrative policy—and whether we can expect legislation, either separately or in connection with the proposed housing finance Bill, to implement some of these recommendations. I do not wish to weary the House with the recommendations. I support many of them ; I find some of them questionable. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for a discussion of this document separately or in association with legislation later this year.
I have some figures showing the past record of the Housing Corporation's activities. The number of dwellings approved by the Corporation increased sharply during 1965, 1966 and 1967, following the 1964 Act, from over 3,300 to 10,500 in 1967. These were reflected later in a rising rate of completions, which until recently had still been continuing. However, the figures of starts following 1967 went down to just over 5,000, and then in 1969 to slightly over 1,500 dwellings. Presumably these figures will be reflected in the decline in completions as from this year in the broad assumption that there is an 18-months' to two-year period between approval and completion.
As I understood it when I was in the Ministry, and certainly until recently, notwithstanding certain observations made in this Report, the downturn in Housing Corporation business was chiefly due to a combination of high interest rates and a shortage of building society funds, plus, as I was advised, the somewhat discouraging influence of the Treasury limitation, or Government limitation, on expenditure by the Corporation as part of the general control operated by the Government. We had a position which, I understood, certainly existed at least up to the changeover to the 50–50 basis between building

1601
society finance and Corporation finance. The building societies declined many schemes which appeared viable to the Corporation, and the Corporation had to suspend action on a considerable number of schemes because of this difficulty. I understand that the position of the funds from the building societies generally has eased today. One would like to know, if possible this evening, whether there has been a marked increase in the provision of support by building societies during the last six months for Housing Corporation schemes.
One would also be interested to know, on the question of building initiative which might be taken by the Corporation, in addition to the proposal for a central financing agency, to which the Minister referred when he referred to this Report, whether there is any possibility, in order to contribute towards a rise in housing programmes, of the Corporation being allowed to approve schemes without having to insist on building society support from the outset. The Minister will be aware that there is a procedure whereby the Corporation still has to require the building society to approve before it will give its own approval. That, of course, has a slowing down effect on schemes by individual societies going to the Corporation. Is is possible to pursue the idea which is discussed in this Report—not for the first time : it was certainly discussed when I was in the Ministry, and before the Report—of a guarantee supported by the Government to building societies for the financing of projects, the de jure guarantee, as I think it is described in the Report, to back up the de facto guarantee which often occurs but without which building societies will not give the kind of support which the Housing Corporation has been wanting?
I have referred to the need for extending the limit on borrowing powers and for it to be bigger in the future, whether following past means or some other means of financing in the new Bill to be before us in the autumn, but there is one last point I would like to put. When I was in the Ministry I came to the conclusion, and I still hold to it, looking at the housing situation in our cities and urban renewal, and considering the rôle of the housing association movement, and that of the Corporation as an institution, that there was a rôle which
1602
could be given to the Corporation, if it had Government backing, to act directly in housing on its own initiative, rather than just waiting for or encouraging individual societies to come to it.
The Minister will know that within the constitution of the Corporation such powers do exist. It can buy land directly ; it can, I believe, build directly, within the legal limits of its constitution. In practice, so far as I am aware, it has never done so, chiefly because it has wished to go along with the policy of the Government, of whatever party. I should like to know whether this is being given serious consideration. I shall not elaborate on it this evening, but I hold strongly to the view that there is a case for bringing in another institution to back up the efforts of local government throughout the country, another institution in direct housing action, particularly in city centres, in future—not, I stress, in competition with but to supplement the efforts of local government and to co-operate with it. I should be interested to know whether serious consideration is being given to this by the Government and, if not, whether an undertaking can be given that at least it will be seriously examined for the future.
Mr. Channon: By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson). He asked how much had been spent so far by the Corporation. The Corporation has borrowed only £56 million up to now. The House may ask why the Corporation needs to be authorised to borrow more than the £75 million. The answer is that the Corporation commits itself to a scheme by approving it some time before it has to lend the money involved. For a total lending commitment of £148 million, the Corporation's share is therefore about £67 million. Unless the amount upon which it can draw is now increased, it will not be long before the Corporation will cease to approve projects because it will not be able to commit itself to lending without being sure it will eventually have the money to do so. That is why we have brought forward the Order. We shall be rising for the recess in the not too distant future and it seemed prudent to bring the Order forward at this stage.
If I do not give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he wants, I will answer

1603
in more detail if he will put down a Question. The figures I have with me are for years ending 31st March. I am not sure that they entirely tie up with the hon. Gentleman's figures. They are : on 31st March, 1967, dwellings approved 8,427, dwellings completed 600 ; in 1968, 8,099 approved, 1,900 completed ; 1969, 3,317 approved, 4,169 completed; 1970, 1,174 approved, 6,346 completed ; 1971, 3,668 approved, 6,006 completed.
Dr, J. Dickson Mabon: Are these United Kingdom figures?
Mr, Channon: These are all United Kingdom figures. For the most recent quarter, the quarter ending 30th June, dwellings approved were 1,200 and dwellings completed 1,016.
It is fair to say that the number of completions will inevitably fall off over the next two years because of the recession in the volume of approvals arising from the financially difficult situation of 1969, but the level of approvals is rising. I will not weary the House by giving the details, but there has been an increase in the level of approvals every quarter since the middle quarter of last year, with the exception of the quarters ending 31st March and 30th June this year, when the levels are approximately the same. The level will go on rising, and I think will be reflected in completions in about two years' time.
There is a mild discrepancy in the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see if he checks them in great detail——
Mr. Freeson: I accept that my figures are probably based on calendar years as compared with financial years.
Mr. Channon: I shall be delighted to answer any Question the hon. Gentleman puts down later.
In the autumn, when we introduce legislation on "Fair Deal for Housing", we shall include provisions dealing with the Housing Corporation and providing further funds for it in its new rôle. Provision will be made in that Bill to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the future.
On the general question of the Cohen evidence, I did not see the recommendation which the hon. Gentleman made
1604
to his right hon. Friend about what should happen, but I hope that he has not been altogether displeased by what has come out of this. In paragraph 80 of the Housing White Paper we say that the Government are also considering other aspects of the voluntary housing movement in the light of the report presented to the Central Housing Advisory Committee.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the matters raised in this document are under the closest scrutiny in the Department. I hope that in due course some steps can be taken about them. Some, for example the control of equity, are extremely important. If a decision is taken to deal with these matters, there will have to be the fullest consultations with representatives of the voluntary housing movement and the local authority associations in the usual way.
There is some evidence that there is more support among the building societies. A few of the large building societies have played their part, and I hope that under the new system they will give further help. There is some evidence that they are prepared to play a greater part, and we shall have to discuss this with the building societies in future.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are considering the matter of guarantee. I know his views about this matter, and we certainly regard it as important.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important question of urban renewal, and I assure him that we shall study carefully what he has said. This again is an important subject and needs further study by the Government before we announce any changes or plans. I am not in a position to make a statement tonight.
I believe I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. If there are any matters with which I have not dealt, perhaps he will contact me and I will do my best to answer him.
The Housing Corporation fulfils a useful rôle which is accepted on both sides of the House. A figure of £100 million was originally allowed under the Housing Act, 1964, and this provision allows the corporation to draw on the final tranche. I am sure that this will be generally welcomed, and I hope the House will allow the Order to go through.
10.32 p.m.
Dr. J, Dickson Mabon: I have no doubt that if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is not allowed to reply to what I have to say, the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office will be able to give me the facts and figures I seek.
The Order deals with the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman has given figures for the United Kingdom, but we are not entirely happy with the progress of the Housing Corporation in Scotland. It has always been my impression that the Corporation has not dealt adequately with the peculiar situation in Scotland. I readily accept that, although cost-rent schemes have not succeeded in Scotland as was originally intended, co-ownership schemes have succeeded reasonably well.
I am sorry that this matter has come up for discussion at so late an hour since it must be dealt with in the context of the White Papers which were produced last week, and which we from Scotland may have an opportunity to debate next week. It is interesting to compare the two White Papers. Paragraph 33 on page 8 of Command 4727 puts the matter circumspectly in economic terms, whereas there are a dozen or so paragraphs in the English White Paper to say the same thing.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The English are more verbose.
Dr. Mabon: As the hon. Gentleman says, the English are more verbose, but I should like to know how these matters merge in terms of time. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Order will give £75 million and will then go to the end of the statutory limit. This means that there will have to be an Act of Parliament to recast the entire context of the Housing Corporation's position. If we pass this Order we shall be promised two Acts of Parliament, one for England and Wales in connection with Command Paper 4728, and one for Scotland in connection with Command Paper 4727. Although they are based on different appreciations of the situation, the same principles are to be applied. We shall have a Scottish Bill devoted to the Housing Corporation, which I welcome. However. this means that principles will be applied to Scotland
1606
which may not be true of the English and Welsh position. I cannot speak of the English and Welsh situation, but I am anxious to look a little more closely at the situation in Scotland.
In the terms of this Order, we are assenting to the Housing Corporation continuing to borrow money which will enable it to carry on financing different schemes, both cost-rent and co-ownership, in the current financial year 1971–72 and in 1972–73.
From what the Under-Secretary has said, when he let slip that the Bill would come in the Autumn, and, I presume, obtain Royal Assent in the next Session, I gather that this new Act of Parliament will, therefore, apply to 1972–73. We are very keen to know the basis on which the Housing Corporation will spend its money and of what kind of figures the Government are thinking. After all, they say in the last sentence of paragraph 33 that
"… there should be a subsidy related to any deficit arising where the income from fair rents does not cover the initial annual expenditure."
We are entitled to know what proportion of the money we are voting tonight will go over to this or whether it will not be involved.
We are also entitled to know the record of the Housing Corporation in dealing with various schemes. If the building societies had been perfect, we would never have had the Housing Corporation. Because they were not perfect and were unwilling to lend—I do not blame them in this kind of housing venture—we invented the Housing Corporation. We invented an organisation that was willing to bear a higher risk than were the building societies.
When the Under-Secretary says that they bent the rules a little, without breaking them, from two-thirds to a half——
Mr. Younger: No, the hon. Gentleman did ; we did not.
Dr. Mabon: To our credit we did this, and I am very glad of it. Perhaps we should have bent them more. The Under-Secretary always lands himself in trouble when he interrupts. Perhaps he should inquire into the incidence of success. If the Housing Corporation has bet on every scheme and won on every

1607
scheme, it is a bad Corporation, because we might as well have left it to the building societies. The purpose of inventing the Housing Corporation, like the Highlands and Islands Development Board, is that there has to be a degree of failure. If there is no degree of failure, it means that it has been placing safe bets all along the line, in which case it has not been taking the risks that it should have taken. If the degree of failure were tremendous, it would be a very bad Corporation. But there has to be a degree of failure, and I ask what the incidence of failure by the Corporation has been. How many bad schemes has it backed with the £56 million it has committed so far? What is its degree of judgment here?
I do not seek to chase the Corporation in any way. It has done a reasonably good job, albeit not as good in Scotland as I should have liked. But what has been the degree of backing schemes which were not 100 per cent. successful? We do not know.
If the previous Government had to change the building society position so that they only lent half, it means that the building societies were not able to bring forward enough money to finance it. We know the reasons why—at least, I do, as do my hon. Friends and many others. But is it not the case that we are inhibiting the development of housing societies by not looking at this matter a little more? The Minister may say that we might bend the rules a bit more, in which case the Government should tell us. Perhaps we should lay down in Statute that it is not one-third but two-thirds. The Government should come clean about it. That is why I regret that we are discussing this at so late an hour. The Housing Corporation is one of the most significant things that we have achieved in the post-war years. It almost bridges the party political gap on housing.
There is no dispute about the need for the Housing Corporation. We welcomed it in Opposition and we operated it when we were in office. It is a form of owner-occupation which allows people who cannot go for mortgages to buy houses which otherwise they would be denied and instead would have to take rented houses. Sweden builds a third of its houses in this way. That shows how
1608
much we are failing to develop this section of housing legislation.
Another matter which I want to raise concerns student co-operative housing. If we want to develop the habit of cooperative housing it has to be understood from an early age for it to become a habit. I can think of no better place than a university or college to develop the habit of understanding co-operative housing. Many of our young people attend universities and colleges, obtain degrees, go out into the world, and move from place to place. They do not stay for 10 or 20 years in the same position. They move from job to job and from house to house. What a boon it would be if they could be members of a co-operative housing institution which enabled them to transfer their holdings in one cooperative society to another as they went from place to place.
We have never faced this matter properly. The past advice by officials—I am sure it must be the same continuing advice, knowing their impartiality—has been that the Statute did not permit us to do as much for student co-operative housing as we might have done.
If we are to vote this money tonight, may it be on condition that the new Acts of Parliament superseding or carrying on this legislation will take cognisance of this point and will try to write in provisions to encourage, in the Canadian, the Norwegian, and the Swedish manner, and the manner of many other countries, the need for developing student co-operative housing in Great Britain?
We in Scotland—I know that it is also true of the University of London, but I do not know about the other universities in England—are keen to develop student co-operative housing. If the Housing Corporation's advice has altered somewhat in the Department and it has managed to promote something on these lines, I should like to be told tonight. If it is the same old rigid, inflexible advice which we are getting, then some new thought should be encouraged in the Bills to be presented to us which will take up the money voted tonight.
I do not apologise for raising these matters, even at this late stage. I am sorry that we are not having a proper debate on the subject, but that is the way that Parliament is run. It is to be

1609
regretted. I can only hope that the Minister will respond adequately.
10.43 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I can respond to the further questions asked by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and give him some information about the Scottish position. I hope that the House will bear with me.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the pace of spending by the Housing Corporation. The pace of spending is increasing, but we have no reason to think that it will exhaust what it can use before legislation extending its powers and giving it more money can be put through Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether and, if so, to what extent the Housing Corporation has backed failures. I see the point he is getting at in that question. There have been some difficulties in a few of the Housing Corporation's schemes, but my information is that there has been no case which could properly be described as a complete failure. The difficulties, such as they have been in one or two cases, have been such as would normally be expected in any housing enterprise in a somewhat speculative sphere.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about student housing. This has been a matter about which there have been almost continuous discussions between the housing association movement and the various Departments for a long time. There are considerable difficulties in meeting the views and needs of students faced with taking part in a housing association. Our advice, as the hon. Gentleman more or less forecast, is that whereas this is a matter which is worth pursuing and discussing with student organisations to see whether there is a need, it appears that the difficulties outweigh the possibilities of doing something constructive.
Mr. Freeson: I realise that what I put to the hon. Gentleman will be as much, if not more, a matter for his hon. Friend, but perhaps the matter could, nevertheless, be pursued.
The hon. Gentleman says that there have been long discussions on this subject, and that the matter will be pursued to establish whether there is a need, and
1610
if there is one, how it might be met. I find this disturbing. I accept that there have been lengthy discussions over a long period. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, although no definite action had been planned, some fairly definitive decisions had been arrived at shortly before I left office, and I presume that my hon. Friend had the same experience in relation to the Scottish situation.
There was a virtual instruction in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it was, to act in co-operation with other Departments to establish lines of action which could be recommended and acted upon, not only for students, but for many other single persons in our big cities, such as apprentices, who found themselves in a similar situation. I am disappointed to hear that there has been no movement forward to definitive action in the last year, judging by what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.
Mr. Younger: That is a most interesting account of something which may have happened before we took office. All I can say is that the whole business is under detailed discussion between ourselves and student organisations and with the Department of Education and Science. I assure the hon. Gentleman that these discussions will be pursued in a constructive frame of mind during the coming months.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: And be put in the Bill.
Mr. Younger: I cannot give any undertaking about that, but we shall pursue the matter.
The total estimated cost of all approved schemes in Scotland amounts to £6·8 million at the latest convenient date, and the Housing Corporation's estimated commitment for approved schemes amounts to £3 million in Scotland. The amount advanced, which, as always, is very much less, is £2·4 million. A total of 1,255 houses are involved in the approved schemes. The Scottish position at the moment can be summed up by saying that 532 houses in 14 schemes have so far been completed under the auspices of the Housing Corporation in Scotland, and another 12 schemes comprising 492 houses are under construction. In addition, a further nine schemes comprising 231 houses have been given full approval,

1611
and the bulk of these, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are in central Scotland.
Dr. Mabon Dr. Mabon rose——
Mr. Younger: No.
The only other thing that I should like to say in answer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that all of us would agree, not least the Housing Corporation, that the progress of the Housing Corporation in Scotland has been very much less rapid than it has been in England and Wales. I see that as no reflection on the Corporation itself, which is doing a most energetic and worth-while job in Scotland, as it is in England and Wales. I see it rather as a reflection of the different housing conditions in Scotland, and the different attitudes to and systems for our housing in Scotland. I think that the Corporation in Scotland has done a good job in these difficult conditions in getting the schemes off the ground. In the years ahead I hope to see a great improvement in the progress of housing associations in Scotland, and I shall do all I can to help this along.
Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman waited until he had completed his speech before giving way. I want to make clear that we are not linking the work of the officers of the Corporation with the work of the Corporation itself. The officers have never been criticised by my hon. Friends or by myself. They work extremely hard. We are talking not about the officers but about the Corporation. The hon. Gentleman knows what I mean when I say that the Corporation has not done as well in Scotland, proportionately in terms of population, as it should have done, and that is borne out by the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given. That being so, as the Minister responsible, the hon. Gentleman should say that the Corporation deserves to be pushed forward to work harder than it has done. If the hon. Gentleman says that, I shall be content.
Mr. Younger: I quite see what the hon. Member is gettng at. I entirely agree that that is the situation—but I do not agree about the reason for it. I believe that the Housing Corporation and its officers have done their level best to do a good job for Scotland, and I
1612
pay tribute to them with great pleasure. But the fact that proportionately they have not achieved as much in Scotland as in the United Kingdom is a reflection on the highly unsatisfactory housing situation that we have had in Scotland for many years, and it is precisely to put right that unsatisfactory situation that we are bringing forward the White Paper and next winter, I hope, a Bill which will modernise the very unsatisfactory and antiquated housing situation in Scotland.
The Housing Corporation has done a good job in the circumstances, and I wish it well, and hope that under the new legislation which will improve housing matters generally, it will be able to do a better job in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)
10.51 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (Adjustment) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be convenient to take with this Order the Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order.
Mr. Younger: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a year of general revaluation for rating in Scotland, and at a time when the valuations of all properties subject to normal valuation and rating are being reviewed it is right that the valuations of properties covered by special arrangements should also be reviewed. Special arrangements apply to the valuation of the Scottish Gas Board's operational undertaking and water undertakings. The purpose of the Orders is to bring the general effect of revaluation on other properties to bear on the Gas Board and water undertakings.

1613
If the Orders were not approved the shares of local rating burdens met by the Board and water undertakings would be lowered ; and that would be unfair to other ratepayers. The Orders are brought forward now so that they can have effect on the rate payments to be made by the Board and water undertakings in the current year.
The statutory valuation arrangements for the Gas Board's operational premises are that the Board has a prescribed "basic rateable valuation" which is adjusted annually by the Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland) on account of changes in the amount of gas supplied as compared with 1961. The basic valuation as so adjusted is the Board's rateable valuation for the year. The Public Assessor is also responsible for the apportionment—by early September each year—of the rateable valuation among rating areas in which gas is supplied or manufactured by the Board.
Section 12 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, empowers the Secretary of State to vary the Board's basic rateable valuation, if by reason of any substantial change of circumstances it appears necessary for him to do so. He does this after consultation with the Gas Board, the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and the local authority associations.
The current Scottish revaluation constitutes a sufficient change of circumstances to make necessary the new Order which increases the basic rateable valuation of the Board by 75 per cent.—that is, from £732,490, the amount last prescribed, to £1,281,860. This percentage increase approximates to the overall increase in other property valuations in 1971–72 following revaluation, according to estimates provided by the local assessors ; and its effect will be to leave the Gas Board in broadly the same position relative to other ratepayers in Scotland as it was in 1970–71. An exactly similar approach was adopted in reviewing the Gas Board's basic valuation on the occastion of the last revaluation in 1966.
Turning to the Water Valuation Order, the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966, introduced a new system of valuing water undertakings by reference to a prescribed "norm" or national average rateable value per thousand gallons of water. Under the new system the raleable
1614
value of an undertaking is arrived at broadly by multiplying this norm by the average daily output of water. Thus the rateable value of all undertakings is equated directly with output.
The present norm of £5.568 per thousand gallons was arrived at by dividing the aggregate rateable value of all water undertakings prior to the 1966 Act by the aggregate potential output of water and increasing the resultant factor by a percentage reflecting the general increase in rateable values in Scotland as a result of the 1966 revaluation.
The Water Valuation Order is on all fours with the Gas Board Order in applying the general revaluation increase of 75 per cent. of the existing norm, thereby increasing it to £9.744 for each year of the new valuation quinquennium.
The effect of the Order will be to maintain water undertakings collectively in approximately the same position relative to other ratepayers as before the revaluation.
10.56 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am determined to try to elicit the facts behind this.
The hon. Gentleman used the expression "relative to other classes of ratepayers" or "collectively disposed to other classes of ratepayers." He said this was on all fours with the Gas Board Order. How docs he know? In order to defend that statement the Minister should tell us the average increase in rateable values in the different classes of ratepayers in Scotland. He has not given us this increase. He has not told us the total percentage as presently expressed and he is basing his Order on the figures that are presently available.
The hon. Gentleman has not given us the present Scottish average or the domestic classification and he has not given us the commercial or industrial figures. He has left us high and dry in a position which even the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) with his great mathematical skill—and I say that sarcastically—would find difficult to to calculate.
How can the Under-Secretary assess the relative position as 75 per cent. in the case of water where it is raised from £5.568 to £9.744? We do not even have comparisons within the Gas Board Order. All

1615
we are told in paragraph 2 is that in subsequent Orders the figure will be £1,281,860.
I am taking three minutes to develop these arguments to try to give the Under-Secretary time to get the figures from the box for the breakdown of the Scottish average into its different classifications.
I am informed that the domestic proportion is 84 per cent. If that is so, it means that the domestic ratepayer is being asked to pay proportionately more in rates—in this case 9 per cent.—than the water undertaking, which is raised by 75 per cent. There may be a case for that. Perhaps there are difficulties in water finance that suggest that water undertakings should have this preference.
The Conservatives gave us a rough time on the Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, one of the great modernising instruments of legislation which the last Parliament passed under such a glorious Government. If they are saying that these undertakings should have a preference, it comes as a great surprise. Maybe the domestic figure is not 84 per cent. What is the increase for industry then? Will industry be content that this should be dealt with "fairly and justly" relative to other classes of taxpayer?
What is the rise in industrial assessments in Scotland? Is it 75 per cent., as with water? Is the commercial figure 75 per cent.? If there is a difference between water and the others, may we have a short explanation why water has been given a penalty—that is, above the average—or a preferences—below the average—by the choice of the figure of 75 per cent.?
Then, of course, the Under-Secretary will greatly entertain us on the Gas Board Order. He will have to tell us what the figure is. We know the absolute figure, but not the relative figure, the percentage. I should like to know what the Gas Board percentage is in terms of increase over the quinquennial review in 1966 and how this compares with the other classes of ratepayer.
I will not necessarily rest content because I do not rise again and let the Order go through. No doubt we will debate this elsewhere. I give due notice that we will not permit the Government, even with the support of the local authority associations, to put through inequitable Orders, or allow them to muddle
1616
the inevitable judgment on the equitability of the quinquennial review which is now being put into operation.
There will be massive increases in rates of 10 or even 15 per cent. in Scotland. If that is so, for whatever reasons—I suspect that many of them lie in the Government's own cupboard and record—we must ensure that this is shared out equally between all the ratepayers, including all these great publicly-owned undertakings. I should like to know the reasons for these judgments, for that figure and for the 75 per cent. before we proceed.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, I shall do my best to provide the information which the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) seeks. First, the figure of 75 per cent. which we have applied for the increase to the general norm in both these cases is reached by taking into account the increases that at present appear likely on revaluation in the various categories of ratepayer throughout Scotland. It is too early yet to give absolutely final figures because these are naturally affected by the success or otherwise of appeals which will be going on all over the country against these assessments.
The hon. Gentleman also knows, of course, that the actual amount of revaluation is a matter entirely in the hands of the assessors and is not in the control of the Government. We are merely recording what, in the opinion of the assessors throughout Scotland, is the increase in rateable value under the Statutes under which they operate. The general figure of 75 per cent. that I mentioned could be taken as 78 per cent. on the present figures that we have but it has been rounded down to 75 per cent. to make some allowance for the probable success for a certain number of appeals. So the hon. Gentleman will perhaps agree that 75 per cent. is a fairly reasonable figure to take in that amount.
As for the individual figures, it appears so far—this is before any appeals have been heard or their effect has been shown—that the domestic ratepayer will have an increase of approximately 86 per cent. in this revaluation, the industrial ratepayer of about 67 per cent., the commercial ratepayer about 73 per cent. and

1617
the other miscellaneous categories which are not covered by any of these about 73 per cent. also.
The hon. Member for Greenock will know that these figures for rateable valuations bear no relation to what the firms or individuals will actually pay, for that is dependent on the rate per £ which is fixed by the various local authorities throughout Scotland. It is too early for me to give any indication what the average figure of rates actually paid is likely to be by the various classes of ratepayer because only a comparatively small number of local authorities have so far come to a decision on what their new rate poundage will be.
As I have said previously, the Secretary of State and the Government have pressed and are pressing local authorities throughout Scotland to bear in mind the need to keep any increases in their rate poundages down to the minimum this year in view of the increased rateable values and the general pressure on the cost of living, about which we all know.
All I can say on this point now is that, although it is too early to come to firm conclusions, it is our hope that the local authorities will manage—they will certainly get all our encouragement to do so—to keep increases down to not more than they were under the last revaluation, when the figure was about 19 per cent. in terms of actual rate poundage.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why has the figure of 75 per cent. been chosen? If, as the hon. Gentleman has confessed, the figure for the domestic ratepayer has been fixed at 86 per cent. and the others at 73 per cent. and 67 per cent., why has he chosen 75 per cent.? Why is the water board being asked to bear a less substantial share proportionately than the domestic ratepayer?
Mr. Younger: This is a simple mathematical calculation and involves striking a balance between them. I am not confessing that the domestic ratepayer has an 86 per cent. increase. I am merely reporting that this is the decision of the assessors throughout Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this has absolutely
1618
nothing to do with the Government. It is decided absolutely independently by the assessors, and I am sure he will confirm that he knows this to be the position.
Dr. Mabon: I appreciate the position as it exists under the 1956 Act, which was passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite against our protests. This position compares unfavourably with the position in England, which is assessed not by assessors, with all the disparities that occur under that system, but by the Inland Revenue. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have power, through the Scottish Valuation Advisory Committee, to seek to rectify these figures by reporting to that Committee that the Secretary of State is not satisfied? Is he further aware that by going forward with these Orders he is merely perpetuating an unsatisfactory situation? Will he take the opportunity of the Green Paper on local government finance to amend the Act from which these Orders flow?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is a bit late in demanding a change in the whole process. After all, he had six years in which to make such a change.
Dr. Mabon: But only one review.
Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to make such a change, he could have put the Wheatley Commission on Local Government to considering finance in the first place, and we might have had the Green Paper long before now. However, I assure him that the Government intend to publish a Green Paper on local government finance before long, and then we can discuss this whole issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (Adjustment) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

FISHING VESSELS (GRANTS)
11.09 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move.
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
The Scheme before the House tonight contains our proposals for the payment of subsidy for the year from 1st August next for white fish vessels under 80 ft. and for all herring vessels, most of which are also under that length. So we are discussing only the inshore and herring subsidies. In due course, my right hon. Friends will be laying proposals before the House for the deep-sea subsidy arrangements.
A further payment to those who own deep-sea vessels will not be due until early in 1972, so there will be a chance of discussing those arrangements on another occasion, but they will not affect the proposals which we are putting forward tonight, which are concerned only with subsidy rates for the inshore and herring fleets for the next 12 months—that is, until July, 1972.
It is usual in debates of this kind to set the proposals against the economic background of the fleet. Total landings of white fish and herring from inshore vessels in the United Kingdom in 1970 were £22.8 million—a significant increase of £3.5 million, or 17 per cent., over 1969. Shellfish landings at £6.7 million went up by about £0.7 million. Landings benefited to some extent from natural factors, but also from a much improved level of prices, while herring in particular continued to benefit from the firm demand from Scandinavian markets, particularly for herring from the West Coast of Scotland.
The size and catching capacity of the inshore fleets is being well maintained. In England and Wales, the number of vessels is up slightly with a significant increase in capacity as a result of a number of new vessels, particularly on the North-East Coast. In Scotland, the slight fall in vessel numbers is a result of many smaller and older vessels no longer being classified as registered fishing vessels. But the newer and better
1620
equipped vessels are fully mantaining the industry's capacity.
The higher landings which I have mentioned are reflected in the industry's average profits, which showed a further healthy increase. In England and Wales profits before depreciation were 40 per cent. higher than in 1969, and in Scotland the increase was over 26 per cent. Overall the increase was just about 30 per cent. Earnings being made just now have risen again and up to the end of June are about 24 per cent. up on the same period last year.
I should also mention that in spite of the close season for herring fishing in the North Sea during May, the value of herring landings in the United Kingdom up to the end of June was over £2 million—an increase of about one-quarter compared with the same period of last year.
The 1970 profits picture which I have painted shows the industry to be in a healthy state, and earnings so far this year do not give any grounds for despondency. In spite of rises in costs which the industry is having to face, I see no reason why profits in 1971 should not continue the upward trend of recent years.
At this time we are considering assistance to the industry for the 12 months to July, 1972, in the light of 1970 profitability and of factors which may affect profits made during 1971. Although profits are continuing to rise, we have decided that the right thing to propose to the House is to leave the present subsidy rates as they are.
I think it can reasonably be claimed that this a pretty generous settlement, and this will have to be borne in mind when future schemes are considered, but we are confident that it will commend itself to the House as evidence of the Government's determination to see a strong and prosperous industry.
We are not proposing any significant change in the condition of payments. We are continuing the qualification required by some of the smaller boats to make them eligible for voyage rate subsidy, and on this occasion these boats will be paid such rates if they earned at least £250 in subsidy in the year 1970.
Other than mentioning that, at the request of the fishermen, we have included Fleetwood in place of Holyhead

1621
in the list of ports at which herring landings qualify for oil and meal subsidy, I do not think that I need draw attention to any other points in the Scheme, which follows almost the same form as that approved by the House last year.
I commend the Scheme to the House.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The whole House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us his review of the economic conditions of the industry as a background to the scheme. He has explained that the rates of operating subsidy are to be the same under this scheme as in the previous year, against a background of increasing profits. But while this is a standstill scheme, we are not in a standstill situation and there are clouds of anxiety, particularly over the inshore fleet, at this time, as he is well aware.
The anxieties are due largely to the uncertainties about the outcome of the present negotiations for enlargement of the E.E.C. and the impact of the common fisheries policy on the industry. Plainly, this is a practical consequence and I think it right to ask whether the Government are satisfied that there will in fact be an opportunity to reintroduce similar operating subsidies within the common fisheries policy in due course.
There was one rather disturbing aspect of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. It was in connection with his claim that this was a generous award. He said that that would have to be borne in mind in future examinations of the operating subsidies. That sounded ominously like a fulfilment of the expectation of the Government, in pursuance of their commitment to cut Exchequer support for industry wherever they can, to seek to slash the operating subsidies in future. There is no other reading of the hon. Gentleman's reference to that. If that is not the intention, perhaps we shall be told so.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the numbers of fishing vessels operating sounded somewhat complacent. particularly in the light of the remarks of the White Fish Authority in its annual report when it said that the rapidly rising cost of new construction made it doubtful
1622
that production could be maintained at current levels, despite the increasing contribution from the prosperous and efficient inshore fleet.
The Government's decision earlier this year to cut the capital grant for vessels has placed the whole future of the fleet in a parlous state, and it is against that background that we are considering the scheme. However, I am grateful for small mercies and as this is probably one of the few sectors of the national economy which has remained relatively unscathed in the review of public expenditure to which the Government have been committed, one must accept that this is not an altogether unsatisfactory Scheme and on that account the Opposition will certainly not wish to oppose it.
The Minister of State did not review in any great detail where the profits lay, whether landings were up or down, as has been done in the past. This bears heavily on the question of whether there should be regionally varying operating subsidies. While I generally accept the view of both sides that there is a reasonable case for maintaining a flat rate, there are certain serious implications in the common fisheries policy as a result of the pricing scheme within the Community which is to be operated on a uniform basis and to which the White Fish Authority has drawn attention.
As the Authority pointed out, uniformity over the whole of the geographical area of an enlarged Community might hit the peripheral ports, those remote from the main centres of consumption. Although the Government are continuing the scheme on a flat-rate basis, I hope—and we have not heard much on this point during our exchanges—that they will look seriously at how we can subsidise those peripheral ports over the withdrawal price which has to be paid by the inshore fleet operators under a common fisheries policy.
This is conceivably the most serious aspect of that policy which does need to be renegotiated and has been overlooked in the concern, rightly expressed, over the Government's intention to start negotiations on a six-mile limit proposal. There are a number of other areas of uncertainty which point to a less rosy future for the industry.

1623
The Cameron Report on Scottish inshore fisheries has stirred up a veritable hornet's nest of criticism, understandably so when set against the background of the Common Market negotiations. I hope that opportunity will be taken tonight to explain the Government's intentions towards this Report and that the Minister will put at rest any fears that the Government intend to act upon the recommendations of the Report.
This is not the time or place to seek to elucidate the Government's position over negotiations for entry into the Common Market but it is appropriate to say in a debate in which the general condition of the fishing industry is being considered that no form of operating subsidy of the kind we are considering could possibly make good the potential depredations on our fisheries if the waters round our coasts are not adequately protected, if we do not have adequate conservation and control of fishing in the area up to the existing 12-mile limit.
There can be no satisfaction until the Government have explained their general negotiating posture and are prepared to spell out what sort of protection and control they would seek to exert in the area between the six- and 12-mile limits, if that is the finally agreed position.
The Minister referred to the generally inflationary situation and how it has affected the profitability of the industry. One must accept that the profits have risen, despite increasing costs, but perhaps he or his hon. Friend would say a few words about the expectations for the industry in the forthcoming year when these subsidies will be operative. There are concerns in the industry that the rising price of fish may seriously affect patterns of consumption and may lead to some reduction in the market. It would be valuable to know whether the Minister shares the view that there may be a contracting domestic market for our fish and, if so, what he proposes to do about it.
I am glad to learn, as has been made public on a number of occasions, that this year has been a relatively prosperous year for the fishing community, and I welcome the Government's decision to exempt the fisheries section of our economy from the slashing cuts in public expenditure on subsidisation which other
1624
sections of our economy have been subjected to.
11.26 p.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I welcome the scheme. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) down the thorny path of the European Economic Community, although I should like briefly to refer to that matter.
It is true that we have had a pretty good year and this one looks as though it will be equally good. The landings between 1st January and 31st May this year were almost exactly 3½ million cwt, which is nearly ½ million cwt. up on the same period last year. I trust that this will lead to a record year in Scotland in 1971.
It is a source of satisfaction to the House and to the industry that there is no reduction in the scheme of the stonage rate or of the daily rate compared with 1970, and at least two Scottish producers' associations—the white fish association and the herring fishing association—have intimated to me that they are well satisfied that there has been no reduction made in the current year.
In common with other industries, there has been a rapidly escalating increase in the overhead costs which fishermen have had to face. That was one of the reasons for the introduction of these operating subsidies. Let me give three examples of the increase in costs which fishermen have had to face. In November, 1963, a one by 520 trawl cost £180. In November, 1970, it cost £251. In November, 1963, a 2⅜ths inch manilla rope cost £18·60 ; in November, 1970, it cost £26·50. In November, 1963, a trawl basket cost £1·05 ; in November, 1970, it cost £1·50.
This gives a good indication of the price rises. No doubt it is in face of these increases in overheads that the Government have decided to maintain the support at its present level. I trust that, as my hon. Friend said in introducing the scheme, this will give a measure of reassurance to the inshore fishing industry in view of the uncertainty about Britain joining the E.E.C.
A related problem is the replacement of fishing vessels and the provision of new fishing vessels. The fishing boat builders are working under capacity,

1625
and in a memorandum of 23rd March their Association said that in the 18 yards in Scotland employing 1,100 men with a capacity for 63 vessels per annum, only 31 vessels were being built and only 20 orders were on the books. I hope my hon. Friend will give the current picture of the position.
I hope that the fisheries negotiations with the E.E.C. will be finally resolved before the end of the October, and perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that. Will he also say what stage the Government's review of the statutory bodies governing fisheries has reached, and whether or not we may expect an announcement about the future of the W.F.A. and the Herring Industry Board. I should also like to know what form the certification mentioned in paragraph 5 of the scheme will take, and why it is necessary to have certification. On paragraph 13, has the Minister received any further representations for the uniform payment of grants ; that is to say, whether the daily rate or the stonage rate should be universal? That has been a bone of contention for a long time. On Part III of Schedule 3, what is the Government's policy towards industrial fishing? Any extension would not be welcome to the fishermen in my constituency.
It is difficult at this time in the year in discussing these schemes when the fisheries reports and fisheries statistical tables are not available. I ask my hon. Friend, as I have asked before in the House, whether something can be done to bring forward the production and introduction of these reports to assist hon. Members not only in this debate but generally in relation to the fishing industry.
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Gavin Strang: I wish to make three brief points without going into the detail of the scheme. It is worth commenting on the general question of subsidising our fishing fleet at this time. This may be a turning point. In future years the attitude of the Government to subsidising our fishing industry may change, although I hope it will not. I base that fear on two considerations. First, subsidies strike at the very heart of the difference between the parties. The Conservative Party is fundamentally opposed to subsidies, because
1626
its view is that private industry knows best and the minimum of Government interference creates the best conditions for the people. Secondly, the Conservative Party is concerned about reducing the level of Government expenditure. The Government are obsessed with the need to reduce expenditure, and the fishing industry has already suffered from this doctrinaire obsession.
For these reasons we are bound to be concerned about the future of subsidising industry. We must bear in mind that the approach of the Labour Party is quite different. To put it bluntly, we do not take the view that what is good for General Motors is good for the people of the country. We believe in Government intervention. That is why the future of these subsidies is much more secure under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government.
Secondly, if we are in the Common Market in January, 1973, and if we are part of the common fisheries policy, inevitably this will become an important consideration when we are discussing these issues. Regardless of one's views on entry into the E.E.C.——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Although this Statutory Instrument has considerable significance for the industry, the debate should not go wider than its contents. It operates only until 31st January, 1972, so that the effect of possible United Kingdom entry into the E.E.C. will not arise in the currency of this scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member will guide his remarks in the light of that fact.
Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but, while accepting it, I feel that it would be fair for me to conclude on this aspect by saying that in the negotiations which are taking place it is important that the Government should be committed to the idea of subsidisation and should not be prepared to use the E.E.C. as a way to reduce the level of help which they are prepared to give to the industry.
My third point, which was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), is the rather rash statement made by the Minister that the Government have been generous this time—we always expect that to be said ; I doubt whether there

1627
are many occasion on which it has not been said on the introduction of these schemes—but that that will be taken into consideration in the future. The Under-Secretary of State must clarify that when he replies to the debate, because that statement will create a great deal of uncertainty and concern in the industry. It can mean only that the Government have at the back of their mind the view that in future the situation will be much less favourable for the fishing industry. If that is what they believe, they should say so and put it into perspective. Simply to give broad hints will inevitably lead to exaggerated reactions and undue confusion. We have already had a great deal of confusion and concern among our fishermen because of the incredible lack of tact which the Government have shown on virtually every fishing issue on which they have laid their hands since they came to power.
11.38 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the difference in the rate of profitability between the Scottish and the English catch, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about that when he replies to the debate. It is of interest to us in Scotland as a problem which exists at present and also as having a bearing in future on E.E.C. pricing policy. If there is an underlying difference caused by the distance from the market, that is germane to the debate which is taking place.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the increased catching capacity on the Norih-East Coast. I assume that he means that the availability of fish on the North-East Coast is on the increase. Although I do not want to overstep Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I find myself in a difficulty. We are talking about protecting the inshore fishing. It is one thing when one is thinking of the islands and promontories to be found on the west coast where there is protection under a certain limit, and a quite different matter when one is thinking of the area from Flamborough Head up to the Orkneys where a straight line may be very detrimental to us indeed.
The fact that the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that the
1628
catching capacity has been increased leads one to believe that this is a vulnerable part of the inshore industry at present. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned an alteration which had been made to Part 1 of the Schedule at the request of the fishermen. I wonder whether it is wise to draw the provision in the exact terms in which it is drawn. I notice that Anstruther, which is in my constituency, is included in the Schedule whereas the port of Pittenweem, down the coast, is not included. If, for example, Anstruther was closed for dredging, then no doubt inshore boats would have to go to Arbroath before they could land their catch. The Minister should have given himself more discretion when framing this scheme so that he could make alterations in it in the interests of the efficient working of adjacent ports if, for some reason, a particular port happened to be closed at any time.
11.42 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate covering a number of different points. The debate has raised many matters of importance. The number of Scottish hon. Members who have taken part in the discussions on this Scheme, which affects the United Kingdom as a whole, indicates the concern in various parts of Scotland.
I will deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I would point out that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in opening the debate, talked about the North-East Coast, he was referring to England. In referring to fishing capacity, he was referring to the capacity of fishing vessels—which is not necessarily related to the fishing in that area, but to the fishing effort in the various areas to which boats go in order to fish.
My hon. Friend asked about the relative importance of landings. The point he sought was in relation to Scotland as compared to the United Kingdom as a whole. Landings of white fish, herring and shellfish in Scotland during 1970 amounted to 6·3 million cwt. out of a United Kingdom total of 9 million cwt. In money terms the value of Scottish

1629
landings was £19·4 million as against a United Kingdom total of £29·5 million. This indicates the reason why so many hon. Members from Scottish fishing constituencies are present for this debate.
I turn to some of the points raised by other hon. Gentlemen in the debate. I wish to thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the welcome he gave to the scheme. He was right to express certain anxieties in the industry about certain matters. We are glad that, despite the higher profits earned in the industry, we have managed to maintain the rate of subsidy.
As one who is in regular contact with fishing organisations and their representatives, I recognise that there are anxieties over these matters. I appreciate this at first hand since I represent a fishing constituency which shares these anxieties.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised a number of points. I dealt with the point about operating subsidies when I answered a Question on this matter last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). The Common Market has not yet produced regulations on operating subsidies and the position, therefore, is far from clear. However, I give the House every assurance that we are not unaware of the anxieties on this point and that we will be watching the situation very carefully.
The hon. Member also asked, on the question of regional support, whether we could consider operating these subsidies on a regional basis. There has never been any attempt in the past to make a regional differentiation. If the hon. Member reflects on this, he will realise that in practical terms this would be very difficult. We are dealing with a highly mobile industry, with many vessels changing ports from time to time and many Scottish vessels landing at English ports. Moving away from the specific matter of this Statutory Instrument on to questions of minimum prices in the E.E.C. context, and the question of differential minimum prices, we recognise that this is an important point : it is one we have certainly taken on board and indeed it is playing a very big part in the current discussions with the E.E.C.
The hon. Member also asked about our prospects for 1971. My hon. Friend
1630
the Member for Banff to some extent answered this with the figures he gave, and we have seen an increase in landings so far this year. No full figures have yet been published, but the indications from the industry are that in the first six months of this year both prices and earnings are up very sharply and the trend of last year is continuing. All hon. Members have acknowledged that the industry has to face increased costs, but we believe that prices and earnings are at least keeping pace with these cost increases.
The hon. Member also asked about the whole future of operating subsidies, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). We are committed to a healthy fishing industry. But obviously, one has to review the situation of the industry, as we have done this year. The purpose of Statutory Instruments such as this is to review the industry, its profits, the cost position, and everything else. Obviously, one cannot commit oneself, cut and dried, to a particular pattern for the future. We have committed ourselves to an interest in the industry and a desire to look after it, because we realise not only how important is the industry for its own sake but also how important it is in relation to regional employment, especially in Scotland.
The hon. Member also asked a specific question about the Cameron Committee's Report. This has a certain bearing and has been a point of anxiety in the industry. It is important that I emphasise that, as a Government, we are not committed to the Committee's recommendations in any way. We are closely studying them. We have asked for representations from the industry. Some very detailed and full representations have been made. These we are studying. The House must bear in mind that the Cameron Committee reported in the context of an existing fishing pattern round our coasts. But in the event of accession to the E.E.C.—a point which I have made in answer to parliamentary Questions—a completely new set of considerations arises in relation to the E.E.C. Therefore, it would be impossible to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Cameron Committee's Report until we know more fully the outcome of our negotiations on fishing in relation to the Common Market.

1631
I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
Mr. Maclennan: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by his statement that in future schemes it would have to be borne in mind that the Government had been generous in this scheme? That sounded very menacing and my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to answer the point. If he does not, it will create unnecessary confusion in the mind of the industry.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There should not be any confusion in the industry. I made the position quite clear. Each year the Government have to review the situation of the industry concerning the profits earned. This is precisely what my hon. Friend said.
It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman—I do not want to introduce a discordant note—and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, who made a somewhat carping speech and did not say much by way of welcoming the scheme, to complain when the Labour Government, in 1967, made some of the biggest cuts which have ever been made in the white fish subsidy. I did not want to introduce that note, but hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for it and they have got it. The Labour Government, in the light of the economics of the industry at the time, introduced extremely severe cuts. Obviously Governments have to reserve their position to review the economic situation. That is what my hon. Friend meant.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman knows that these cuts were made in pursuance of the Fleck Committee's Report, but the Labour Government later reviewed the situation and re-established the fleet on a much healthier basis. We are now seeing the results in the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given tonight about the increased profitability of the industry. I do not think it appropriate to inject the partisan note which he has just brought in at this late stage. I am asking a straightforward question about what his hon. Friend meant. It
1632
was obscure and I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would clear it up.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It was the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend who introduced the partisan note. I said that we were continuing the policy on the fishing industry in the scheme. I think that what my hon. Friend said was clear. I hope that I have amplified the point to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction.
I should now like to deal with one or two points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff. He asked about the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I remind my hon. Friend of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 17th December last year in which he said that a decision would have to be deferred until we were clear about the outcome of the Common Market negotiations. I am afraid that at this stage there is nothing to be added to that statement.
My hon. Friend asked about our policy on industrial fishing. We appreciate that most fishermen in Britain choose to catch fish for human consumption, but it should be open to those who wish to fish industrially to do so, and they are free to do so provided that they observe the law. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to study the various aspects of industrial fishing and its effects on conservation. I think that that was the main point about which my hon. Friend expressed concern.
I was also asked about publication of the fisheries report. I assure my hon. Friend that it will be published within the next few weeks. I cannot give a precise date for its publication. It is in the hands of the printers. I hope that my hon. Friend will find it interesting reading when he gets it.
I thought that probably the most important point raised by my hon. Friend concerned the situation in our boatbuilding yards. This matter was also touched on by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Edinburgh, East. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that we had created a great deal of uncertainty in the industry. This is not true. We cannot easily get figures from every yard round our coast. The best indication that we have is the number of

1633
applications which go to the authorities which operate the grants.
It is interesting to note that in the period 1st November, 1969, to 30th June, 1970, there were 51 applications, and that in the period 1st November, 1970, to 30th June, 1971, there were 44 applications. There was a slight decline, but nothing as dramatic as one might have deduced from the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
Uncertainty might have existed until the Capital Grants Order had been approved in May of this year but, if we take the figures for May and June, we see that in 1970 there were 11 applications, and in May and June of this year there were 10. Therefore, while I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by boat building yards, the figures of applications—I do not have sufficient information to say how many applications will result in firm orders—show that the position is not as disastrous as some people make it out to be.
I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed, and I repeat the assurance which I gave on an earlier occasion to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) that later this summer—and I would rather leave it until then—when we know the reaction of the fishing industry to the Capital Grants Scheme, and the reaction of the industry to the new scheme that we are putting before the House on the placement of orders for new boats. I shall be delighted at that stage to meet representatives of the boat building industry to hear what they have to say.
Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that offer. Is he satisfied that the rate of replacement is adequate for our fleet? If he is not, will he give the matter his careful attention during the review in the next couple of months?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a very large fleet to comment on in a general sense, but the impression that has been
1634
gained in recent years is that, in certain areas, although the number of boats may have decreased, the fishing capacity of the industry has increased. That shows that the industry is modernising its boats and keeping up to date with larger and more modern boats. We cannot tonight debate the deep-sea industry and its feelings in this matter, but in the inshore industry replacement is taking place. This is, however, something that we shall watch carefully. Depreciation comes into costs considerations, and one hopes that the industry is earning sufficient to carry out a proper replacement policy.
I think that I have answered most of the points that were raised. It is certainly the Government's intention to give every encouragement to the fishing industry in Scotland to carry out the work that it has to do. In a year in which the profits of the inshore industry and the herring industry have been at record levels we have not attempted to take away any part of the benefit which they have gained by reducing their subsidy income. This should give the fishing industry a firm foundation on which to build and confidence to face the challenge of the E.E.C. I believe that it is a challenge which the industry can meet and turn to its advantage, with the knowledge that the Government are supporting it in its efforts. For those reasons I am glad to commend the scheme to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present session, Standing Order No. 71 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall have effect as if the word 'four' were substituted for the word 'two' in line 15.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

CRAIGIE COLLEGE, AYR
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
12 midnight
Mr. James Sillars: I wish to raise in this Adjournment debate the need for an inquiry into Craigie College. I know from the outset that I shall have some difficulty in convincing the Under-Secretary of the need for an inquiry. I believe that earlier this month a letter was issued from St. Andrews House on his behalf stating that he had full confidence in the board of the college. I shall therefore no doubt have some difficulty in the next 15 or 20 minutes persuading him to change his mind on this matter.
I note, however, that he is not a man who makes up his mind firmly on a matter and never changes it under any circumstances. We have all noticed the change of stance that he has developed on the Common Market, as the Prime Minister has used his patronage powers. I have not the same patronage powers as the Prime Minister has, but I hope to employ my arguments to the extent of persuading him to reconsider his position in relation to Craigie College as he has in relation to the stance that he previously took on the Common Market.
I am glad to have the opportunity of this debate—and at the outset I wish to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for his ready acceptance that I should apply for time. Craigie College is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr, and the case that has given rise to the demand for an inquiry concerns a constituent of his. The college serves a much wider area than simply Ayr Burgh, and the case of his constituent raises matters of general public importance. Hence my interest in the case.
It is right to put on record the acknowledgement of the hon. Member's agreement for me to proceed. I am sure that he would want me to emphasise, however, that his agreement for me to proceed in no way implies that he agrees with my views about the substance of the case.
Craigie College is an important public institution in Ayrshire. It is a source of teacher supply, but it is more than that ;
1636
it is an establishment in which those who teach our children not only enlarge their academic experience and improve their expertise but where they also learn the important lessons of civil conduct which they will ultimately impart, along with the three Rs, to our children.
Craigie College is not a machine for the manufacture of teachers but an institution which makes a not insignificant contribution to the shaping of our society. It is essential that the conduct of those deputed to formulate and implement policy should be discharged in a manner which retains public confidence in them, and that they should be readily available to the public to check and scrutinise if responsible organs of public opinion deem it necessary to do so.
Those who are responsible for the running of Craigie College may feel annoyed that a demand for an inquiry should be made in this House, but I would sharply remind anyone who harbours such feelings that the college was built by the public for public purposes and is maintained by public money, voted by the public's Parliament, and that they—those who run the college—are or should be accountable to the public. When public money built Craigie College it was not the intention to construct a small, private empire for little tin gods or goddesses to strut around in and abuse whatever power they have been given, or managed by personality prowess, to acquire. It is not their college ; it is public property, employed in the public interest, and there must be public accountability.
I am sorry to repeat myself so often about public accountability, but it appears to be a concept so new to those who run the college that it is unknown to them. I readily acknowledge that on paper—and that means in theory—there is some form of public accountability built into the college constitution and by the method of appointing the board of governors from various interests and as responsible individuals. When, however, this machinery manifestly fails to work, as it has done at Craigie, there is a clear duty upon the Government to initiate an inquiry. When in failing to work in a responsible manner the machinery actually causes serious harm to an individual, as has happened as Craigie, there can be no excuse for the Government's

1637
refusing to act. May I remind the Under-Secretary of his recent past as a journalist on the Glasgow Evening Citizen where he constantly billed himself as the champion of individuals who were aggrieved by institutions, public and otherwise.
The need for the inquiry I am seeking arises out of the David Carter case as it has become known throughout Ayr and the rest of Scotland. This case was first drawn to my attention by a report issued earlier this year by the Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy. This report showed that a young lecturer, David Carter, was appointed on a temporary contract in 1966 which was extended for two years in 1969. Two other lecturers were in a similar position. In 1970 he learned by chance that, while his two colleagues were to be placed on the staff on a permanent basis, he was to be dismissed.
I use the word "dismissed" advisedly, I will refuse to accept from the Under-Secretary an evasion of the issue on the technical grounds that Mr. Carter's contract was "temporary". He had worked for four years at the college and his service entitled him to a standard of treatment and to certain explanations for the non-continuance of his employment which have never been forthcoming.
In the view of most sensible people who know the meaning of the word temporary when applied in certain sections of public employment, David Carter was sacked. He attempted to find out why. His attempts and those of his head of department, a Mr. Tosh, led to the uncovering of incompetence among the governors, of disregard for basic individual rights by the principal, and the ventilation of pent-up grievances by staff members at the college.
The Carter case has shown that the chairman of the board and the principal appeared to be oblivious to the right of a Member of Parliament to seek and to be given essential information on a matter of deep public concern. I did not want to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I sought to keep it away from here altogether. After receiving and reading the C.A.F.D. report I interviewed Mr. Carter after obtaining permission from the hon. Member for Ayr. I then wrote to the principal asking for an interview with her and the chairman. As I said
1638
in my letter to her, I recognise there are two sides to every issue. I talk from some experience of inquiries in public bodies.
The principal wrote back, in effect, that she would not see me. I made a second request and I received exactly the same answer. It appeared to me that a Member of Parliament was getting the cold shoulder. I am not protesting in a personal sense. I have had the cold shoulder before and will no doubt get it again. But I am concerned about the principle involved here : whether people who are responsible for running a public body should be permitted to turn away a perfectly legitimate request from a Member of Parliament elected by certain people in the County of Ayr.
I have never known a case, in my experience of public bodies—it covers all levels, from district councils to regional hospital boards—of a Member of Parliament being spurned in this manner. I find it surprising and very revealing of a mental attitude of isolationism which seems to grip the principal and others responsible for the administration of the college—isolationism which as public individuals they are not allowed in theory or practice.
I have been forced to the conclusion that the defects in the running of the college, as identified in the report, probably do exist and the people in charge are anxious to hide something. I can draw no other valid conclusion from the refusal to meet me on this important matter.
The C.A.F.D. report shows that Mr. Carter approached the then board chairman for an explanation of his dismissal. He was informed that the chairman's committee had acted on a recommendation by the principal, that it had been accepted without discussion—I stress that—and that the chairman could only assume that there might be some dissatisfaction with Mr. Carter's work. The report gives the full text of a letter sent by the college secretary to Mr. Carter, following the meeting of the chairman's committee :
" Dear Mr. Carter,
At the meeting of the chairman's committee on 1st September, 1970, the position of certain members of staff, relative to their appointment, was discussed."
It goes on to explain that he is not being put on a permanent basis.

1639
So there is a contradiction, with the chairman of the board, who was present at the chairman's committee meeting, saying that Mr. Carter's position was not discussed and an official letter from the college secretary to Mr. Carter saying that his case was discussed. This is something which requires to be cleared up as soon as possible.
This young man's careers has a black mark against it because he is the only person in Craigie who has never been put on a permanent basis after running on a so-called temporary contract. That has been done without discussion—or was there discussion? That is one of the questions that an inquiry would answer.
So alarmed was Mr. Tosh, the head of Mr. Carter's department, by the assumption of dissatisfaction which the chairman had implied, that he informed the chairman of the board that his opinion had never been asked for and that, if it had been, he would have given Mr. Carter a good report. Mr. Tosh also tried to get the chairman to raise the issue at the full board meeting which would have to endorse the chairman's committee's decision to sack Mr. Carter.
When the full board met on 24th September, at least five governors knew of the concern felt both by Mr. Carter and the head of Mr. Carter's department. Not one of them appears to have commented when the minutes were ratified. After the ratification, the principal is said to have given a so-called voluntary statement, that she agreed with Mr. Carter that his future lay in secondary schools. She is not recorded as having referred to dissatisfaction with Mr. Carter.
What I have just said is all according to the C.A.F.D. report, which has never been seriously contradicted. The important point is that no discussion appears to have taken place among the governors about Carter's sacking at the full board meeting on 24th September. As they were ratifying the decision of a committee which appears not to have discussed the matter, the action of the governors was obviously lacking in any element of natural justice or fairness.
For several months during this Session, the Government have boasted that the
1640
Industrial Relations Bill will lay down procedures against unfair dismissal, and they have published a Code of Industrial Relations Practice, which is said to introduce fairness to industrial relations for the first time. I am bound to ask how Carter's treatment accords with these principles.
It is little wonder that there is grave public disquiet about this case in Ayrshire. The principal made one generous concession. She allowed Mr. Carter to apply for his own job when it was advertised. He did so and was interviewed by an appointments committee. The way that appointments committees appear to work in Craigie is, to say the least, a little odd. After interviews, it appears that the principal asks other members of the appointments committee to give their assessments of the various candidates. Then she makes up her own mind whom to recommend to the board—a method of work which is completely alien to me, and I have been involved in elected and non-elected public bodies for several years.
At Mr. Carter's interview the head of his department, acting as a member of the appointments committee, said that if any candidate other than Carter was selected, he wished his dissent to be reported to the governors. Mr. Carter was not elected and the C.A.F.D. report states that the chairman of the board claimed that the head of department's dissent was not reported.
Subsequent events have shown a sharp deterioration in public confidence in the college, with expressions of concern in responsible local newspapers and in academic circles. It appears that the conduct of the college authorities has not been all it should have been, and this brings me to a letter which Mr. Tosh, the head of Mr. Carter's department, sent to me this week, having heard that I would be raising this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Tosh informed me that after the college had issued a statement describing the C.A.F.D. report as inaccurate, he, Mr. Tosh, who had figured prominently in the report, sought an interview with the chairman to identify the inaccuracies. He got neither interview nor reasoned reply. He also stated that as a member of the appointments committee who interviewed applicants for Carter's job,

1641
he was not satisfied that Carter's application got "fair and objective consideration". The letter made this point :
"Students who have attempted to have the case ventilated since the C.A.F.D. report was published have been placed under vows of 'confidentiality' by the principal and vice-principal and told things which are simply not true in order to dissuade them from pursuing the matter. The technique has worked, too."
The next point which Mr. Tosh made is of particular concern to those of us who are responsible for the oversight of public institutions :
"There is little respect in the place generally"—
referring to Craigie College
"for the process of consultation and democracy. Resolutions of the Board of Studies are often either reversed or ignored ; to raise points or motions exposes one to irrational and personal hostility ; full and open discussion of policies and issues is impossible in the prevailing atmosphere ; and the structure encourages arbitrary and unchecked exercise of power. For the sake of everyone who works in the place, including the principal, there needs to be a revision of the structure".
That letter was sent to me not by a crank but by the head of a department inside Craigie College.
There appears to have been no real justification for the Carter dismissal in the first place. It appears from all that has been said—and much has been said through the local correspondence columns and in the report—that either the principal was striking at the head of a department through a young colleague or was exercising personal animosity against a young man who, as the report and the published correspondence shows, had had the temerity to question the methods by which she runs her régime.
There are grounds for seriously doubting the competence of the governors to play their rôle properly and there are serious doubts about the way in which the administration treats its staff and colleagues within the staff. A number of questions therefore need answering urgently.
First, what was the real reason for Carter's dismissal? Second, why was he not given the reason? Third, why were his head of department's views treated so lightly and not communicated to the board as requested? Fourth, has the board any policy for safeguarding staff from victimisation? Fifth, is it sensible to have the principal as vice-chairman of
1642
the board to which she is ultimately responsible, and does not this practice render the board incapable of exercising essential independent judgment in evaluating advice from the principal? Sixth, who runs the college, the principal or the board, because there is some doubt about this in many minds in the County of Ayrshire?
I suggest that to get the answer to that final and most important question, as well as answers to the others, we urgently need an inquiry into this whole affair.
12.20 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I should first like to thank the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). My hon. Friend has, of course, been in touch with me on several occasions about this matter. We have had several meetings, he has made many representations to me and we have fully discussed the case on many occasions.
Having paid the hon. Member that compliment, I certainly cannot compliment him on some of the remarks he has made tonight, about some of his emotive language and his references to abuses of power, victimisation, tin gods and the like. Much of what the hon. Member has said is a great disservice to an outstanding college and, I believe, an outstanding principal. Many of the hon. Member's remarks were wholly unwarranted, and in the short time that is left to me I hope to deal with some of his specific points.
First, the hon. Member raised the question of dismissal—which, of course, it was not—and referred to the Industrial Relations Bill. I know that he is very busy these days, but I wonder whether he has read the Bill as carefully as he might have done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I do not wish to draw the debate too narrowly, but I should have stopped the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in his reference to the Bill at all. I hope that this makes clear that I was allowing undue latitude when the hon. Member made any reference to it, and I hope that the matter will not be pursued.
Mr. Taylor: I certainly will not pursue it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of holders of permanent contracts, however, I agree that there is a gap, which will be filled by the Bill, but such contract holders will then have a right of appeal against dismissal. This, however, has no bearing on Mr. Carter's case : his is a fixed-term contract which does not come within the scope of the proposed appeal procedure. Nor will future fixed-term contracts necessarily come within that scope. It will depend on the terms in which they are drawn. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, as we cannot discuss it tonight, I commend to him the study of Clauses 20 and 28 of the Bill.
Against that background I turn now to the details of Mr. Carter's case. First, the common ground : he was offered and he accepted a three-year appointment in October, 1966, and a two-year extension of that appointment in 1969 ending in September, 1971. In September, 1970, the governors decided not to offer him either a further extension or a permanent contract. Instead they advertised his post and though he competed for it another candidate was preferred. Following this, I understand, he applied unsuccessfully, for a principal teachership in a secondary school in Fife.
Now for more controversial matters. The Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy took up his case and the hon. Gentleman, in presenting his arguments tonight, relies heavily on the Council's findings. I have read its report and am rather less impressed. The Council makes much of the extension of the contract which, in a curious way that I confess I am not wholly able to follow, it seems to think makes the decision not to offer a further contract tantamount to dismissal.
I have thought that it might equally, and indeed more reasonably, be argued that the governors were not quite sure of Mr. Carter in 1969 but were—perhaps generously—giving him a further chance by extending his temporary contract before making up their minds.
Mr. Sillars: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the governors actually discussed Mr. Carter's case at the chairman's committee and the subsequent full meeting of the board?
Mr. Taylor: I will try to deal with all the points. The hon. Member knows, of course, that the matter was fully discussed at a meeting of the governing body. I will not refer to which one, but it has been fully discussed. However, as I have said, Mr. Carter undoubtedly accepted his new contract in 1969 on the footing that it was a temporary one with no commitment by the governors beyond September, 1971.
Next, we have the allegation that Mr. Carter's case is in some way unique. I have made inquiries of our largest college of education, Jordanhill, on this matter and have learned that during the past 25 years, 249 temporary contracts have been offered and accepted and that of these 86 have not been renewed. Where is the uniqueness of the situation, therefore, when 86 out of 249 have not been renewed in a large teaching college in Scotland? During the past three and a half years, the comparable figures were 36 and four. Temporary contracts and non-renewal of them are not, therefore, so unusual. On the point that nonrenewal must be an adverse comment on Mr. Carter's professional competence and thus, by inference, damaging to his career, I understand that many of the Jordanhill people whose contracts have not been renewed have gone on in due course to important posts. In addition to school headships and senior appointments in educational administration a number have taken up appointments at other colleges of education.
The hon. Member then talked about grave public disquiet. I wonder whether he has noted that other bodies in much closer contact with the system than the Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy and with considerable potential interest in this matter have been singularly silent. There is an Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland, a body widely representative of college staffs. Apart from that, many lecturers, as former teachers in the schools, retain, I believe, their membership of one or other of the main Scottish teachers' associations.
Yet, following publication of the C.A.F.D. report, none of these bodies has been moved, either by Mr. Carter or by any of his colleagues, to raise the matter, either with my right hon. Friend or, so

1645
far as I am aware, with the governors. Moreover, in letters signed by 23 members of the staff in support of the governors and the principal, I am informed that the college staff association, which is open to all members except the principal and vice-principal, pronounced on 19th March :
"The staff association acknowledge that the decision to terminate the temporary contract of Mr. David Carter has been taken according to the established procedure."
It also rejected a request that the association should formally press the governors to set up an inquiry. That is some indication of the so-called public disquiet.
The hon. Member mentioned student concern. No representations have yet been made to the Secretary of State, although I have read Press reports about the attitude of the N.U.S.U.K. and the S.U.S. I doubt whether either of those bodies, which seem at the moment to have many other preoccupations, knows very much about the matter. At local level, all that I have seen is a letter shown to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, who has been extremely helpful throughout this business. It drew attention to the C.A.F.D. report and supported the call for an inquiry. It was unsigned and undated and purported to come from the executive committee of the college S.R.C.
I turn now to the complaints of the hon. Gentleman and of C.A.F.D. about the rôles played by the principal and the governors and about the failure to give proper explanations to Mr. Carter of the reasons for non-renewal of his contract and to take proper account of the representations made by him and on his behalf against that decision. The principal of a college of education is, in the words of the 1967 regulations,
"responsible to the governing body for the whole organisation and discipline of the college".
It is a heavy task, and this must be taken into account when considering the principal's rôle in staff selection and appointment. With such a responsibility, it is no more than fair that she should have a say, and an important say, and I have no doubt that the governors recognise this.
The hon. Member referred to the different view of Mr. Carter held by his head of department. In such cases, the governors' task is indeed difficult, but
1646
it is to deal with exactly this kind of situation that they are there. I am in no doubt that they are better able to reach a judgment than any outside agency, a fact which was recognised in the 1967 regulations.
In considering how effectively the governors can discharge this responsibility, it is important to remember who they actually are. Under the regulations, the composition of the governors is : five elected members of education committees ; one director of education ; five teachers and head teachers, elected by the profession ; one representative from the University of Glasgow ; two churchmen ; four members of the college teaching staff, including the principal and vice-principal ; three nominees of the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Member saying that these people acted irresponsibly and were not aware of what was going on?
The C.A.F.D. report and the hon. Member both suggested that this group was a supine body in thrall to a strong-minded principal. That is an insult to people who give their service freely and who include some of the outstanding educationists and other figures in Scotland. The issue could well be seen as whether the Secretary of State should accept the views of a self-appointed body whose membership does not appear to include anyone with very much first-hand knowledge of the Scottish teacher-training system, or rely on a broadly-based governing body with clear terms of reference and specific duties and responsibilities assigned to it by him.
There is much more that I should like to have said, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to deal with this matter. There has been no protest from the academic organisations and the teachers' organisations and the staff association. The governing body is fully representative and is responsible to the Secretary of State and we have full confidence in it. The——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, 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 half-past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  M11 (London-Stamp Cross)
  M11 (London-Stamp Cross)
  River Lea Bridges, Epping (Traffic)
  River Lea Bridges, Epping (Traffic)
  River Trent (Pollution)
  River Trent (Pollution)
  Winter Public Works Programme
  Winter Public Works Programme
  Public Library Service
  Public Library Service
  Road and Rail Improvements (South-East England)
  Road and Rail Improvements (South-East England)
  Aston, Rother Valley (Roads)
  Aston, Rother Valley (Roads)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Coastal Waters
  Coastal Waters
  Keep Britain Tidy Campaign
  Keep Britain Tidy Campaign
  Council Houses (Rates)
  Council Houses (Rates)
  Domestic Rate Poundage
  Domestic Rate Poundage
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  North Humberside Intermediate Area
  North Humberside Intermediate Area
  Motorway (Leeds)
  Motorway (Leeds)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
  Preston New Town (Board)
  Preston New Town (Board)
  Palace of Westminster (Cartoon)
  Palace of Westminster (Cartoon)
  Palace of Westminster (Flood Protection)
  Palace of Westminster (Flood Protection)
  Firm Price Tendering (Building Costs)
  Firm Price Tendering (Building Costs)
  Possession Orders (Furnished Accommodation)
  Possession Orders (Furnished Accommodation)
  Churchill Memorial Site
  Churchill Memorial Site
  Archaeological Sites (Use of Electronic Metal Detectors)
  Archaeological Sites (Use of Electronic Metal Detectors)
  Rents
  Rents
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  House of Commons (Table Office)
  House of Commons (Table Office)
  Pembroke House (Cleaning Contract)
  Pembroke House (Cleaning Contract)
  Road Accidents (International Comparisons)
  Road Accidents (International Comparisons)
  Reservoirs (Recreational Use)
  Reservoirs (Recreational Use)
  Motor Vehicles (Windscreens)
  Motor Vehicles (Windscreens)
  Motorcycle Driving Licences
  Motorcycle Driving Licences
  St. Columb Major (Car Parking)
  St. Columb Major (Car Parking)
  School Pupils (Fares)
  School Pupils (Fares)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Public Expenditure (Scrutiny)
  Public Expenditure (Scrutiny)
  Goods Wagons (Derailment)
  Goods Wagons (Derailment)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Police (Dress)
  Police (Dress)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Questions to Lord Advocate
  Questions to Lord Advocate
  Visitors
  Visitors
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SCOTLAND
  Pensioners and Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Pensioners and Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Leith
  Leith
  Scottish Fishery Protection Service
  Scottish Fishery Protection Service
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council
  Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council
  Acute Housing Need
  Acute Housing Need
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Isle of Harris (Anorthosite Deposits)
  Isle of Harris (Anorthosite Deposits)
  Crofts
  Crofts
  Roads
  Roads
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Illegal Fishing
  Illegal Fishing
  School Building (Allocations)
  School Building (Allocations)
  Milk
  Milk
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Forces (Civilian Employees)
  Police Forces (Civilian Employees)
  Accused Persons (Copies of Statements)
  Accused Persons (Copies of Statements)
  Licensed Premises, Carlisle (Disposal)
  Licensed Premises, Carlisle (Disposal)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Cunard Steamship Company
  Cunard Steamship Company
  British Insurance Association
  British Insurance Association
DEFENCE
  Mallabar Report (Dockyards)
  Mallabar Report (Dockyards)
  Belfast Printing Works (Bomb Explosion)
  Belfast Printing Works (Bomb Explosion)
  Northern Ireland (Bomb Explosions)
  Northern Ireland (Bomb Explosions)
  Nancekuke (Effluent)
  Nancekuke (Effluent)
  R.A.F. Abingdon
  R.A.F. Abingdon
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Further Education Teachers (Salary Claim)
  Further Education Teachers (Salary Claim)
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Bridgwater (Secondary Reorganisation)
  Bridgwater (Secondary Reorganisation)
  Hampton Hill Junior Mixed School
  Hampton Hill Junior Mixed School
  Examinations
  Examinations
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
EMPLOYMENT
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Macclesfield
  Macclesfield
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Cameroon (Jehovah's Witnesses)
  Cameroon (Jehovah's Witnesses)
  Students and Overseas Visitors (N.H.S. Cards)
  Students and Overseas Visitors (N.H.S. Cards)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Family Incomes Supplement (Nottingham)
  Family Incomes Supplement (Nottingham)
  Consultants
  Consultants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motor Taxation (Scotland)
  Motor Taxation (Scotland)
  Currency Flow
  Currency Flow
WALES
  Rents
  Rents
  Education (Statistics and Planning Services)
  Education (Statistics and Planning Services)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Hemingford—Took the Oath.

POLISH WAR PRISONERS: MASS MURDER IN RUSSIA
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what grounds, negative or positive, did the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, aver, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on June, 17 (Hansard col. 773), that"Her Majesty's Government have absolutely no standing in the matter "; the matter being the assassination, within Soviet Russia, of 14,500 Polish officer prisoners-of-war, at a time when Poland was an active, loyal and valued ally of this country.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, as I told the House on June 29, I meant that we are speaking of the murder and disappearance of Polish officers on Soviet territory. Her Majesty's Government are not unaware of the widely held conclusion which many people have chosen to draw from the evidence. We do not consider, however, that another investigation of this most grievous crime against prisoners of war would shed any further light unless it were carried out with the full co-operation of all the Governments concerned, which is not to be expected in the circumstances.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for a rather more understanding and sympathetic reply than we have had heretofore, I have two
962
separate supplementary questions, both requesting purely factual replies and not asking my noble friends to advance by so much as a millimetre further than he may wish in the matter of judgment or opinion. First, setting aside the inquiry at the Nuremberg trial, which was designed to implicate the Germans in the crime and for which no evidence was found, is my noble friend aware of any inquiry subsequent to the discovery of the crime in 1943 which did not conclusively attach the guilt to the Soviet authorities and, if so, which was that inquiry?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend was going to ask me two questions, but he asked only one. So far as I am aware, there have been in all three inquiries: one was made by the Germans, one by the Russians, and one was an American Congressional inquiry. Those are the three inquiries of which I am aware, apart from the Nuremberg war crimes trial.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that, at a time when both the Soviet Union and the Nazis were capable of the crime of the Katyn Wood massacre, it is not inconceivable that the Germans, who were beginning to murder some 4 to 6 million people, might have been the guilty people in this?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am aware that Her Majesty's Government have in no way been associated with any of the three investigations that I have mentioned, nor have we accepted any of their various conclusions.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the understanding is clear that the events occurred in the spring of 1940, when the Germans were not at war with Russia? Secondly, is my noble friend able to throw any light on to the reason why at the Nuremberg trial this investigation was suddenly dropped?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we went into this matter in very full detail on an Unstarred Question. I do not think we ought to debate it fully again.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while recognising that it is undesirable to go into these old issues, and without accepting all the charges which have been made

963
on the question, is the noble Lord aware that the Poles suffered from both sides at this time, and that some of us are deeply aware of Socialist comrades of ours who were assassinated during the unfortunate period of the Soviet Union at that time? Would the Minister, in giving this routine reply, at least express some sympathy with the Poles who suffered on both sides in that period?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I gladly rise to say"Yes"to the noble Lord; I have the deepest sympathy with the sufferings of the Polish people in the last war.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government know perfectly well who committed this crime and are not willing to say so? Are they, or are they not, interested in the establishment of justice?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have been waiting to get in my second supplementary question, even though I am bound to say that I did not think my first supplementary was at all completely answered by my noble friend, as I think he will realise when he studies the two together. My second supplementary question is this. Setting aside the Nuremberg inquiry, with its false premise, can my noble friend look again at the reply, and look into the question of whether there was not any instance of an inquiry by British officials, for instance, in May, 1943, regarding this crime? Was any such inquiry, if made, conclusive; and if so, in what way? And when are the relevant documents due to become public property under the 30 year rule, supposing, that is, that such an inquiry took place? As my noble friend appears to have come, through no fault of his own, inadequately prepared this afternoon, I wonder whether he could reply to my question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend. I know that he has deep feelings on this matter, but he must restrict himself to the Question.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I very much resent the implication of my noble friend that I came inadequately prepared. I tried to help my noble friend in the course of an Unstarred Question; I have tried to answer him once before on a
964
Starred Question, and I think he will agree that I helped him in some small way to see my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I really cannot go any further. In answer to his question as to whether any inquiry was held in May, 1943, I am not aware of any such inquiry but naturally I will look into the matter and let him know.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before any of us jump to categorical conclusions, it would be wise to consider the example of the Pentagon Archives, in that they have demonstrated the fact that some truths we have believed up till only a few months ago are absolutely and categorically wrong? May this be the case here, without any of us becoming too emotional?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I ask whether these were not the secrets of the Rand Corporation and as such have nothing to do with the question?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think we are getting on to another subject.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while I recognise the difficulties of the Government in this matter, the fact that it has been raised in your Lordships' House, even if there has been no satisfactory conclusion, will give a great deal of satisfaction to the Polish exiles in the United Kingdom?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and I very much hope that that is the case.

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS' OVERSEAS FEASIBILITY STUDIES
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 what financial help they are willing to give to enable consulting engineers to offer on competitive terms feasibility studies for construction projects overseas which, if designed by British experts, could well result in substantial

965
demand for British engineering and other exports.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, for just over two years now a Feasibility Fund has been at the disposal of the Department of Trade and Industry, for precisely this purpose. Up to £100,000 per year is available to help finance such studies, whether carried out by British consultants, engineering contractors or equipment suppliers. Since the inception of the Fund, 31 applications have been approved, to a total commitment of £98,000. The projects to which these 31 studies relate could offer good export opportunities to Britain totalling well over £100 million. The Fund is experimental, and the Government wish to test its value.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that informative Answer, may I ask whether he thinks that the existence of this Fund is yet well enough known and, secondly, whether it is extensive enough to enable British consultants to compete with the highly subsidised competition of consultants from other countries when offering feasibility studies for major works abroad?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I very much hope that this new Fund, which, as I said, is only at the beginning, will become even more widely known; and possibly the noble Earl's Question may help towards that end. Whilst obviously the Department of Trade and Industry cannot advertise these services widely, they are mentioned in the handbook of export services and therefore should reach those who are interested in them. In reply to my noble friend's second question, as to whether the grants are sufficient to enable our consultants to compete with overseas competitors, I may say that they are arranged on a totally different basis, and we believe that the grants are of the greatest assistance.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether these grants and subsidies are part of the Government's policy of allowing British industry to stand on its own feet?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is part of the British Government's policy to encourage exports.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask, as a matter of interest, why it is not Government policy to advertise this service?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, what I meant was that it is obviously not easy to advertise widely facilities of a specific nature; but they are advertised to a degree which should enable them to reach the people concerned.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will take a further look at the publicity which is given, because there have recently been cases where well-known consultants whose attention has been drawn to this matter have actually forgotten about it? No doubt good would be served if greater publicity were given to this admirable service.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we shall certainly look into the matter of how best to bring to the attention of those involved the advantages to be gained; but if British consultants forget things, the Government can hardly bear the responsibility.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, could the noble Earl give me an assurance that Governments, particularly of developing countries, are aware of these feasibility studies. Because quite often when they are examining work they want this kind of feasibility study done.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, obviously one cannot speak for Governments of other countries, but I think the practice is that where Governments wish a project to be undertaken they normally ask for a feasibility study to be done first.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be feasible for our overseas posts to make that information available to these Governments?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, our overseas posts are extremely active in these matters, particularly the commercial attachés and so on, and it is their desire wherever possible to ensure that British industry and consultancy are brought to the notice of people abroad.

COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE FROM BRITISH MISSIONS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 are satisfied with the speed, accuracy and volume of commercial intelligence fed back by commercial departments of British diplomatic and consular missions overseas.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, commercial departments of our diplomatic posts abroad are very much alive to the importance which British exporters attach to getting the earliest hints of future business. Where the nature of the commercial intelligence justifies it, the information is passed by telegram or telex; about 50 per cent. of all intelligence comes by this means. Commercial departments take the greatest pains over accuracy. As to volume, the output of intelligence has grown steadily and we are confident of achieving a continuing increase.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I say first of all that everyone is grateful for the work done by the commercial attachés? Is the noble Earl aware that the crux of the matter is getting the first hint of a project, and that there are firms in this country subscribing to the Board of Trade's information service who find that by an air mail subscription to the local Press they get the same information more quickly when it is already public knowledge?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, hints of future business, which commercial departments call"market pointers ", are one of the things which our overseas departments are concerned about. Obviously, it is impossible for departments of our overseas Embassies and High Commissions to be responsible, in toto, for all forms of information which may come to light in the countries in which they are situated. This information is necessarily a supplement to the British exporters' information.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That Standing Order No. 147 (Bill as amended in Committee to be deposited at Public Departments) be considered in order to its being dispensed with until the House rises for the Summer Recess. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At this time in the Session I usually have to ask the House to dispense with this Standing Order in respect of certain Private Bills to enable them to pass through Parliament before the Recess. The Standing Order provides that not less than three clear days before the Third Reading of a Private Bill, a copy of the Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be deposited with the Public Departments concerned. The purpose of suspending this Order is to shorten the period between the Committee stage and the Third Reading of a Bill. Although it is undoubtedly convenient for Public Departments to have the notice provided for in the Standing Order, I am sure that no serious inconvenience will follow if the notice is reduced to enable two Bills to receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I moved the suspension of the Standing Order until the Summer Recess, rather than put down a separate Motion in the case of each Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 147 (Bill as amended in Committee to be deposited at Public Departments) be considered in order to its being dispensed with until the House rises for the Summer Recess.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMMIGRATION BILL
2.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Statement of right of abode, and related amendments as to citizenship by registration]:
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 31, leave out (" is a Commonwealth citizen ") and insert (" was ").
The noble Lord said: I do not contend that this Amendment is quite as important as the one which I moved and carried at the commencement of the Committee stage on Monday, but it deserves some consideration. It is intended to widen the scope of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 2. If amended in the form suggested, the wording would read:
" A person is under this Act to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if…
(d) he was born to or legally adopted by a parent who at the time of the birth or adoption had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by his birth in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands."
" His"means"his"or"her"by implication as it refers back to the parent. There was a debate in another place on the Report stage on a somewhat similar point, although not precisely on this Amendment. I have from time to time said that I thought there was no convincing reason for bringing Commonwealth citizens down to the level of aliens. On this occasion, however, I am proposing that those who are not Commonwealth citizens should be raised to the level of Commonwealth citizens, and to that extent I am proposing that there should be uniformity of treatment.
It has already been noted that the contents of the Bill are extremely com-
970
plicated, and the Bill will add to the complexities of both law and practice. Therefore, anything I say is open to correction, but if I interpret the position correctly, then under existing practice in the case of persons born abroad other than Commonwealth citizens, such persons will, or may, acquire the right of abode through their father, but not through their mother. Under this Bill, as a result of the paragraph to which I have referred, the right of abode may be acquired by a Commonwealth citizen through either parent. If the Amendment is accepted, a child horn abroad, whose mother at the time of the birth of the child was a United Kingdom citizen, would have the right of abode. Incidentally, this will bring about greater equality between the sexes, to which I referred on a rather different point on Monday, since the right of abode would be required both through the mother and the father.
Some other points arise out of this matter. For example, there are persons who have dual citizenship and lose it, and there are persons who live in a Commonwealth country and have Commonwealth citizenship, but may lose it because that particular country may leave the Commonwealth. There are various permutations and combinations of circumstances. The main point is that as a consequence of this Bill there will be an illogicality in that some will acquire the right of abode through both parents, and others will acquire it only through one parent. That is the point I wish to raise. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, the law of citizenship and nationality is extremely complicated. It seemed to me, as I followed what he said (I hope I was able to follow it all), that the position he described was accurate. The reason for the complexity stems from the fact that since 1948 there has been no separate citizenship of the United Kingdom. Before that time all Commonwealth citizens and residents of this country who were born here were described as"British subjects ". Under the British Nationality Act a separate citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies was established, and that is the citizenship that we have to-day.
Most countries exempt from immigration control those people who hold their

971
citizenship—citizens of the country are exempt from immigration control. But since 1968 that has not been the case with our own immigration policies. Some citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are exempt from immigration control. Others are not so exempt; they are subject to control, unless they have a particular link by birth or ancestry, going through two generations, with somebody who has that connection with the United Kingdom. That is the present position and the Bill does not alter the principle as regards citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In this clause, the so-called patrial clause, we enter into the deep water of citizenship and nationality.
Clause 2(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), provides for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a close personal or ancestral connection with the United Kingdom, or who have been accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom and have resided here for five years, to have what is called the right of abode. People in these categories are described as patrial, and they are exempt from immigration control. That is the significance of the term. In addition, Clause 2(1)(d), to which the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, refers, provides that a Commonwealth citizen whose father or mother was born in the United Kingdom shall also have the right of abode. This Amendment, as the noble Lord explained, seeks to go wider and to confer this right of abode on those foreign nationals as well as Commonwealth citizens who have a parent born in the United Kingdom. So the effect of the Amendment would be to eliminate one of the advantages granted to Commonwealth citizens under this Bill as against foreigners. When on Second Reading we debated the principles behind the Bill, and when we debated this subject last December on the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, a number of noble Lords felt that in our immigration policies we ought where possible to give some slight preference as regards entry into this country to Commonwealth citizens, as against those from third States. This is exactly that type of advantage.
A person whose father was born in the United Kingdom is himself, as the noble Lord. Lord Wade, correctly said,
972
a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, and so is patrial under Clause 2(1)(b). This is so whether or not he is also a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country or a citizen of a foreign country or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, provided that he has not renounced his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. So the effect of Clause 2(1)(d), to which the Amendment relates, as it stands is to extend patriality to citizens of independent Commonwealth countries whose mother was born in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady White, on Monday, in what I thought was a rather apt phrase, called this a"matrial clause "; and that is really what it is. It extends to the mother the right that a Commonwealth citizen already had by virtue of his father. But this Amendment would go wider and extend patriality to all people, whether Commonwealth citizens or not, with a mother born in the United Kingdom.
A similar Amendment was moved in another place on Report and was negatived without a Division. The Government spokesman on that occasion made it clear that it is the intention of the Bill in Clause 2(1)(d) to favour Commonwealth citizens by extending patriality to them if their mother was born in the United Kingdom, as against foreign nationals. The Government consider that the combination of a close ancestral connection with the United Kingdom through the mother, and the possession of Commonwealth citizenship, justifies this grant of the right of abode. To extend the right of abode to people not having citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is in itself something of an innovation because in general I think we can all agree that it is desirable that people who are not citizens should be subject to immigration control. The Government think that the limited step proposed in the Bill as drafted is justifiable, but that it would not be right to go beyond Commonwealth citizenship in this respect.
Our law already recognises Commonwealth citizenship in a special way in that Commonwealth citizens have full civic privileges in the United Kingdom, and Clause 2(1)(d) is a further recognition of Commonwealth citizens and their rights. On Second Reading, there was

973
general agreement that we should recognise our Commonwealth links by granting favourable treatment as regards entry to this country to Commonwealth citizens where possible, and this is one of the ways in which the Bill gives effect to that intention.
3.6 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: Needless to say, I myself, and I think my noble friends, are happy to accept the extension of privileges through the mother as well as through the father, so that is not in the least in dispute. But one has a certain sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, because the trouble is that if one is going to do things by descent rather than by citizenship, it is very difficult in a way to justify it if what matters is your mother or father or, in certain circumstances, your grandmother or grandfather and if the link of blood is what is to count. Then, for example, some of my cousins in the Argentine, in the Welsh settlement in Patagonia, might well feel that they should be included in any right of abode in this country if they had the appropriate parentage; and there are some people in other parts of the world who would be concerned.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has raised the important point that if a country which was a Commonwealth country should leave the Commonwealth, what is the position then of persons who by ancestry would be entitled to a right of abode but who under the Bill, as we understand it, as it is now drafted without this Amendment, would lose any such possibility? This particular subsection and this Amendment illustrate vividly the kind of difficulties in which we find ourselves when we are trying to deal with a right of abode and patriality, or matriality, with out having coped with the fundamental problems of citizenship first. This is what we have been saying all along: that because the Government are so insistent on bringing in this Bill without giving themselves time to think of the basic problems of citizenship, we get into these compromises—because that is what in effect this is. I am not at all sure that we might not be better advised in the circumstances, if we are going to have patriality at all, and if what really matters, as I said, is the blood link, to accept
974
that as universal and not confine it to Commonwealth citizens.
I am of course open to the plea that we should advantage Commonwealth citizens where we can, because so many of the advantages have been taken away from them in other clauses of this Bill, and one ought not therefore perhaps to cavil at it. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wishes to press this Amendment. We have a certain sympathy with him, but I cannot pretend that this is one of the Amendments about which we feel most strongly.
LORD WADE: I should make it clear that I was not opposed to the element of matriality in the clause in the Bill. I wish we could think of some other words than"patriality"and"matriality "; I have a certain dislike of both words. But certainly I am not proposing that we should take away this proposed right of acquisition of the right of abode through the mother in the case of the Commonwealth citizen. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has shown us extraordinarily clearly the need for studying the law with regard to citizenship. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, that is the way this whole matter should be dealt with. If we had tackled citizenship, and then later considered whether it was necessary to alter the provisions with regard to right of entry, that would have been very much better. However, that would be going a little wide on this Amendment. I was not proposing to press it, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 31, after (" citizen ") insert (" (i) ").
The noble Viscount said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak on Amendment No. 19 at the same time, as one is complementary to the other. The purpose of these Amendments is to restore the situation to what it was before this clause was amended during Standing Committee in another place. In the original Bill the right of abode in the United Kingdom derived from grandparentage, both in the Colonies and in the Commonwealth. In Standing Committee in another place, by

975
a very close vote to which I shall refer later, this right was reduced to parentage in the Commonwealth, as at present under subsection (1), (d), while still leaving grandparentage in the Colonies as at present under subsection (1)(b)(i) and (ii).
In the course of 43 years in business I have visited many parts of the Commonwealth and have made many friends, and I know from what they have told me personally how hurt and distressed they are to find themselves relegated to—if I may use a sporting expression—the second division of the league while the Colonies remain in the first division. I do not propose to drag in the question of sentiment. Either your Lordships feel that sentiment has a part in these discussions or you do not, and if you do not I certainly do not possess the eloquence required to induce a change of mind. But I want to mention two facts: first, we cannot afford to lose friends in the world, and this is just what I fear may happen if we allow this distinction to go through as it now stands. Second, I want to remind your Lordships of the situation following the 1914–18 War. Someone is alleged to have said that this country would be made a place fit for heroes to live in. Nothing of the kind happened, and millions were without jobs. Thereupon a campaign was started, sponsored by the Government, the Press and many organisations, which said to these people,"There is nothing for you here. Rediscover the old pioneering spirit; go out into the Empire and help to develop it." Many of them, with great courage, took the plunge, and it is they—those who followed the advice and urging of the Government of the day—whose grandchildren will be penalised if my Amendments are not accepted.
Finally, I wish to refer again to the Standing Committee in another place where, by a narrow majority and without any discussion whatsoever, the grand-parentage right was taken away from Commonwealth citizens. Voting for the majority, and the proposer of the Amendment, was the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Voting for the minority was my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That gives me cause for great hope that my noble friend will be able
976
to accept my Amendments. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am sure the Committee will have listened with great attention to the able, well argued and persuasive speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Monck. I would say at once how grateful we are to him for putting down this Amendment so that this matter can be aired again in the course of the passage of this Bill. As he rightly pointed out, the Amendment is designed to restore the Bill's provisions to what they were before the grandparent was removed by the Standing Committee in another place. The Amendment would extend the right of abode to the grandchild (if he is a Commonwealth citizen) of a person born in the United Kingdom. There is one minor point of drafting, in that the Amendment would give patriality to the grandchildren of people born in the United Kingdom, even if the latter had renounced their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies before the intervening parent was born. The Bill was amended in another place so as to ensure that patriality could be acquired by descent only where the parent or grandparent had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the relevant birth. Therefore it would not be consistent, this restriction having been introduced for parents and grandparents of people who are themselves citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, not to apply it to the grandparents of other Commonwealth citizens. But I suspect that this may be an unintentional defect in the drafting of the Amendment. As I have said, it is a comparatively minor point, but I thought it was worth pointing it out to my noble friend.
My noble friend has quite correctly stated the position under the Bill as it was introduced in another place. I do not propose to go into the arguments that were adduced at that time, but I feel that although the grandparent was mentioned in the original Bill and the Government, on balance, felt that that was right, it was realised that there were substantial countervailing arguments, and there is no doubt that the decision of another place was in the reverse sense and that the grandparent was removed from the Bill. The Government did not seek to change this position at the Report

977
stage in another place, and our feeling is that it would not be right for your Lordships to do so in this instance, if I may say so, in opposition to the decision of another place. I realise that this may cause concern to my noble friend and to some of his colleagues, but we feel it is right. Therefore I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
LORD ROBBINS: May I ask the noble Lord if he can reiterate for the benefit of the Committee the arguments which were regarded by the Government as being of such substance as to countervail their original intention. Should we not all agree that we are discussing an extremely odious subject? In a different world from this we should surely all be adherents not of laissez-faire but of laissez-passer, and we should wish that all members of the human race were free to wander about the surface of the planet as they desired. Unfortunately the world is not so constituted.
As a lifelong professor of a liberal social philosophy—and not a member of the Liberal Bench—there are substantial reasons in my judgment for modifying the right of laissez-passer. But those substantial arguments are, in my judgment, two-fold. Firstly, the population explosion; if certain sections of the human race still, so to speak, cherish as their ideal of the human society an anthill, it is desirable that the explosion should be confined to parts of the surface of the planet rather than be allowed to extend everywhere. I think that in this country, with the density of population that we already have, there are substantial utilitarian arguments justifying fairly firm control of immigration.
The second argument, it seems to me, is that if immigration of a certain type takes place at too rapid a pace it may be that frictions are caused among the unsympathetic and unreflecting, and therefore there is an argument of expediency for modifying it. But these arguments have nothing at all to do with the arguments of sentiment we are discussing now. What is the quantitative importance of extending to grandchildren the privileges that were conceded to them by the original Government draft? I am quite sure it makes no difference to any sane conception of optimum population density in this country, and I cannot therefore see any humanitarian argument whatever for
978
not supporting the Amendment now before your Lordships.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understand the noble Marquess would like some drafting changes. May we pass those by and ask whether he would consider this matter again? I understood his speech to mean that he would like this House to decide this question: do we think this is a fair position or not? The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that much had been taken away in this Bill from members of the Commonwealth. Is there not here something in which we can at least express our feeling that too much should not be taken away, and that we have real consideration for those who have left this country and have tried to make their way of life in parts of the world formerly certainly closely associated with us?
I think it is a little hard to say that those who go abroad to parts of the world I think we can still call British, at least Commonwealth if not British, should be cut off after the first generation. We are asking no more than that they should not be cut off till the second generation. After all, in many of these cases, but not all, the culture of the country has been imported from here. Should they not have every opportunity of refreshing their sources, to gain strength in the development of their own way of life, wherever it may happen to be? I do not know quite what"abode"means. I do not know whether it means permission to work. There are plenty of other controls in the Bill. Surely we can grant this to the grandchildren of parents who have left this country to make their way of living in parts of the world where they have often been encouraged to do so.
LORD WALSTON: I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, at the beginning of his speech, the ideal of a world where people may move about without let or hindrance. But clearly we have not got that, and therefore we have reluctantly to put restrictions on movement, and the question is where do we draw the line. We have heard from the noble Earl who has just spoken and the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, of the ties of kinship and the ways of life of the people of the second generation who may want to come back here. I accept that these are strong factors. But there are also the ways of life

979
and the traditions we have given to certain countries, and I am referring in particular to the West Indies which I know best, where there is no question of patriality, but the people there have always looked on themselves as British; they have the British language and British way of life and traditions; and because of various immigration restrictions have been and are now denied right of access to this country. It is hard that it should be so. I will not resurrect all the arguments for and against it.
I bring it up because it shows that a line has to be drawn somewhere. It would be a retrograde step if the Government were to accept this Amendment, because, after all, the people who have been born in the West Indies of West Indian parents and grandparents have never had any chance to do anything else or be anything else. Those who have voluntarily emigrated from this country to some former colony, some present Commonwealth country, and who have produced their children there and whose children have voluntarily remained there, surely have less right of entry to this country, when one is looking at it in a moral sense, because they are staying there of their own free choice. I accept that it may be reasonable—and I do not fight the Government on this—that the sons and daughters of the first generation should have preferential treatment, but I think we should lose more friends than we gained if we were to go back and adopt the original definition of patriality; so I am happy to learn that the Government are intending to reject this Amendment, and I hope they will stick to that decision.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to be very brief. May I welcome the speech made by the distinguished noble Lord from the Cross Benches, and say this: that while I think his speech went rather beyond this Amendment, I accept his view that we cannot adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards immigration. Even if we had a world government, with the maldistribution of population in the world there would have to be some control of immigration. I turn from that to this Amendment. I feel deeply involved. I was horn in India. My father was born in Africa. When I went to the Passport Office to renew my passport
980
they told me I am not a British citizen. They were wrong, because under the Nationality Act I had opted for British citizenship. But my grandfather was born here more than 150 years ago. Are we really to say in this Bill that the right of a person to enter this country should be determined by his grandfather's birth 150 years ago? It is quite impossible, and I applaud the Government for opposing this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I, too, was very glad indeed to hear from the noble Marquess that the Government do not propose to reinstate the clause which had been rejected in another place, for the reasons that have been put forward very clearly by some noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As far as I know, my grandfather was born in 1842. He might well have gone as a babe in arms to Australia or Canada. I really do not feel that at a time when we are legislating as Lord Walston said, to keep out other people, even those brought up in the Commonwealth tradition, we should really stretch the matter to the degree that a claim should rest on descent from someone who may have left these shores so very many years ago. I am not by any means the oldest Member of your Lordships' House, there must be others whose grandfathers were born even earlier than mine. I do not know quite what the earliest possible date could have been, but plainly it was a very long time ago. Therefore we feel that there is a certain justification for saying that, on this Amendment, we would very much prefer to accept the position now adopted by the Government, and we hope that that might prevail.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Could my noble friend tell us why she thinks that the place where one's grandparents were born should be relevant in the case of citizens of the Colonies?
BARONESS WHITE: Here again we are in one of these areas of compromise and this, because of our very peculiar United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship which we have not yet cleared up (and we keep reiterating this), does have a slightly different effect from extending it to the Commonwealth as a whole.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: The noble Marquess said that there were substantial reasons why we should not

981
reverse the decision of another place. I was not quite certain whether he meant that there were substantial reasons which made their decision a good one or whether there was some quasi-constitutional point or some other political reason that had not been brought into the light. I am bound to say, on hearing the arguments, that it seems strange that we should leave the grandchildren of certain Commonwealth grandparents in a worse position than the grandchildren of Colony grandparents. I am not sure that that really can be the intention of the Government. If the point is a constitutional one, I hope that the noble Marquess is not saying that we have to accept everything in exactly the form in which it had been brought to us. I cannot believe that. I believe that we should give our best services to the whole of the argument if we make our decision and leave the subsequent stage in the dialogue between the two Houses to settle the equilibrium of the divergent forces.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: There has been great play made of the fact that the grandparents left this country of their own accord. If the grandparent were serving overseas by command of the Government, one cannot say that he left this country of his own accord. If he had children while serving overseas and if those children also eventually served overseas and had children overseas, am I to understand that his grandchildren cannot be British citizens: do not automatically become citizens. If so, it seems rather extraordinary; because they have British blood and I thought that British blood was the most important thing in the question of British citizenship.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think we have had a very interesting debate, and I should like briefly to try to reply to some of the points raised. In reply to the right reverend Prelate I should like to say that there is no constitutional principle here at all; that of course this House is entitled to alter legislation that comes from another place—indeed we did so on Monday. So there is no question of principle involved. What the Government have felt in this case was that this was a finely balanced argument and that it would he right to accept the verdict of another place. I am not saying for one
982
minute that the Committee is not entitled to express its opinion, even on that matter, to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, asked what were some of the countervailing arguments in Standing Committee. I think that he has been answered to some extent by noble Lords opposite. One or two other points were brought out. One was that the proposal as originally submitted would possibly draw a somewhat embarrassing distinction between those citizens of a Commonwealth country who would be patrial and those who would not: for example, in New Zealand, between the New Zealanders and the Maoris. I think the point was also made—and I do not want to attach too much importance to this—that exemption from control might be thought to be on a racial basis and, at the same time, that this might result in the future in large numbers of coloured descendants of people who were born here, but who subsequently went to live in another country, becoming exempt from control under the original provisions of the Bill.
These were some of the points raised. I do not want to take up too much time. In reply to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard I think I am right in saying (but I will let him know definitly about this) that the patriality of descendants of serving soldiers would depend on the length of residence of their children and grandchildren. I should not like to be taken up on that. I will let him know about it. I feel that I have put the Government case. We recognise the difficulties and have sympathy with them, but feel that this is a case where this House should defer to the opinion of another place. But as I say, it is up to the Committee to decide.
VISCOUNT MONCK: I must first apologise deeply, for there appears to be a drafting error. If I had drafted the Amendments myself I should not have been surprised; but they were drafted by a far cleverer man than I; so I am a bit shocked. But I apologise; it is my responsibility. The noble Marquess was kind enough to throw bouquets at me; he will not be surprised when I return brickbats in saying that I am dissatisfied and dismayed but chiefly astonished. I do not think—and the right reverend Prelate put this point—I am satisfied as to why

983
my right honourable friend the Home Secretary changed his mind after so short a space of time. That particular performance, we all know, is the prerogative of the female sex. I have heard it said that some politicians do the same thing. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not a man of that kidney. There must be some reason why he changed his mind in short space of time. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether between now and Report stage he could let us know (or let me know privately) the reason why our right honourable friend changed his mind from when he voted in the Division on Standing Committee. If he will be good enough to say that he will do so, then I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, I shall be only too glad to have a word with my right honourable friend on this matter. I want to help as much as I can.
VISCOUNT MONCK: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.40 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER LORD CROWTHER moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("; or
(e) he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is legally married to a person qualifying under any of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection ".)
The noble Lord said: It will be apparrent to your Lordships that this Amendment, No. 20, Amendment No. 21 in the name of the Labour Party and Amendment No. 22 in the name of the Liberal Party are all different methods of achieving much the same purpose. When I discovered that this was the case, I naturally considered whether my best course might not be to refrain from moving my Amendment or, having made a brief explanation, to seek leave to withdraw it and instead to support either, or it might be both, of those Amendments.
There are two reasons that have led me to the conclusion that that would not be my right course. The first is that the remedies proposed for what evidently we
984
all feel to be a defect in the Bill are, as I shall attempt to show, significantly different, and, perhaps with the pride of authorship, I rather think mine is the best way of putting it right. Secondly, I think my approach to the matter is probably different from that of noble Lords on either the Labour or Liberal Benches. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading—most reluctantly and with a deep sense of shame—because I had been convinced by the Second Reading debate, and by the debates in another place, that some legislation on these lines (and particularly the creation of two clases of citizens of the United Kindom and Islands) was necessary in order to get us out of the mess in which we had been placed by the, as it turned out, foolish decisions of previous Administrations and previous Parliaments, and particularly in respect of the British Nationality Act 1948. To demonstrate my feelings, I also proceeded to vote for the supplementary Motion that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
Therefore I do not propose this Amendment as one who does not believe in the Bill. Most reluctantly, I do believe in the Bill. I accept with shame the necessity for drawing a distinction between first-class citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and second-class citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I ask only that the line of distinction between the first class and the second class should not run between husband and wife. Moreover, I would guess that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches—and if I am doing an injustice I will withdraw it at once—in putting down their Amendment were thinking mainly, as they have (and to their credit) throughout our debates, of the rights of residents and citizens of the United Kingdom of coloured race, whereas I am thinking, not to the exclusion of those, but mainly and primarily of the wives of ordinary, native born Englishmen.
Indeed, I wondered whether I ought not to declare a direct personal interest in the Amendment that I am moving, because my wife was born in the United States of parents and grandparents born in the United States, and before we were married she had never been in this country for more than a few weeks at a time. Actually I think that she is included under Clause 2(1)(c) as having been settled in this country for much more

985
than five years. I say"think ", because I am not quite sure what the effect is of the alteration to that clause which was whisked through at such speed by conspiracy between the two Front Benches late on Monday night by means of a manuscript Amendment the meaning of which I, for one, was quite unable to grasp. Having read it as best as I can and tried to understand its very tortured language, I am still of the opinion that my wife is safe, so I do not have to declare a direct interest.
For all these reasons, and since by the luck of the draw or however these matters are decided, my Amendment is printed first, I have decided to move it and to hope that those who have put down Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 will demonstrate their support, at least for the principle of my Amendment, by supporting me. I do not suppose that any noble Lord is deceived by the fact that the Amendment is drafted using the masculine pronoun"lie ", because it is a well known rule of law that whenever it possibly can be so"he"must be read as meaning"he or she ". Some of the people who would be affected by this Amendment are indeed males. It would affect some husbands of patrial wives. Let me give your Lordships an example. Suppose that a scion of one of the long-settled families in Bermuda who have lived in that island for generations were to marry a British-born woman. He would be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. He would not, under this Bill as it stands, be a patrial. My Amendment would make him so.
However, there will be many more cases of women who would be affected by this Amendment, and this for the very simple reason, which is well known to your Lordships, that a foreign-born woman, on marrying a British male, acquires British nationality, whereas a foreign-born man marrying a British woman does not. Therefore there would be many more cases of wives who would not, under the Bill as it now stands, be patrials, to whom my Amendment would give that status, and I shall argue the case in terms of the wives. In discussing this subject with several noble Lords I have been met with incredulity that the statement I have just made can be true that there can be women who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies married to patrials, who are
986
not themselves patrials. Indeed, it is a remarkable thing that the Bill should have been drafted, whether by intention or by inadvertence, to produce that result. I cannot myself escape, by a process of logic which I shall ask leave to take your Lordships through, the conclusion that that is what it says.
Let us suppose, for example, that immediately after the passage of this Bill, unamended in the way that I am now proposing, my son were to follow my example and marry an American woman with no British parents or grandparents and who had never lived in this country. Let us suppose, further, that, after the wedding, the young couple were to return to this country to settle. Imagine them presenting themselves to the immigration officer at Heathrow Airport or Southampton. Would that newly married wife be qualified as a patrial? This status of patriality is invented in this Bill. There is no other definition of patriality which carries the right of abode except what is contained in Clause 2(1), so let me try it. Would she he a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies? Yes, that she would be by marriage, But would she be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has that citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom? No. Or by adoption in the United Kingdom? No. Or by naturalisation in the United Kingdom? No. On registration in the United Kingdom? Registration is a tricky matter, and I am not absolutely certain of my ground if I were to assert that she would not be entitled to be registered. But it says"registration in the United Kingdom ", and at the moment of time I am postulating for my hypothetical daughter in law she could not have been registered in the United Kingdom because she had not been here. So I must conclude, No. She would not be qualified under paragraph (b) because she had no British parentage. She would not qualify under paragraph (c) because she had never lived here. She could not qualify under paragraph (d) either, because she had no British parentage. I cannot reach any other conclusion than that the meaning of the Bill is that such a person as I have sketched to your Lordships would not have the right of abode, on arriving with her husband, to live in this country, which is his native-born country.
Let me take another example. Suppose that after my wife and I were married in the year 1932, we had not returned to live in this country. Suppose we had followed the example—and I hope he will not mind my dragging him into my argument—of my noble friend and exact contemporary, whom I see sitting on the Front Bench, Lord Caradon. Suppose I had sought and found employment in the Colonial Service, as it was then called. Suppose that in the intervening years I had served the Crown to the best of my ability in territories other than the United Kingdom, without any period of service or residence in this country that was as much as five continuous years. I do not flatter myself that I would have enjoyed nearly as distinguished a career in that service as the noble Lord, but I might perhaps hope that I would have avoided dismissal for incompetence, or superannuation, and that after 40 years I might seek to return to this country with my wife to settle down and retire. My wife would not be a patrial. She could not qualify under any of the subsections. Her children could. And if I read Clause 2(1)(b)(ii) aright (and I am not sure I do), her grandchildren would be patrial. But we have the ridiculous position that the central figure of the family—the wife, mother, grandmother—would not be a patrial and could not come into this country except by permission of the Home Secretary. She would have to serve an apprenticeship of five years, during which she could be deported, if ever it came into the head of the Home Secretary that her deportation would be conducive to the public good. That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
The question is, how do we put it right? I judge from the answer made by your Lordships to my statement that your Lordships accept that it is ridiculous. Allow me, please, to pile on the agony a little. There are many noble Lords who are still in the enviable position of owning ancestral homes in which their families have lived for many centuries. I say"enviable ", because this is not anything which often happens to us poor Life Peers, who are like Disraeli's mule, without visible ancestry or hope of posterity. But I would say to noble Lords who own ancestral homes: do they
988
realise, do they appreciate, that the Bill as it now stands would mean that if any future holder of their titles were to commit the mild indiscretion of marrying a foreign-born or Commonwealth-born woman—she need not be anything more exotic than a third generation Australian—he could not bring her home to reside with him where his ancestors had lived for generations without the permission of an immigration officer and subject to the sufferance of the Home Secretary for five years? If the Bill in its present state had been in force in the 19th century, Sir Winston Churchill's mother could not have come to live in this country and give birth to him without the permission of the then Home Secretary and on sufferance for five years. I believe the same would be true of Her late Majesty Queen Alexandra. This, I need not say again, is an absurd position.
As your Lordships may have noticed, I have been taking all my examples from people with white skin and of white race. This is not because I am behind, or not very far behind, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches in solicitude for the position of citizens of coloured race. But I hope that I can rely on their support for my Amendment, whereas I am trying to demonstrate to noble Lords on the other side, who may support the Bill in principle, that it is their families who are the sufferers. As I look round the Chamber, I see many noble Lords who, to my knowledge, have foreign-born wives or mothers. I ask them: would they really be content that their wives and mothers should have any less status under this Bill than they enjoy themselves? This Bill does, indeed, make two classes of British nationals. Surely we are right in asking that our wives should be in the same class with ourselves.
If I am right in saying that this cannot be what was intended, which I think is the charitable explanation, that it was a slip in the drafting, or, alternatively, it is what was intended, in which case it is so obnoxious that I hope your Lordships will wish to change it, what is the best way of putting it right? The Labour Amendment differs in two respects from mine. To begin with, it omits the husbands. I can see that there is an argument for that, but it is not a matter on which I should wish to stand and fight. But it also includes—and this is why I said I

989
thought they were thinking chiefly of British citizens of colour—a five-year probation clause, which I find wholly obnoxious, and I cannot support that.
The Liberal Amendment is not open to those objections but it is drafted in such terms that it would extend, through this Amendment, the right of patriality to persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and though I do not think that would offend me very much, it is clear from the answer that was given by the Government to an earlier Amendment that it would stand no chance whatever of being accepted. Whereas I very badly wish to secure acceptance of my Amendment. That is why I prefer my solution to theirs. But the principle is the thing. If the noble Lords speaking for the Government Bench will accept the principle behind any one of these three Amendments, if they prefer either of the other two—I am not quite sure about the Labour Amendment, but certainly if they prefer the Liberal Amendment—I would withdraw my Amendment and support that one. Or, if they do as they often do and say that they support the principle but do not like the drafting and would like to bring back a better Amendment at a later stage, providing the assurance is firm enough I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
I hope the Government will accept this, but I have to provide for the contingency, incredible though it may sound, that they will not accept even the principle of this Amendment. There is one argument that they might use that I feel I should say something about in advance. This would be the argument that they do not want to amend the text of the Bill, but they will give an assurance that the rules to be laid down by the Secretary of State will in fact cover all such cases. Now that is an argument we often hear in this House, and we often—to my mind far too often—accept it. It can be briefly paraphrased as the argument of,"We know it is not in the text, but we assure you that it will be all right on the night."
In some cases it may be right to accept an assurance of that sort, but surely not in this case, because what this clause is all about is rights. Moreover, they are most important rights. If I may take your Lordships back to Clause 1 of
990
the Bill, the right for those who get on one side of the line is that they
"…shall be free to live in, and to come and go into and from, the United Kingdom without let and hindrance…"
Fine words and a magnificent right! But the next clause says that"others ", everybody else on the other side,
"…may by permission live, work and settle in the United Kingdom…"
I am not willing to accept the position that the wife of any one of us may live, work and settle in the United Kingdom by permission of any office holder. This, it seems to me, is a matter of a double right. It is not only the right of our wives to come and go without let and hindrance, but also our right to have our wives living with us, and it is not to be substituted by any sufferance of an official, particularly as in this Bill it is limited and qualified and not guaranteed.
If noble Lords speaking for the Government were by chance to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment on that argument, I would say in advance that they would be missing the whole point of what I am trying to put. It is not because I have any fear whatever that in fact, in practice, any wife would be turned away at the door; I am sure that there is enough common sense in our administration to be sure of that. It is because the Bill seems to me to contravene the natural right of husband and wife to live together, if possible in the native land of either of them, but quite certainly in the husband's native land. No office holder should have the power to refuse that right; and to say that in fact he would never exercise that power is no answer at all. He should not have the power, and the Bill should make it clear that he does not have the power. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I think it might perhaps assist our consideration of this Amendment if I say, after consultation with my noble and learned friend, that if the Amendment moved so brilliantly by the noble Lord. Lord Crowther, is accepted, we would not wish to move Amendment No. 21.
LORD WADE: Perhaps I may say that I would adopt the same line. I should be delighted if any one of these three Amendments was accepted.
4.1 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I appreciate that, because I think they deal with exactly the same point. The solutions proposed are a little different, as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, said; but I think he feels that if the Government were able to accept his general line of argument he would be content. Let me say that we do accept his general line, and we are grateful to him and to other noble Lords who have brought this matter to our attention. The noble Lord referred by way of example to his own personal domestic circumstances. The thought had crossed my mind that he might do so, and I have therefore been into the position. I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. I thought his speech was such an entertaining one that he did not want interruption on points of detail—but this is a complicated matter, so let us go through the nationality developments of the family Crowther, including the hypothetical son-in-law. If we had a noble Lord who happened to get married in 1932 (coincidentally, the year in which I was born) to a United States citizen, who would the position be? Under United Kingdom law as it was at that time, the wife would automatically on her marriage, have become a British subject. By virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1948 she will have been, since the year 1949, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Under Clause 2(1)(c) a woman in this position will become patrial when the Bill becomes law as the noble Lord correctly said, assuming that she has completed a continuous period of five years' residence in the United Kingdom. The hypothetical son-in-law, however, arriving at London Airport with his newly-wed—
LORD CROWTHER: If the noble Lord will forgive me interrupting—son and daughter-in-law.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry; son and daughter-in-law. When the son arrived at London Airport with his newlywed American wife on his arm, he would find that his wife would not automatically have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I think the noble Lord felt that the wife would have become so, but that is not the case, and it has not been the case since 1949. The position was altered—rightly or wrongly, it was altered—in 1948 by the British
992
Nationality Act. Since the 1948 Act the effect of marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has been to give the wife an entitlement, which she may or may not choose to exercise, to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and if she does that, she then becomes patrial by virtue of Clause 2(1)(a).
I want to deal now in my remarks with some other points besides the ones referred to by the noble Lord. There is no difficulty about the entry or intended entry of women married to patrials residing in the United Kingdom. This is the first point to make. Paragraph 39 of Cmnd. 4606—that is, the Rules for Control on Entry—provides for the admission of the wife in these circumstances. As the draft rules stand, the husband must be able and willing to support and accommodate the wife without recourse to public funds. We are now talking about entry under the Immigration Rules; we are not talking about patriality. But on further consideration we are inclined to think that it would be right to drop this requirement in the future so far as it applies to the dependants of patrials, and we propose to make this change in the final version of the rules that is presented to Parliament.
LORD WADE: I am sorry, but may I interrupt the noble Lord? Do I understand that these will be changes in the rules, or is it proposed that there will be an Amendment to the Bill?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It will involve a change in the rules. This is a matter within the scope of the rules. I shall be moving on to the point of substance made by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther; I am dealing in my reply now with a point he did not actually raise. The change I have mentioned is one which we think would be an improvement where there is a wife of somebody who is a patrial.
I move on now to the point that he did put to us, that that there should be an automatic grant of patriality to the wife of somebody who is himself patrial. We have thought about this since the Amendments were put down—and I greatly enjoyed the noble Lord's speech this afternoon. We have it in mind to come forward with a comprehensive Amendment on Report providing that the wife of a patrial shall herself acquire patriality

993
in the right of her husband. We believe that this will be an improvement on the Bill itself and on the Immigration Rules, to which I have referred, since as they stand, although they deal satisfactorily, I think, with the question of entry into the United Kingdom, they do not deal with patriality, as the noble Lord pointed out. It is true that, where the husband is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, the wife will continue to have an automatic right to register as such a citizen herself, and that this will give her patriality under Clause 2(1)(a), but this does not meet the case of the husband who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but is patrial under, for example, Clause 2(1)(d), the Commonwealth clause we have been talking about.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment to ask whether this will work the other way about? If the wife is a British citizen, will the husband have similar privileges?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have not arrived at that point in my reply yet, but I will deal with it. Nor would it meet the case of the wife who is already a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but is not patrial. We are inclined to agree with the noble Lord that the proviso in the Labour Opposition's Amendment of five years' residence is not essential in a matter of this sort, and we are inclined to share his argument that this period of five years can be dispensed with. Therefore, what I should like to say to the Committee is that we accept in principle the content of Amendment No. 21—this is dealing with the wife—but with the proviso I have just made. I think it is only that point which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, did not very much like in the Amendment put forward by the Opposition.
May I turn rather briefly now to the point, very usefully made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about men seeking to enter this country by virtue of their marriage to a woman who is patrial? There is a practical difficulty here, and I am afraid I am not able to meet the noble Lord on that point, for reasons with which I think he is already quite familiar, because he knows this subject very well. The practical difficulty is that, if both husbands and wives were admitted—that is, the husband of a woman who is patrial
994
—any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies could become exempt from control by marrying a woman who is exempt. In this way, a United Kingdom passport holder from East Africa could avoid the requirement of a special voucher by marrying a woman who was already covered by the patrial clause of the Bill. An Amendment on these lines, dealing with the man, would consequently open the way to evasion of the existing control on the entry of those male citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are admissible only if they have a work permit or a special voucher.
Under the accepted immigration practice, which was introduced by the previous Administration and has been retained by this one, husbands have no right of entry by virtue of their wives. It is only if there are special considerations which render exclusion undesirable that they are admitted. These are set out in paragraph 46 of Cmnd. 4606, which corresponds with the existing rule introduced by the last Administration (paragraph 41 of Cmnd. 4292). In accordance with this practice a wife is expected to make her home in the country of her husband. We debated this principle of immigration control on Monday, and what it really turns on is that the wife is a dependant of her husband, whereas the husband is not, in most cases, a dependant of the wife. It is on that that this principle of international immigration control depends. But I hope that I have satisfied the House on the main point that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, raised.
LORD BROCKWAY: The Minister is adding sexual discrimination to racial discrimination in this Bill.
LORD CROWTHER: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I am not unduly disturbed by the intention to restrict this to the wives. After I put down my Amendment, some of the dangers the noble Lord has touched upon, of including husbands and giving incentives to any number of bogus and artificial marriages, were pointed out to me, and I suggested in my opening remarks that I thought the case for the husbands was much weaker than that for the wives. It remains only for me to express my gratitude to the noble Lord. Indeed, this is not the first time in recent weeks that I have had occasion to pay tribute to the

995
noble Lord's liberality of mind and his willingness to accept Amendments from me. I am almost moved to suggest to him that, if there is a vacancy in the drafting staff of the Home Office, and an unpaid, part-time assistant might be useful, my services might be accepted. I am deeply grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.13 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
(" or
(e) he is married to a person having the right of abode as defined in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) above who is either residing in the United Kingdom and Islands or is entering, or is seeking to enter the United Kingdom and Islands to so reside.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. I do so in order that there should be an opportunity for a little further clarification of the distinction between the Amendments. I am grateful for the extent to which the Government have given way to the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Crowther. I agree that we had reached a ridiculous state of affairs, and I hope that the latest statement will go a little way towards lessening that situation. I would, however, point out that there is a distinction between Amendment No. 22 and Amendment No. 20, in that Amendment No. 20 applies to citizens of the United Kingdom whereas Amendment No. 22 goes rather wider.
I base my views on the general proposition that family unity is most important. Of course I agree that there is need for provisions against abuse, but I am still not entirely happy that this avoidance of abuse can be achieved by distinguishing between one spouse and another. I think we ought to work on the general proposition that if one spouse is allowed to enter the other spouse should be allowed to enter also. I do not think I need take up the time of the Committee further. That is the main point that I would make.
LORD GARDINER: I rise to support this Amendment. There are many of us, I think, who feel that husbands and wives are one flesh and ought not to be separated, and all these four Amendments have that common basis. The noble
996
Lord, Lord Windlesham, is quite right in saying that countries have in the past certainly taken the view that a wife is, as it were, attached to her husband or vice versa. This is not really, I should have thought, in accordance with the modern Christian view. There are cases where this country ought to take the lead. After all, until about three years ago there was no Western country which had reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18. We led the way, and now more and more, both in America and in Western Europe, countries are following our lead.
I cannot think it right that, in principle, a wife should be treated as an appendage. It is quite true that one has to go back only a little way to when wives and children were regarded as the husband's property. It was not until 1882 that as a matter of course everything that a wife owned was not her husband's property for him to spend. Then we had the Married Women's Property Act, and married women were allowed to own property in their own right. But times move. The conception that women and children are the property of men is still perhaps rather more prevalent in the East than in the West.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was, I thought, sympathetic to this Amendment, except that he said that this would open the door to a lot of bogus arrangements. I wonder whether he can tell us about that. This applies only to wives having a right of abode. Is it really the fact that there are large numbers of British wives having a right of abode who are available for bogus marriages to Asians? It may be so; I do not know; no doubt the noble Lord knows much better than I do about that. I cannot really conceive why that should be so. If, as I said previously, a married Jamaican nurse comes here, where she is badly needed to help us, and she has a disabled husband, I cannot see why the same right should not apply to her as a wife as it does to a husband. I would hope therefore, that on further consideration in all quarters of the Committee, this view might be taken. I am sure that morally it is right; and the noble Lord has not given us any solid reasons for supposing that, if this were so, there would be a lot of bogus marriages between East Africans and women having the right of abode here.

997
For those reasons, I would respectfully urge the Committee to support Lord Wade's Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I may deal with this question fairly briefly, although maybe the noble Lord would like me to go into a little detail, and although we have quite a lot of experience to go on. This Amendment differs from the previous one which we discussed in that it is not confined to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and in that it gives a person the right of abode only while that person's husband or wife is residing here, or seeking to reside here. It differs from Lord Shepherd's Amendment in that it would give a husband patriality in right of his wife, as well as vice versa, and in that it does not require the qualifying period of five years' residence. As I mentioned, we are inclined to think that this qualifying period of five years could be dispensed with in the case of wives of people who are patrial
I have explained that the Government intend to bring forward a comprehensive Amendment on Report making better provision for the acquisition of patriality by women who marry, or are already married to, men who are patrial. But in so far as this Amendment would give the right of abode to husbands whose wives are patrial, I am afraid there are the same objections to it that I mentioned in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when we debated the previous Amendment. As I said then, the Government do not, save in exceptional circumstances, recognise any claim by husbands who are subject to immigration control to settle in this country because their wives are settled here.
In the past when such a claim was recognised by a concessionary arrangement, the number of men coming in for marriage to women of Commonwealth birth or descent residing here became so large in proportion to the numbers admitted through the primary avenue of immigration—that is, with employment vouchers—that the previous Government decided in 1969 that husbands could no longer be allowed to settle here in right of their wives.
I know the noble Lord made the point (perhaps I may anticipate him, and he will tell me if I am wrong) that this Amendment is concerned with people
998
who have a right of abode in this country, whereas the situation in 1969 concerned Commonwealth citizens marrying others who did not necessarily have the right of abode.
LORD GARDINER: There is, with respect, a second difference. I am concerned only with people who are married. I think the noble Lord was talking about a man who came here on the bogus pretext of coming to marry some woman living here. I am not in the least concerned with future marriages; I am concerned only with those people who are already husband and wife.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. May I deal at once with that point? The difficulty lies in distinguishing between a fiancé and a husband, because a fiancé turns into a husband very easily. First, there are the arranged marriages, common in Asia, and it is very difficult to say, for the purposes of immigration control, whether or not these are legal marriages. Then there is the fact that we quite freely admit men, as visitors, for the purposes of marriage, if the immigration officer is satisfied that the man is coming to marry a woman living here, that he is a visitor who wishes to marry in this country and take his bride back home again, he will admit the man for a fixed time for the purpose of the marriage. So the man, having entered as a fiancé, turns into a husband when he gets here. Then there are cases of people who leave the country to get married—perhaps in France—and who then return as man and wife. On the face of it, although the distinction between the fiancé and the husband seems one of substance, in practice it is very difficult—and I think this was the experience of the previous Government—to make any change.
As regards the man who has been admitted for marriage to a woman with a right of abode, we must remember that under this Amendment all those women, of Asian birth perhaps, who will have been registered in this country will be patrial; all the girls born in this country of Indian families who have settled here, and all the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, admitted with a special voucher, who have been here for a period of five years—they too will be patrial. So the noble Lord will see that the pattern is perhaps not quite as

999
he described it. In the 1962 Act the previous Administration gave no right to male fiancés to enter the country in order to marry women in this country, although the right was given to women. A concession was granted to men until 1969, when Mr. Callaghan said (and I quote his statement of January 30, 1969):
"…the numbers have risen so steeply over the last year or two and are now on such a scale that it seems that marriage is being used by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country."
This is the basis of past experience and it is for reasons of this kind that it is very difficult for us to accept this particular point in the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD BURTON: The situation seems to be extremely complicated, and I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could answer one question for me. If one was of a religion in which polygamy is tolerated, would there be any restriction on the number of ladies to whom one could give British nationality?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hesitate to answer that question. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has recently been debating with other noble and learned Lords marriages of this kind. It is an intensely complicated matter for the courts to decide which marriages are recognised as legal in this country, and I think I should be most unwise to answer that question without prior notice.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I just comment on the Minister's statement? I am astonished by it. He is a representative of a younger generation: he was born when I was still a Member of Parliament, yet his speech indicates that he is absolutely unaware of the new status of husbands and wives. It is of course quite true that the majority of women depend on the man as the breadwinner, but the number of exceptions is quite extraordinary. If I may take my own case, I depend on the salary that my wife earns, which is much more than anything I can earn myself; and there are thousands who are in that position. To differentiate between women and men who are married on the basis the Minister has done, belonging to a generation in which the equality of men and women has become increasingly
1000
recognised, is an absolute astonishment to me, because in my own relationships with the Minister I have always appreciated his liberal and tolerant mind.
LORD BARNBY: Before the noble Lord answers, may I ask him for information? He has dealt at considerable length—and indeed the discussion this afternoon has been punctuated with similar references—with the difficulties of the original nationality of man and wife. This has interested me very much because I, like some other Members of your Lordships' House, am married to an American woman who remains an American citizen. When she comes into this country she comes as an alien, and when I go to the United States I go there as art alien. I lived for some years in the United States when I was a young fellow. I entered there, resided there and came out as an alien. No one considers that the word"alien"carries a stigma, and so I am puzzled about that. But the point I should like to make—and it is here that I would ask the noble Lord to help me—is that there are parts of the Commonwealth where polygamy is the custom, and men may have many wives. Am I to understand that there is no distinction in all these regulations, which I must admit I find very complicated and difficult to understand? I should like an affirmation from the noble Lord that whatever applies to one wife applies to the wives of several marriages, if polygamous marriages are involved.
LORD KILBRACKEN: May I ask the noble Lord to clarify a point which I do not think he has made in his admirable speech; that is, whether, in the Amendment which the Government will be bringing forward at the Report stage, the wife will have to be a subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies or not?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think I should require notice of that point. Perhaps I can give some information to the noble Lord in the course of the debate. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, regarding plural marriages, is a very complicated one. Very few instances indeed are known to the Home Office of cases where somebody has arrived with dependents or a family group which included more than one wife. There are some plural marriages which are recognised (I speak subject to correction) by

1001
our law, and the recognition or otherwise turns on whether or not the nature of the marriage service is recognised as a valid marriage. There are, theoretically, some instances where this can be so, but it is not a day-to-day practical question. It is something which is almost unknown, in practical terms, to the Home Office and I do not think we need consider this part of the Bill against that background.
LORD BARNBY: Can my noble friend give me equal assurance that where dependents are permitted entry into this country that does not frequently extend to children of the same male resident here who has several wives resident elsewhere?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will get my noble friend some information on this subject.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I wonder whether I can assist the noble Lord? Since we are inventing words—we have"patriality and"matriality "—why do we not take care of the problem of the noble Lord. Lord Barnby, by inventing a new word called"cloniality ", where we can go in for cloning in multiple marriages.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think I should need advice on that point, too. The point of substance lies in what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. He has grasped a significant point of principle and has argued his case with the same enthusiasm that he argued it when the law was changed in 1969. The difficulty is that the men are coming in the main, for the purposes of work and settlement in this country. Since 1962 there has been a voucher scheme in order to regulate the numbers of men coming to work and settle in this country. The previous Administration came to the conclusion (and I have read out the passage from Mr. Callaghan's speech) that this particular avenue had become a means of evading the voucher scheme. I am sure that he withdrew this concession extremely reluctantly, but it was of this kind.
LORD WADE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he would accept the Amendment in principle if it were limited to the words"is entering "? That is, where the marriage has taken place, the
1002
husband and wife wish to enter this country and one party is a patrial. There is a matter of principle here. Is it right to make this distinction between the spouse with the assumption that if it is the case of the wife being a patrial it is probably a"fiddle ", whereas if the husband is a patrial then it is all right. Perhaps I am exaggerating, but there is this distinction between the spouses which is the matter of principle.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I agree; it is partly a matter of principle. It is a principle of immigration control that the husband is not entitled to entry in right of his wife. This applies to the United States and Canada and many other countries. But it is also a matter of practical experience. For seven years, between 1961 and 1969, an arrangement of this sort existed, but the Government of the day come to the conclusion that it was being abused, and was being used as an avenue of entry for young men who wished to work and settle in this country.
There is another point in the Amendment of the noble Lord which I did not deal with in my earlier remarks and which I will put on the Record. I hope he will appreciate that this is another reason why it is difficult for us to accept the spirit of this Amendment. Patriality, according to the Amendment, would be retained only white the patrial spouse was residing, or seeking to reside, in the United Kingdom. Therefore the concept of residence enters into the Amendment. We believe that it would be inconsistent for the concept of the right of abode, of patriality, embodied in the Bill to be given a transitory character. The principle of patriality must be that once somebody holds patrial status it should not matter whether he is resident in this country or whether he is resident for a period of years elsewhere, unless he has renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom. Patriality should be something permanent and not tied in this way to the transitory character of residency.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: Contrary to what some might think, I tend to support the Government on this point. The theological argument that the man and wife are one flesh that has been used in criticism of the Government's attitude is an argument which has a strong appeal to me. It has to be

1003
faced that the economic and political results of affording these privileges to the man on an equal basis to that upon which they are given to the woman are very significant. Either party, in entering upon the marriage, could be well aware of the international results of the marriage. I do not think that either party could claim that after making that
marriage they had exactly the same economic, political and civic rights as they had before if they entered upon it willingly and knowingly.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 119.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Moyle, L.

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Silkin, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Burgh, L.

Kennet, L.

Swaythling, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wade, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Walston, L.

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Energlyn, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Monck, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Digby, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monson, L.

Alport, L.

Dudley, E.

Morrison, L.

Amory, V.

Dundonald, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Essex, E.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferrers, E.

Perth, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gage, V.

Poltimore, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Blackford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rochdale, V.

Blake, L.

Rothermere, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hives, L.

Salisbury, M.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Bradford, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Ilford, L.

Savile, L.

Burton, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Sempill, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Carrington, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Conesford, L.

Leicester, L.Bp.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Suffield, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tenby, V.

Cromartie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

de Clifford, L.

Meston, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Young, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Wolverton, L.

Younger of Leekie, V.

War d of Witley, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.44 p.m.
LORD WADE: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. I had intended to raise this matter very briefly, but perhaps it will be helpful if I read out the Amendment. It is as follows:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
(" or
(e) he is under the age of 16 and is the child of a person having the right of abode as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) above who is either residing in the United Kingdom and Islands or is entering or is seeking to enter the United Kingdom and Islands to so reside.")
I am moving this Amendment only to give the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, an opportunity of explaining whether the position has been affected in any respect by a proposal which he earlier stated he was going to set down for the Report stage; and secondly, to inquire whether this is covered by the rules, and, if so, whether it should not be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I must apologise to the noble Lord for not being in my place when he moved the Amendment, and thank him for the extremely thorough way in which he read out each word to the Committee, which enabled me to arrive and find my place and my brief. This Amendment would confer the right of abode on the child under the age of sixteen of a person who is both patrial and resident in this country or coming here to reside. The Government's policy is that people coming to this country from overseas should be able to bring their wives and young children with them, and effect is given to this policy in regard to children by paragraph 42 of Cmnd. 4606—that is the White Paper, Control on Entry—under which children under eighteen are entitled to admission if both their parents are resident in the United Kingdom.
The rules eventually made under the Bill will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, as the noble Lord will know, which will be a safeguard against the arbitrary withdrawal of this entitlement; and anyone who considers
1006
that he is denied what he is entitled to under the rules can enforce his rights by appeal under Part II of the Bill. On this basis I believe that the provision to be made in the immigration rules for the admission of children will be a satisfactory equivalent of the present rights of admission which wives and children have under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
For the purpose of admission of children, in the same way as other dependants, the draft immigration rules make no distinction between parents who are patrial and those who are subject to immigration control but have been accepted for permanent residence; nor is there any such distinction in the existing law and immigration rules. The effect of this Amendment—I appreciate that the noble Lord is putting it in a probing sense—would be to introduce such a distinction, giving a statutory right of admission only to children whose parents are patrial. In general, there seems no reason why a person who is patrial should be in any more favourable position with regard to the admission of his children than an immigrant who has been accepted for settlement and permanent residence. In particular, the fact that one parent is patrial should not in itself entitle a child, as it would under this Amendment, to join that parent in this country when the other parent is still overseas.
But there is one point on which I think we ought to consider amending the Immigration Rules, and this is in regard to the admission of patrials' wives and children. I am inclined to think that where the head of the family is patrial it would be right to remove the requirement that he must show himself able to accommodate and maintain his wife and children. I mentioned this point earlier in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, although it was not a point which he had actually put in his own speech. Nor will this requirement apply when the head of the family is already settled here by July, 1971, and we propose to amend the Immigration Rules accordingly. I hope the noble Lord will think that that is a helpful reply.
LORD GARDINER: This is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but before he considers what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell me whether or not the Government are prepared to consider, before the Report stage, whether wives and children should not have legal rights. The point is that it is morally wrong and socially unwise to split families, and that families ought to have a legal right to remain together. The noble Lord has said that they have a right under the rules. I hesitate to pick words with him, but with the greatest respect I think that is inaccurate. The rules do not give anybody a legal right; there is no such thing as a right under the rules. The rules are whatever the Home Secretary chooses to make them. Nor, with great respect, is it accurate to say that the rules will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
I do not want to take up much time over this because we shall be dealing with the rules, but we all know the Negative Resolution procedure. There are one or two forms of it in Erskine May. We are all used to it in practice, and the position under the Bill is nothing remotely like that procedure. The Home Secretary, and he alone, makes whatever rules he likes. All he is bound to do is from time to time to tell Parliament what rules he has made. If either House disapproves that does not stop the rules. They still remain valid, and all the Home Secretary has to do is sometime later to lay a statement of proposed changes.
Here we are dealing with basic human rights: the right of husbands, wives and children to stay together. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government are decided on these matters being rules and not legal rights or whether, before the Report stage of the Bill, they would be prepared to consider these family rights, incorporating the rights in the Bill rather than in the rules.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is another sense in which I would suggest, with some diffidence, to the noble and learned Lord that one could use the word"right"under the Immigration Rules. The rules are binding on the Secretary
1008
of State. There is an appeal system, and therefore the person who feels that he is not receiving his entitlement has a right of appeal to an adjudicator and to an appeal tribunal. As he will know, under the Immigration Appeals Act these are binding decisions, except for one or two cases concerning security. In the main these decisions bind the Secretary of State. So in that sense I would have thought this was a right of considerable value with a built-in sanction. The Home Secretary cannot say,"I do not think on the whole I want to allow you to bring in your dependants ". The man would say,"But you must. I shall appeal and, if the adjudicator feels that the Home Secretary or his officers have behaved unreasonably, he will say so." There are a substantial number of these cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, will know that adjudicators are sitting in the North of England and in the Midlands hearing such cases at the moment. So I think there is a sense in which the word"right"can properly be used. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, raised this general line of criticism, and we shall come to it head on in Amendments 44 and 45, to which he has added his name. These Amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, deal specifically with the nature of the Parliamentary control of the Immigration Rules and perhaps we may have our main debate then.
LORD WADE: I should have thought the rules were executive powers under the authority of Parliament, but perhaps we might debate that later. I should like to have the opportunity of studying what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 36, leave out (" father ") and insert (" parent ")
The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment but I think it is of some significance, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time on Amendments 27 and 27A, the latter being a Manuscript

1009
Amendment which I have tabled and which is identical in wording to Amendment No. 27 but refers to the word"father's"in line 38. It changes that word"father's ", as in the other cases, into the word"parent's ".
In Clause 2 there occurs three times the provision that gives the right of abode to a child of a parent who had United Kingdom citizenship at the time of the birth. This occurs in subsection (1)(b)(ii) and subsection (1)(d). It appears, and no doubt it appeared to the draftsman of the Bill, that this was not quite good enough by itself because the relevant parent who conveyed the right of abode upon the child might have died before the child was born. If I read the matter aright, and it is quite possible that I do not, I imagine the draftsman thinking to himself that a father can well predecease the child by anything up to nine months, or a little more, but the mother presumably is alive at the time of the birth of the child.
But this is not necessarily so. It is quite possible for a mother to predecease her baby—not by a long time, certainly, but it is clear that it can happen, say in the case of an accident when the mother is killed and the baby is born by Caesarean section. I have taken the opinions of various medical experts, including some Members of your Lordships' House. They are not able to come to any conclusion about the passage of time which can elapse after the death of the mother and the birth of the child, but it certainly can be a matter of minutes, I understand. This is not very much, and it may sound like hairsplitting, but minutes of time in law can be important. They are certainly important in the case, say, of an accident when two people are killed, one of whom is the son and heir of the other. In that case who died first is a matter of great interest to the Inland Revenue.
The case which we are discussing is far less important than that, and my noble friend the Minister may well say that for anybody to pronounce that a child was not born patrial because his mother died five minutes before he was born would be so nice a piece of legalistic judgment that it is highly unlikely to happen. It is unlikely to happen, but it is
1010
possible, and all that is needed to make it impossible is to change the word"father"into"parent ", as I have indicated in my Amendments. I very much hope that my noble friend will feel inclined to accept this Amendment, which I am bound to say seems to me to be quite unexceptionable in every way. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: Of course, there is no difference in principle between my noble friend's intention and the intention of Her Majesty's Government here. I am advised that there is no practical need for the provision to be extended in this way. My noble friend has said that the difference in time between the death of the mother, if it comes first, and the birth by Caesarian section of the child can he only a matter of a very few minutes. In those circumstances it is inconceivable that a court should draw any fine distinction between the time of the birth and the time of the mother's death so as to deprive the child of a status which he would otherwise derive from his mother. Also my noble friend might care to consider that in the unlikely event of anybody being so malicious as to try to deprive the child of the status which this Bill wishes to give him, the difference in time would be extremely difficult to prove. I think this Amendment is unnecessary, and if I have convinced my noble friend he might like to withdraw it.
LORD GARDINER: If I may say so, as a result of a long life, I am always unhappy when people say it is inconceivable a court may do something. In my experience there is nothing a court could not conceivably do. What I have not followed so far is, if the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, is right technically, what is the disadvantage of accepting his Amendment?
LORD DENHAM: There is no disadvantage; and if the noble and learned Lord were to add his great weight behind my noble friend, then I would be prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: If that is my noble friend's last word, there is no need for me to say any more, and I am most grateful.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Amendment No. 27 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out (" father's ") and insert (" parent's ").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Amendment No. 27A, which is a manuscript Amendment, is again consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out (" fathers ") and insert (" parents ").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
BARONESS WHITE: We have been circulated with this Amendment, and I should perhaps draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that there is a Freudian slip, because it is headed"Industrial Relations Bill ".
LORD WADE: I am delighted to hear this. I have been puzzling for some time on why I have been handed a paper about the Industrial Relations Bill. Having read"Industrial Relations Bill"I had not looked any further.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 40, leave out (" mother ") and insert (" parent ").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, which is also to substitute the word"parent"for the word at present in the Bill, namely"mother ", but of course in a somewhat different context. As your Lordships will observe,"parent"here in this definition clause indicates that where an illegitimate child is concerned it shall be the mother only who will be regarded as conferring a status on the child. I said in an earlier discussion on another point that it always seemed to me that the mother was slightly more certain than the father in these matters, and perhaps particularly so where an illegitimate child is concerned. Nevertheless, it seems a little unfair that the father should be deprived of any standing at all in the matter, and we are moving this Amendment really to ask whether the Government could not look at this point again and possibly agree that in all the circumstances the father should have
1012
some place as well as the mother. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: There is a little additional point here. Recently in this House we were discussing the various forms of marriage which can occur in different parts of the world, and that some of them are admitted in this country and some are not. In some cases the boundaries are rather close. If it is true that children are to be labelled as illegitimate and not admitted to this country, there is going to be quite a large body of such children if in some cases we do not admit that certain marriages are valid.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like briefly to support this Amendment. My noble friend indicated that in some cases where there is doubt there is more certainty on the part of the mother than the father. In any cases arising under this Amendment it would be incumbent on the father to prove paternity to the satisfaction of the immigration officer. Unless he could do so, his claim would not be admitted. I therefore do not see that any danger can arise under that head.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I think she moved this as a probing Amendment. I have found on looking into it that there is rather more to it than meets the eye. It might be helpful for the Committee to know these considerations. Subsection (2)(a) of Clause 2 provides that for tile purposes of subsection (1), that is, the transmission of patriality by consent, the word"parent"includes the mother of an illegitimate child. The effect of the Amendment would be that for this purpose the father of an illegitimate child would also be regarded as a parent. This question was discussed at some length in another place. The Bill as originally introduced did not treat either the mother or the father as a parent for this purpose, but was amended following the discussions in Standing Committee at Report stage so as to accept the mother as parent where the child was illegitimate. The main reason for treating an illegitimate child for this purpose as the child of the mother only is that to allow such a child to claim patriality by descent in the male line would, we believe, open the way to many dubious claims that would be very difficult to determine satisfactorily.

1013
Even in the case of a legitimate child paternity can be established only because the law makes it a rebuttable presumption that children born in wedlock 'ire the children of the husband. Where there is no union between the man and the woman, no such presumption can be made, and generally speaking the paternity of an illegitimate child can only be taken as established if, first, the father's name is entered, with his consent, in the register of births; or, secondly, the child's paternity is determined in judicial proceedings, for example in the making of an affiliation order. The number of cases in which paternity will have been proved in either of these ways would be only a small proportion of those in which a person might consider that he had a claim to patriality if illegitimate descent could be taken into account.
It is common knowledge that in both the Indian Sub-Continent and in Africa many British colonists contracted liaisons with local women. A claim by a would-be patrial that he was descended from such an irregular union would be very difficult indeed to verify or disprove. It is true that the burden of proof would be on the claimant; but if Parliament were expressly to provide for account to be taken of illegitimate paternity we could not refuse (nor, am I advised, would the appellate authorities) to consider alleged evidence of such descent which, however unsatisfactory, might in the circumstances be the best evidence that was available. Nor is this an entirely hypothetical question. The ingenuity shown by immigration racketeers in forging documents and falsifying family histories would find new scope; and, since a refusal to accept the claim would give rise to a right of appeal, the additional work for the appellate authorities, and for those concerned in processing and contesting the cases, might be very considerable indeed.
Moreover, we think it unwise to make this change because the inclusion of persons of illegitimate paternity would increase, to an unknown but possibly substantial extent, the number of people who are freed from immigration control by Clause 2. It was a feature of the debate in another place in Standing Committee, as noble Lords will know, that it was undesirable that Parliament in this clause should make provision for future
1014
entry on a scale that could not be estimated. This was one of the arguments used in amending the clause. As a child born out of wedlock whose father was British, but whose mother was not, will usually have been brought up as one of his mother's family, he will not have the ties with and attachment to this country that a child would have if one of a family whose head was British.
I do not want to reply in legalistic terms, but the final argument I would put is that in regard to the transmission of nationality from father to child our law has always take account only of legitimate descent; but to this legal argument must be added the strong practical considerations that I have explained to the Committee.
LORD GARDINER: It was not our object to seek to divide the Committee on this Amendment, but may I ask the noble Lord to consider this matter again before Report stage? Anybody who has been a Minister realises that one could have a case put up which foresees the most appalling administrative complexities although in the event everything is in fact quite simple. Here is a child who claims patriality through either its mother or father; but in the case of an illegitimate child we deprive it of the right to do so. This is quite contrary to what we have been trying to do about illegitimacy for some time. The Committee will remember that on the recommendations of a Commission of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell, was chairman, we passed laws which removed in the field of succession those disabilities from which illegitimate children suffered. The reason why nowadays we do not distinguish so far as illegitimate children are concerned is because we say that it is unfortunate that ally illegitimate child should be born, but that whoever's fault it is it is not the fault of the child and the child ought not to be penalised simply because it is illegitimate.
Here in the Bill, as it stands, on the face of it we are penalising the child by not letting him claim through both parents simply because he is illegitimate. I cannot help feeling that the difficulties are very much exaggerated. The onus of proving patriality through either parent is entirely on the child who, when he grows up, wants to claim patriality. The onus of proof is entirely on him; there

1015
is no onus on the Government or on anybody else to disprove it. I should have thought that, that being so, it is not really right to deprive him of half his chance of proving patriality simply because he was illegitimate. However, if the Government will be good enough to consider that matter before Report stage I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Of course we shall want to study what the noble and learned Lord has said on this. I am advised that there are some really quite deep legal and administrative aspects to this particular matter—which have been carefully studied because it was debated so thoroughly in another place. But the noble and learned Lord has great knowledge in this field and we shall want to look at what he has said. I shall either write to him or make a statement at some further stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from (" there ") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: I think that this also comes into the category of a probing Amendment. Clause 2(2)(d) reads:
" subject to section 8(5) below, references to a person being settled in the United Kingdom and Islands are references to his being ordinarily resident there without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain."
Subsection (1)(c) of the same clause reads:
" he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more."
The question I want to ask is this: If a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies comes here, say, to work under some form of restriction such as a limited period, when will the five years begin to run? For example, if he is permitted to enter and to work for one year and then for another three years and wishes to stay and is permitted to do so, does the five years start only at the end of the four years?—in which case it will take nine years. There is a general impression that the rule is five years and it would be unfortunate if there were some misunderstanding and if, in certain cases,
1016
it was really nine years and not five. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could clarify that. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What is relevant here are the terms of Clause 2(1)(c) which provides that a person is to have the right of abode if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has been settled in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of five years. This provision is designed as a way of giving patriality to people who cannot acquire it by registration because they are already citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is a matter of importance, because under this provision United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, who are admitted for settlement at the outset if they arrive with the proper documents, will become patrial automatically after five years. But a work permit holder from one of the dependent territories, a territory such as Hong Kong, will normally have to remain in approved employment for four years before he is accepted for settlement by having his conditions cancelled.
Under the paragraph as originally drafted, he would consequently not acquire the right of abode until a further five years have elapsed, making it, as Lord Wade correctly stated, a period of nine years rather than one of five years, which, as he also said correctly, is the general understanding of what the period is to be. The Government have, however, since the Bill was printed, accepted the manuscript Amendment No. 14A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with which he had some assistance from the Government draftsman. He substituted Amendment No. 14A for his own. The effect of that Amendment is that once a person covered by this paragraph has been accepted for settlement he will be able to count towards the necessary five years the period previously spent subject to conditions. In the case of a work permit holder, from a dependent territory, for example, this would mean, if his conditions were cancelled after four years in approved employment, that he would then acquire the right of abode one year later, rather than five years after the first four. Therefore his period would be the five years. He would merely have to wait for one additional year. I hope this gives the noble Lord the explanation he was seeking.
LORD WADE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert (" and by the next following subsection.
( ) Any Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode in the United Kingdom and being a person of full age and capacity shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and the provisions of section 9 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (as set out in Appendix C to Schedule 1 to this Act) shall apply to any person so registered.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we consider Amendment No. 32 at the same time, if that is agreeable, because the objects of the two Amendments are very much the same. The point of Amendment No. 30 is that in our view a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as defined by the clause we are discussing, and is a person of full age and capacity should be entitled, on making application, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies without having to go through the various processes described in Schedule 1 of the Bill.
If I may refresh your Lordships' memories, you will appreciate that if a man has to go through these procedures prior to registration, he has to satisfy the authority not only as to where he originally came from and what his citizenship was, but that he is of good character, has a sufficient knowledge of the English language and intends, if registered, to reside in the United Kingdom or Colonies or Protectorate, or to enter into continuing relevant employment, and so on; and there are various other conditions which are described. Our attitude is that if a man has established the right of abode (if we are to have this new conception in our law), and if he thereby becomes a patrial, then he ought surely in consequence to be entitled, if he so desires, to be registered as a citizen forthwith without having to go through the various conditions that are set out in Schedule 1. I do not think I need
1018
labour the point. I should like to know, before we spend further time on it, what the attitude of the Government is to this general proposition, because it may be that we can come to a very easy understanding on it. I hope so. If that is so, I need not argue the matter further. Possibly, if I move this Amendment now we may have the Government's views on it, and we can then see where we stand. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think we can go a long way to meeting the noble Baroness on this point. We are grateful to her and her colleagues for bringing this matter to our attention. The Amendment seeks to provide that any Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode shall be entitled, on application, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. As the noble Baroness will know, under the Bill registration will cease to be an absolute entitlement on the completion of five years' residence and will become a discretionary matter for the Secretary of State, dependent on the person's good character and sufficient knowledge of the English language.
The Amendment, however, is carefully drawn and is of limited scope, since the only Commonwealth citizens not already citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have the right of abode will be those acquiring it under Clause 2(1)(d) because their mothers—whom we were debating earlier to-day—were born in the United Kingdom. Women within this category who marry a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will continue to have an unrestricted right to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so to acquire patriality, but the Amendment would benefit any men covered by Clause 2(1)(d), and any women so covered who were not married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. While the Amendment is of restricted scope, it seems right to agree to the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by patrials not holding that citizenship. Apart from other arguments, this will help to keep to a minimum the exemption from immigration control by people not holding citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which is introduced by Clause 2(1)(d). I think we all agree on the desirability, so far as possible, that

1019
citizenship and exemption from control should coincide.
Having extended this, I hope, reasonable welcome to the noble Baroness's Amendment, I dare say that she will not be surprised to hear me say that we doubt whether the wording of the Amendment, although it makes its intention quite clear, is quite the best way of achieving this objective. For one thing, it does not specify registration within the United Kingdom itself; and it is possible to register outside the United Kingdom. Some restriction of this sort would be needed, as otherwise Common-weath citizens overseas could, in certain circumstances, transmit patriality to their descendants in a manner inconsistent with the deletion of the"grandparent"clause in another place, which was debated earlier here to-day on the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. However, the Government are ready to consider on Report an Amendment which will substantially meet the same point that is contained in this Opposition Amendment, but will probably require the registration to be in the United Kingdom and also to be based on a period of five years' residence here. I hope that the Opposition will feel that we have been able to meet them on this point.
LORD GARDINER: Amendment No. 32 is so involved that I do not know whether the noble Lord can say a word about that at the same time. They are two sides of the same coin. It is subsection (4) that removes the existing right to register as a Commonwealth citizen, and I am not clear how far the observations which the noble Lord has made relate to everyone who has done his five years here. I am not clear whether this will extend to everybody the present position, in effect, that anyone who has completed his five years will have a right to registration. I hesitate to be dogmatic, because this right of abode I find so complicated.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I, too, hesitate to be dogmatic in giving the noble and learned Lord an answer off the cuff, but I will do so later.
LORD GARDINER: I think this is one of the most important matters. Our citizens have always had and valued this right. If they come here and behave
1020
themselves, after five years they have an automatic right to registration. I think that is of great value. The noble Lord knows that I am not enthusiastic about indentured labour, but one must assume that will remain in the Bill. We are talking only about the future here and, if I may take up a moment, it is very important that one thing should be said. This House has conferred on those who are already here a right not to be affected by anything in the Bill. I hope that all the race relations organisations which expressed to us the alarm felt about the Bill by those who are here will now tell people in clear terms that this House, by the first Amendment accepted the day before yesterday, has ensured that those who are here will not have their rights adversely affected by the Bill.
We are thinking only about those who may come here in future. It makes a great deal of difference to them whether they know that if they get a good report from their employers every year, and are in no trouble with anyone, and perhaps are buying a house on mortgage and settling down, with children at school, and if they go on like that for five years, they have a right to be accepted as one of us. On the other hand, with the Bill in its present form they have no such right; for five years they will be made to feel insecure, knowing that, however well they behave, however hard they work, they will have no right to register as United Kingdom citizens.
But what we are concerned about, in the end, is the right of deportation. The Home Secretary was pressed in another place on subsection (4) and on March 8 he said this:
" I come to the question of citizenship. It must be remembered that citizenship is necessary only for certain purposes. For example, those who come here as Commonwealth citizens and who are free of conditions after five years are free to remain here unconditionally. The right of Commonwealth citizens to vote and to take part in the political life of this country depends, not upon citizenship, but on their being Commonwealth citizens resident here. The only chance which in practice takes place in a person's status when he becomes a United Kingdom citizen, having been a Commonwealth citizen, is that he has the advantage of freedom from deportation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/3/71. col. 51]
That is what it really is all about. The Bill seeks to take away the right of

1021
registration, so that even after five years they will remain deportable, unless they go through a process of naturalisation, as aliens do: though their position would be worse than that of aliens because an alien need only have been in Britain for twelve months or four years out of seven, and in the case of a Commonwealth citizen, the period is seven years. The number whom we should wish to deport after five years must be extremely small. On the Second Reading of the Bill in this House on June 24 (col. 1129 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking of the exercise of the power of deportation of aliens, said:
" Home Secretaries of all Parties have had that power in respect of aliens, and all from time to time have had to use it. Anybody who thinks that it will be used frequently against Commonwealth citizens had better look up the figures as to the number of times it has been used against aliens. They are minimal."
What the Bill is seeking to do is to deprive such people of the right they had to register as citizens after five years, and the only advantage the Government will get is to be able to deport a minimal number after five years.
It comes back to the old question: ought Commonwealth people to be treated like aliens, or even worse than aliens? Like some of my colleagues, I believe that it would be to the advantage of this country to enter the Common Market, but I hope that one can be a good European and still retain an affection for the Commonwealth. I doubt whether anybody who has been to conferences in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, or in one of the African countries, and met men of every religion or of none, and of every colour, who has had someone come up and say,"Of course, I was called by Gray's Inn ", or"I am a member of the Inner Temple ", does not believe that even to-day Commonwealth citizenship means something. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I think that the preservation of the existing right, for those who are already here, to register after five years is something which is valuable and that the preservation of the possibility of deporting people after five years is not really worth the unhappiness it will cause.
LORD ABERDARE: I hesitate to plunge into these difficult waters, but I
1022
think that we must be clear. We are discussing two different Amendments, No. 30 and No. 32. My noble friend Lord Windlesham has made it clear that the Government intend to ensure that, where a person is patrial, at the end of five years residence here he will be entitled to registration automatically. But, equally, I must make it clear that if he is not patrial, registration will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We are not willing to accept Amendment No. 32; I hope that is quite clear. May I confirm what the noble and learned Lord said? The position of a Commonwealth or Irish citizen accepted for settlement at the end of July, 1971, is safeguarded by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which provides that such a person shall be entitled to register on completion of five years' ordinary residence free of conditions. I do not think I need go further unless the noble and learned Lord wishes me to do so.
BARONESS WHITE: So far as Amendment No. 30 is concerned, in view of the assurances given by the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, I think that it would be proper to see what the Government produce by way of an amended version of this proposal, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: I am sorry but I did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was dealing with one Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was dealing with the other. May I formally move this Amendment, with a view to seeing what the Government have to say. I will not repeat the points I have already made.
LORD ABERDARE: At present Section 12(2) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 provides that a Commonwealth citizen or an Irish citizen shall be entitled to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, provided he satisfies the Secretary of State that he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in Crown service, or partly the one and partly the

1023
other, throughout the period of five years ending with the date of his application or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may, in the special circumstances of any particular case, accept. After the expiry of the five years, the Commonwealth or Irish citizen has an absolute entitlement to registration and so becomes exempt from deportation and eligible for the issue of a United Kingdom passport.
Schedule 1 proposes that in future the registration of Commonwealth citizens shall be put broadly on a par with the naturalisation of aliens. Registration will cease to be an entitlement and will become a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State in the particular case. The applicant will have to establish that he has been resident here for five years (or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case accept) and, in addition, that he is of good character, has sufficient knowledge of the English language and intends, in the event of being registered, to reside in the United Kingdom or a Colony or protectorate or to continue in Crown service.
Perhaps I may attempt to explain the reasons why we are making this change. They are basically three. The first is that the existing law has not been found satisfactory in practice. It seems wrong that the grant of our citizenship should be a matter of entitlement without any discretion in the State to withhold it from an unworthy applicant. In the second place, the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in another place, although they made no report, expressed concern about the number of Commonwealth citizens overseas who were obtaining registration after five years of Crown service and so were becoming exempt from immigration control. The Bill, which makes registration discretionary, will enable the Government to check this practice. People registered in Commonwealth countries for Crown service will become patrial under Clause 2(3), but registration will be granted only after more exacting requirements than at present as to length of Crown service, and there will be a test of knowledge of the English language and of character.
In the third place, the existing law is open to the defect that a person admitted
1024
on conditions who succeeds in spinning out his stay for five years—for example, a student—becomes entitled as a matter of right to registration and indefinite settlement here, although he has no claim to this necessarily on merits. The intended change in the law will not put any great difficulty in the way of the ordinary law-abiding Commonwealth citizen becoming registered. It is true that he will have to show that he is of good character and has a sufficient knowledge of the English language. It is also true that he will have to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen if he is not already a citizen of a country of which Her Majesty is Queen, but these are reasonable requirements where a Commonwealth citizen decides to throw in his lot with this country.
These new arrangements are generally in line with those of the rest of the Commonwealth where registration is a matter of discretion and not of entitlement, although the qualifying period differs. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made the important point that these proposals are closely related to liability for deportation. At present a Commonwealth citizen is entitled to registration after being here for five years and is therefore exempt from deportation after that period. Under the Bill he will have no entitlement to registration and will not become exempt from deportation merely through the lapse of time. Only the grant of registration will exempt him from deportation, just as naturalisation exempts an alien at present.
I said that the position of people settled here already is fully safeguarded, and the new registration arrangements therefore would not begin to operate until 1976–77, except in the case of a person who applies for registration before he has had five years residence. These are the basic reasons why we think that subsection (4) should remain in the Bill.
LORD WADE: I am fully in agreement with the general observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I gather that the answer by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is"No"to the observations which the noble and learned Lord made. That seems to be a summary. May I also ask this question. Did the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, say that after five years in Crown

1025
service it will still be necessary to pass a test as to good character and knowledge of the English language?
LORD ABERDARE: We think this is necessary. This is something which worried the Select Committee in another place. There are certain Crown servants serving abroad who may work for five years in Crown service but who do not even understand the English language. In those cases we do not think that there should be an automatic right to citizenship.
LORD GARDINER: This is very disappointing to me. Of course one goes back to before 1948, when everything was simple and there was a wonderful conception of who was British—everyone who lived in the King's Dominions and owed allegiance to the King was under his protection. Then we had the 1948 Act, under which Commonwealth citizens have enjoyed this right to registration after five years. That is one of the things which I understand about the British Nationality Acts. I am rather relieved, having read them several times and still not being sure that I understand them to find that Mr. Callaghan said in another place that he found the British Nationality Acts much more difficult to understand than Finance Acts, but that point is certain about this right, which is a right still linking the Commonwealth with the Mother country.
It is this conception, rather tucked away in only four lines, which removes that right. Clause 1 appears to give the right of abode to certain people by reason of the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom have certain qualifications; but although they are given that with one hand
it is taken away by subsection (4). Without subsection (4), the existing position would remain, under which any Commonwealth citizen after being here for five years would have this right. I am a little surprised at the Government maintaining their position about this, because they have so little to gain. As the Home Secretary has made plain, the only thing they gain is a negligible minimal quantity of people who may be deportable after five years. That really is all they are gaining. What they lose is the small number coming here to settle—and as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said on Second Reading, there is no numbers problem now and both major Parties were equally committed to there being no further large-scale permanent immigration. Both major Parties are committed to this. As we know, apart from doctors, nurses and people we need, there are a mere 1,700 semi-skilled or unskilled artisans coming in a year. That is the only number which anyone envisages coming in future. When we accept them, is there not a difference from their point of view if they know that, if they do well and behave themselves, after five years they will be accepted into citizenship, and if they come knowing that even after five years it will depend on whether the Home Secretary thinks that their language is good enough and it is entirely discretionary, and—at the moment at least—there is no right of appeal? I believe this to be one of the most important points in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords in other parts of the House will so agree.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chorley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Amulree, L.

Collison, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Janner, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blyton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lindgren, L.

Brown, L.

Foot, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Burgh, L.

Gardiner, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Burntwood, L.

Garner, L.

Norwich, V.

Byers, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Seear, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Platt, L.

Segal, L.

Wade, L.

Raglan, L.

Shackleton, L.

Walston, L.

Rea, L.

Slater, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stonham, L

White, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Willis, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Poltimore, L.

Albemarle, E.

Essex, E.

Powis, E.

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Rothermere, V.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Guest, L.

Sandford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Hatherton, L.

Savile, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hives, L.

Selkirk, E.

Blake, L.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Bourne, L.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Skelmersdale, L.

Bradford, E.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Caccia, L.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Caldecote, V.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lovat, L.

Sudeley, L.

Conesford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Tenby, V.

Crathorne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Teynham, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Digby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Oakshott, L.

Young, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.56 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 32A:
32A. Page 3, line 20, leave out (" expression ") and insert (" word ").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 32A. Clause 2(5) of the Bill marks the first appearance in the Bill of the word"patrial ". It is, I am suggesting, a word rather than an expression, and a word that many noble Lords may like no more than I do, I should like to draw attention to the word itself and to the rather strange way in which it makes its debut in this Bill. The word"patrial"does not appear in the Concise Oxford Dictionary or in any of the smaller dictionaries, and in the larger ones its use is described as being
1028
rare: and it means, as one would expect it to mean,"of, or belonging to, a native land ". Thus it is properly used in expressions such as"patrial duty"or"patrial loyalty ", but I do not think that, even when it was used 100 or 200 years ago, it was ever applied to individuals. A person cannot be patrial, any more than he can be filial, and I do not think he can be"a patrial"any more than he can be"a marital ".
Now, after this long interval, this word has been resurrected and is used in a completely different sense from ever before to mean someone having the right of abode in somebody else's native country because of his more or less tenuous connection with it. But despite this, if your Lordships glance at the subsection concerned, you will see that the word is nowhere defined. It does not appear in

1029
the Interpretation Clause. We are simply told that it
" is used of persons having the right of abode in the United Kingdom."
That seems to me to be a very slack form of expression, and I think it would be far better if we could be told that the word"patrial"means,"having the right of abode in the United Kingdom ", or something along those lines.
To come to the point of my Amendment, which is purely semantic, I do not think that in any event the word can properly be described as an"expression ". I know it is true that in many subsidiary dictionary definitions of the word"expression"there occurs the word"word ". But I think that the word"word"is more accurate, shorter and therefore better. I beg to move my Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said and congratulate him on his diligent research. I understand there is some doubt whether the word"patrial"is a noun or an adjective, hence the expression"expression ". However, there is much to be said for plain language. As the noble Lord said, the word"word"is shorter, plainer and perhaps more accurate than the word"expression ", and accordingly I would suggest to your Lordships that we might be wise to accept the Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those generous comments.
6.1 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert—
(" (6) A patrial shall be entitled as of right to a passport.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pronounces the word"patrial"(with a long"a ") as patrial (with a short"a "). It would be helpful to have some authoritative statement as to whether the word should be pronounced patrial or patrial.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think it is a matter of choice: the noble Lord can say which he prefers.
LORD WADE: For the time being I shall refer to it as patrial.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is the noble Lord aware that some patriots are very patriotic?
LORD WADE: I feel even more confused now. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could inform us as to what kind of document the patrial or patrial will have: will it be a passport and will he be entitled to a passport as of right, or to some other document as of right? I think it would be helpful to have an answer. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has moved with such commendable brevity has made me think that perhaps I ought to be equally brief; but there are two or three objections to the suggestion contained in the Amendment and I think it might be useful at this stage if I were to run through them. First, I take it from his Amendment that the noble Lord is referring to a United Kingdom passport rather than one from another country, because of course some people who will have the right of abode under the Bill will be citizens of independent Commonwealth countries, and the noble Lord will appreciate that in such cases they will have their own passports from their own Governments. Secondly, there are other people who, although they will not be patrial or patrial, are and should remain eligible to receive United Kingdom passports. There are various categories of other people who are subject to our immigration control and will remain so under the Bill, but who will at the same time have United Kingdom passports. To take one or two examples of these categories, I would cite citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who fall outside the range of Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) but who have no connection with any existing Colony. I am thinking of the East African Asians in this context. There will be others, such as people who have remained British subjects without citizenship, under Sections 13(1) or 16 of the British Nationality Act—that is to say, people connected with what was formerly British India, who were regarded by the 1948 Act as potential citizens of India or Pakistan but have not acquired that citizenship.

1031
I think the Government would be failing in their duty to afford these people protection overseas if they failed to issue them with passports for the purposes of travel to this country or any other country to which they seek entry. The fact that some of them are subject to United Kingdom immigration control is not, I suggest, relevant for this purpose. In other words there is no necessary connection—which I think is what the Amendment implies—between the right of entry to the United Kingdom and the possession of a United Kingdom passport.
There is one further point which I think is important. It is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs must reserve the right in certain circumstances to refuse a passport to a person whose national status would otherwise make him eligible for one. Thus there is no right or entitlement to a passport, because the passport is issued by the Secretary of State in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but the practice followed by successive Governments over many years has been very seldom to withdraw or withhold a passport. It is done only in exceptional cases. I am thinking of a possible situation where a person was believed on good evidence to be fleeing the country to avoid a criminal prosecution or something of that kind, or of a person whose activities were so dangerous or undesirable that Parliament would he expected to support the action of the Foreign Secretary in refusing to issue a passport or withholding one already issued.
If the Amendment were made there would be no power to withdraw or withhold a passport in any of these cases where the person concerned was patrial, but the power would remain if he was not patrial. In the exceptional case where the power to withdraw a passport is exercised, the fact that the person in question is or is not patrial would not be relevant to the questions of public interest involved; and to limit the power by reference to patriality would not be a rational change in the law. I hope I have explained why we feel that we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. As to any document to which a person who is patrial will be entitled, I am afraid I shall have to let him know later about that.
1032
I have not the answer at the moment, but perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WADE: When this matter is being inquired into perhaps this point will be considered, namely, that at the very beginning of Clause 1 of the Bill we read:
" (1) all those who are in this Act expressed to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be free to live in and to come and go into and from, the United Kingdom without let or hindrance…"
and it seems right and proper that if there is this right to come and go there should be some document in evidence of that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I can help the Committee on this matter. There will be some document, and we arrive at it in Clause 3(9), if I may direct the attention of the noble Lord to that. This says:
" (9) A person seeking to enter the United Kingdom and claiming to be patrial by virtue of Section 2(1)(c) or (d) above shall prove it by means of such certificate of patriality as may be specified in the immigration rules."
I think that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD WADE: Yes; I am obliged to the noble Lord for having drawn my attention to it. I was thinking of a person wishing to leave the country, as well as enter it, because that may sometimes be important. As it is to be further considered, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General provisions for regulation and control]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 29, leave out (" indefinite ") and insert (" unlimited ").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. In Clause 3(1)(b) we read:
" he may be given leave to enter the United Kingdom (or, when already there, leave to remain in the United Kingdom) either for a limited or for an indefinite period;"
I should have thought that the reverse of"limited"would be"unlimited ".

1033
Is there some special significance in the word"indefinite"as opposed to"limited "? If not, I suggest the word"unlimited"should be used. There may be some significance of which I am not aware. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Amendment No. 35, as the noble Lord said, would substitute"unlimited"for"indefinite"in Clause 3(1)(b), which provides that leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom may be given either for a limited or for an indefinite period. Amendment No. 118 would make similar substitution much later on in the Bill, in Clause 34(4), which provides that a person subject to immigration control who is settled in the United Kingdom when the Bill comes into operation is to be treated as having been given indefinite leave to enter or remain in this country.
There are interpretations of the two words"unlimited"and"indefinite ". According to the Oxford English Dictionary the two senses given to the word"indefinite"are:"undefined and unlimited ". The first sense is illustrated in the quotation from the dictionary in 1887:
" That is indefinite which has or may have a limit, but whose limit cannot be ascertained."
It is not the intention of the Bill that indefinite leave to enter should be subject to any time limit. The word"unlimited"on the other hand is free from this ambiguity. Its only relevant meaning is not limited in number or extent. Whatever ambiguity may attach to"indefinite"taken in isolation, there is no doubt about its meaning in the context of the Bill because indefinite leave is defined in Clause 33(1). The precise definition is:
" Leave…which is not limited as to duration ".
I do not think there should be any uncertainty about the meaning of these words.
There is no power in Clause 3, or anywhere else in the Bill, to impose a time limit on the stay of someone who has been given indefinite leave to enter or remain in this country. It is this absence of power to curtail the stay of such a person, otherwise than by deportation, which guarantees him permanent residence in this country. The word used to describe the leave that he has to
1034
enter or remain is of no significance for this purpose, and we are not really convinced that the making of this Amendment would be of benefit. On the earlier Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which was another matter of semantics, I felt he had the edge of the argument. Without stating our case too strongly on this Amendment, perhaps the word used in the Bill is as good as the one in the Amendment.
LORD WADE: I do not think this matter is worth pressing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRANG): I ought to warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 inclusive.
6.14 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 34, leave out from (" Kingdom ") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: I hope I may be excused for intervening in this debate at very short notice because something else has kept me away from the House this afternoon, and therefore I have not been able to follow the debate as it has gone on during the afternoon. I will be as short as I can upon this Amendment. The purpose is to cut out altogether the need for registration of any kind.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to do so now before he begins his argument. There are five Amendments on the Marshalled List, Amendments Nos. 36 to 40, which are all on the subject of police registration. The first one is to leave out the requirements to register with the police. Amendment No. 37 is an Opposition Amendment for the matter of registration to be laid down in the rules rather than the Bill. Then there are other alternatives. I wonder if noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite would like to indicate whether they would care to take this very important issue of police registration in one debate, or want to have separate debates on each of the Amendments.
BARONESS WHITE: We are in a little difficulty because the Liberal Amendment is somewhat different from ours. On the other hand, I know that a number of noble Lords are anxious to speak on this group of Amendments, more particularly with reference to the police. This may take a little while and we may then be interrupted by"Hijacking ", which would be unfortunate. It might be for the convenience of the House if we took the Amendments together, but we are in the hands of the Liberal Peers whose Amendment this is.
LORD FOOT: I think that a much more general issue arises upon our Amendment, and that it would be better if we disposed of this first. We are questioning the principle of registration, whether there is any need for registration of any kind with anybody. I can most usefully approach this matter by asking the noble Lord, the Minister, some questions—
LORD O'HAGAN: As an individual Cross-Bencher, with no collective responsibilities, I would say that it might be better to discuss the general principle and then come on to the other Amendments to do with the agency of registration, if we get to them.
LORD FOOT: I am much obliged. It is important, before we talk about with whom people register, to discuss whether it is necessary to register at all. That is a matter upon which I should like to ask the Minister some questions. The basic question is this: what purpose is served today by the requirement of an alien that when he comes into this country to do a job of work he should register with the police, or indeed with anyone? The Minister will be familiar with the information which has been circulated by the Police Federation about this point, and they have made it perfectly clear that under the procedures as they apply to aliens the registration process performs no useful function.
As I understand their memorandum, the procedure is that, when an alien comes here under some kind of work permit, he is required by the immigration authorities at the port of entry to give particulars of the place where he is going to live, and he is notified as soon as he gets to that place that he must register
1036
with the police. Later on, the immigration authorities communicate with the police authority concerned to inquire whether that person has registered or not. If he has not registered, then he is, in the terms of the memorandum of the Federation, lost; he has disappeared. If, on the other hand, he has complied with the regulations, the immigration authorities are informed,"Yes, he has registered; he is living at the place he said he was going to live at ". What function, what purpose, has all this registration? If a person wants to avoid it, he simply does not register. And if the immigration authorities or the police find that somebody who should have registered has not done so, what do they do about it? Do they conduct a general search throughout the country to try to find him? So my first question to the Minister is this. What actual purpose does the present procedure as applied to aliens, which is going to be applied under this Bill to Commonwealth citizens, perform, if any?
The second question I want to ask is this. When a person comes into this country to go to a particular type of work, he has to obtain the ordinary work cards. He has to get his insurance cards and, as it were, register with the employment exchange. Is not that an entirely sufficient form of registration, and is not that all that is required? So my main purpose in putting down this Amendment is to ask the Minister this question. Are we being asked now to apply to the Commonwealth immigrant the procedures which have for so long applied to the alien simply because these procedures have been in operation for fifty years, or are we being asked to apply this process of registration to the Commonwealth immigrant simply because we want to bring the law into line with what has been the law for aliens for the last fifty years?
6.22 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be helpful if I intervened early in this debate, in the knowledge that I shall reply at the end to questions that are raised in the course of it. This is a matter of deep concern, I know very well, to a number of noble Lords in this House, and a full statement of the facts from the Government at the outset of our debate on this series of five Amendments will make

1037
for an informed and dispassionate discussion. The Bill provides, in Clause 3(1)(c), that if a person is given limited leave to enter the United Kingdom he may be required to register with the police by a condition attached to his admission by the immigration officer. Clause 4(3) contains a power to make regulations setting out the place and manner in which people are to register, the documents and the information to be furnished on registration, or on any change of circumstances, and also making provision as to the production of the registration certificate. This Amendment, the first Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would remove the requirement to register with the police. Some of the later ones deal with various alternative agencies.
Noble Lords will wish to know, in considering this subject, that a number of Amendments on this matter were moved in another place and defeated. The existing practice, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred in his opening speech, is that aliens are required to register with the police if admitted on a time restriction, and a condition will normally be imposed by the immigration officer, requiring immediate registration, unless the alien is admitted for three months or a shorter period. So, in practice, most aliens over the age of 16 have to register, except those who come for a period of three months or less, who will mainly be visitors.
The particulars about aliens' registration are set out in Article 14 of the Aliens Order 1953 and the second Schedule as amended. On initial registration the alien has to produce his passport and photographs and is given a police registration certificate, which is a small, green booklet. He thereafter, within seven days, notifies to the local police changes of address or of employment. The obligation of an alien to register ceases once his conditions are cancelled, normally four years after he has been admitted—four years, that is, spent in approved employment. The main categories of aliens who are required to register are work permit holders and their dependants, and students. On December 31, 1970, there were approximately 179,000 aliens registered with the police.
Let me move on now to the position of Commonwealth citizens. What I have
1038
said so far is to describe the requirement of the present law as it affects aliens. Commonwealth citizens cannot be required to register with the police under the existing law. In 1965, however, the then Government, of the Party opposite, proposed in paragraph 24 of the White Paper, Immigration from the Commonwealth (Cmnd. 2739), that a power to require Commonwealth citizens to register should be taken and that this power should be exercised, although sparingly and, particularly in the case of dubious visitors or students, with discretion. The power would not have been exercised in relation to employment voucher holders because, in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, people in this category had been admitted for settlement from the outset. But it is fundamental to the present Government's policy that Commonwealth citizens entering for employment should do so for an initial period not exceeding 12 months; and it is against the background of this new approach that it was thought right to take the power in the Bill to require police registration, no such power having been taken previously, despite the terms of the White Paper issued by the Party opposite in 1965.
The Bill itself does not set out which categories of aliens or of Commonwealth citizens shall be subject to the requirement to register with the police. This will depend on the Immigration Rules. The Government's proposals are set out in paragraph 54 of Cmnd. 4606, Control on Entry. It should be noted that the proposals are not uniform for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens: a change, for example, is that Commonwealth students are not required to register. For aliens also there is some relaxation, in that the normal visit condition will be extended from the three months, which I mentioned earlier, to a period of six months, so that aliens will register unless admitted for six months as a visitor or for settlement from the outset. Commonwealth citizens will, under the draft rules, be required to register if admitted with a work permit and, as I say, Commonwealth students will not be required to register; nor will the dependants of people already settled in this country—that is to say, people who are already

1039
lawfully resident here without limit of time—at the date of the dependants' arrival.
I should make quite clear that the latter point applies to future entrants, as well as to people already settled here at the end of July, 1971. The dependants of those Commonwealth immigrants who are already established here by the end of July this year will not be required to register with the police. We estimate that the number of Commonwealth citizens required to register will rise to approximately 20,000 over the first four years of operation of the new system. Thereafter, cancellation after four years in approved employment should balance out fresh registrations. United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa will not be required to register, as they are admitted for settlement from the outset if they come with the proper entry documents.
The structure of this debate covering the five Amendments (although at the moment we are confining ourselves to the general principle contained in the first Amendment), is best approached by considering first the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, whether there is a need for any system of registration at all, second, whether there should be a single registration agency for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens; and, third, if so, which service should be responsible for registration?
Let me deal first with the need for registration. There has been some misunderstanding about the purpose of existing police registrations of people subject to immigration control. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has referred to the memorandum recently sent to us by the Police Federation. In this the Federation pointed out that a person admitted to the country on a condition requiring him to register with the police might disappear after entry and not report to the police for his initial registration. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made the same point. The Federation suggested that, to prevent this, registration should be carried out at the port of entry. From this it would appear that it was their understanding that registration was intended to restrain people who came to this country with a deliberate intention of evading the immigration control as soon as they had
1040
obtained entry. But this is not so. Such passengers are dealt with in any event by the immigration officer, who will not admit a person whom he believes to have come here with the intention of evasion. If the immigration officer makes a mistake and admits an evader, no system of registration will then repair this initial error. Police registration is designed to deal with the quite separate problem presented by the person who genuinely comes here intending to confine himself to approved employment but who, through weakness of character or, perhaps, pressure of circumstances, then changes his mind after entry and decides to take unapproved employment. I can confirm to the Committee that the Department of Employment are in no doubt that a system of registration, in order to provide effective supervision in approved employment after entry, is necessary so as to prevent a serious erosion of the control of overseas workers.
The later Amendments, proposing registration with the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security, or local authorities, accept the need for some system of registration. Without a system of registration these workers would be likely to take work which could he filled by local labour in this country, including resident workers who are unemployed. This aspect was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Aberdare when we discussed the work permit system and he explained the nature of what is called"approved employment ". Employment is approved if it is in the categories covered by the work permit system and if the Department of Employment do not find that there is local labour available. This is what it turns on. In this way the whole object of the control on the entry of overseas workers could be nullified if there were no system of registration after entry—not only at the point of entry but after entry.
There is a further aspect on which I should touch. To some extent the system of registration and supervision in approved employment is a protection for the overseas worker himself, since it prevents him, in his own interests, from taking unapproved employment, which would tend to be in poorly paid jobs, with a consequent risk of victimisation. This has happened in other countries

1041
where, because they do not have our geographical advantage of being able to control immigration effectively at ports of entry, there is much exploitation of foreign workers. Unless there is firm supervision and control, the same may happen in this country. Registration is an integral part of this supervision.
I next turn to the important question of whether there should be a single registration agency for aliens and Commonwealth citizens. It is of course the extension of the registration requirement to Commonwealth citizens which has aroused the controversy, but it does not seem sensible to the Government to leave the registration of aliens where it is, with the police, and to require some quite separate body to deal with the comparatively small number of Commonwealth citizens who will be liable to register. I have already given the figure: it is something of the order of 20,000, against, perhaps, some 175,000 to 180,000 people from foreign countries. Within the unified framework which the Bill lays down it seems reasonable that there should be a single registration agency for all those who are required to register, and not to distinguish between alien and Commonwealth citizens in this way.
If it is then agreed that there is a need for a system of registration, and that there should be a single system of registration—a single agency—for both aliens and Commonwealth citizens, there must then be a case for saying that it should be with the police that Commonwealth citizens should register, since any other conclusions would mean taking away from them their present task of registering the 175,000 to 180,000 aliens, which they do efficiently and with tact, and requiring some new body to take on that large task. This would not seem to us to be sensible. Apart from this practical point, no effective alternative to the police has so far been suggested for registration. In another place, Amendments along these lines were debated, and suggestions were made—not very closely argued suggestions—that the task might perhaps be given to local authorities. We will discuss this further when we come to the Amendment which makes this particular proposal in your Lordships' House, but immigration control is not a local authority function and there
1042
is no precedent for this. In some of the E.E.C. countries the countries' own nationals do register with the local authority, but even in those countries foreign nationals invariably register with the police.
The most canvassed alternative to the police as the registration authority is the Department of Employment. I will not go into the arguments for and against that suggestion now, nor will I go into the arguments for and against the suggestion about the Department of Health and Social Security, because specific Amendments have been tabled which deal with each of those suggestions. So, whichever agency we envisage, if it is not the police, the Department of Employment, the local authority, the Department of Health and Social Security, the police are bound in the end to remain responsible for enforcing the immigration control, whether or not they are themselves the registration agency. As at present, the Home Office will continue in thousands of cases a year to ask the police to investigate whether an alien or Commonwealth citizen is in breach of his conditions. If the police continue to be the registration authority, they will, as at present, have a starting point for those inquiries. If they are not the registration authority, they will first have to go to that authority to find the person's current address so as to have a starting point for their inquiries. It follows from this that to transfer registration from the police to some other body will not relieve the police of much work, while it will necessarily add a great deal of work to the new registration authority.
I do not want to end what I have to say without a reference to police/immigrant relations. There is no justification for the fears that registration will lead to harassment of Commonwealth citizens by the police. Only a person whom a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe to be in breach of a registration obligation could be questioned. I should say that we propose to consult chief officers of police and the Community Relations Commission on the draft regulations to be made under Clause 4(3), and we hope that it will be possible to work out a system under which it will be sufficient for the person to produce his registration certificate at a police station within, say, 48 hours, in the same way as a driving licence.

1043
The Aliens Registration Office of the Metropolitan Police, at which all initial registrations in the Metropolitan Police District are carried out, is staffed entirely by civilians; subsequent changes of job or place of residence are notified at the local police station. Outside London there are special police registration offices at Birmingham, Bedford, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester, manned wholly or partly by civilians; elsewhere registration is at divisional or sub-divisional police stations. The extra burden of this work on the police is indicated in the explanatory memorandum at only 15, mainly civilian, additional employees by 1976–77.
I hope that what I have said, and I am afraid it has been at some considerable length, will show that there is more to this subject than might appear at first sight. I have confidence that this issue, on which I know that noble Lords hold strong feelings, will be debated very fully and thoughtfully, and that account will be taken of the considerations which I have advanced at the start of the debate on behalf of the Government, as well as of the instinctive feelings aroused by the mere mention of the proposal that work permit holders from the Commonwealth as well as those from other countries should register with the police. If I can help the Committee by replying at the end of the subsequent Amendments to particular points raised in the debate, of course I shall be pleased to do so, and it goes without saying that the Government will listen with close interest and attention to all the points put forward on this very important subject by noble Lords who take part in the debate.
LORD BROCKWAY: We are discussing Amendment No. 36. I think it has been to the advantage of the Committee that the Minister has covered the area of subsequent Amendments as well, but the Amendment we are discussing is for the rejection of the system of registration entirely, and it is to that that I want to direct the few words that I have to say.
The Minister has indicated that under this Bill the immigrants who would come to this country would be, in the first place, visitors, who would not be required to register; secondly, dependants, who would not be required to register; thirdly,
1044
workers who would be entitled to enter if they were taking a particular job with a particular employer for one year, who would be required to register; and, fourthly, students. So in effect the two classes of immigrants who would be required to register would be the workers coming to particular jobs with particular employers and students. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but, quite honestly, I did not find his reply to this Amendment a convincing one.
Let me take those classes of immigrants who would be required to register. They come to Heathrow; and I have some knowledge of what happens at Heathrow. If the immigrant is entering this country with a view to taking a job with a particular employer and has got a voucher in that respect, at Heathrow detailed particulars are taken of the man, of the address to which he is going, of the job to which he is going, and all the circumstances. He is, in effect, already registered at Heathrow. The same is true of Southampton or any port of entry. All the facts are there; he is registered. Secondly, when he obtains his employment he must have an insurance card. That insurance card must be delivered to him through an employment exchange. There is, therefore, a second registration at the employment exchange. He is registered not only as a worker; his employer is registered as well, because his employer has to endorse that insurance card every week. What fuller information and registration about that class of immigrant coming into this country as a worker could be required than that?
The noble Lord said that the ultimate responsibility, if there is a breach of either of these registrations, must be with the police. That is not an argument in favour of registration with the police. It is perfectly obvious that if a condition of registration, either on entry or with the employment exchange, is broken, then it becomes the responsibility of the police to inquire into it. I must say—and I listened very carefully—the Minister entirely failed to convince me that additional registration for a worker allowed into this country for one year with a particular employer is necessary.
In the second area of immigrants who might be allowed into this country, students, the case is equally strong.

1045
Again, the full details are taken at Heathrow, at Southampton, at other ports. As the Minister knows, I have considerable knowledge of this. They take the name of the student, the address to which he is going, the college to which he is going, the curriculum which he is taking. There could not be a fuller registration taken at that point of entry. He becomes a student at a college or university, which is already registered at the point of entry. If he fails to remain a student at that college or university, could it not easily be that Her Majesty's Government should enter into an arrangement with the heads of those particular colleges that they should inform the Government if he fails to carry out that obligation? If he fails to do so, clearly it is a matter for the police; but it is not a matter for the police before them, because it seems to me that the existing registrations, those at the point of entry, at the point of the insurance card, at the point of work, at the point of college and at the point of university, are so adequate that I see no reason at all why there should be additional registration under this Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Has there been any trouble with the registration of the 179,000 aliens that we appear to have in the country at the present time? Has there been any trouble about them? Has anything gone wrong with their registration?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The system seems to be working very well. Some noble Lords may have visited the Metropolitan Police Aliens' Registration Office at Holborn and seen the way in which the civilian employees, who handle over 50 per cent. of the initial registrations, do their work. I do not want to add postscripts to every speech. The only comment I have to make to Lord Brockway is that it is not proposed that Commonwealth students should register with the police at all.
LORD BROCKWAY: That makes my case even stronger. I understood from what the Minister said that students would have to be registered.
LORD ALPORT: Some noble Lords, including myself, are interested in and sympathetic to later Amendments. We have had a long debate on the complex aspects of the administration of registration.
1046
We had a reply from the Minister to all the Amendments which are to follow but we have not had the advantage, so far as I am concerned, of hearing the arguments which various proposers, including the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with whose Amendment I am in sympathy, may wish to put forward. I feel that the Committee is at a disadvantage. I do not wish to preclude the Minister from getting in his word; but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, could bring this discussion on his Amendment to an end so that we may deal with the other Amendments as soon as possible.
LORD FOOT: I take the point. I was careful at the outset to confine myself to the point of my Amendment: whether registration is necessary at all. I am not going to depart from that. I must say that I have not heard from the Minister a satisfactory explanation as to why registration is required at all. What the Minister said was that the existing system of registration is not designed to catch the person who comes into the country in the first place intending to avoid the controls of registration; but that it is intended to deal with the person who comes into the country in order to take up employment here and then—if I am paraphrasing the Minister correctly—under some kind of pressure or out of weakness leaves that permitted employment and goes elsewhere. The question I asked and which I repeat now is this. In what way are you able to exercise control over that sort of person who departs from his permitted employment, departs from the address at which he registered with the police by requiring him to register with the police?
What does he do when he registers with the police? He writes down his name and presumably his address and, I suppose, the name of his employer. Supposing then, under pressure or out of weakness, he decides to leave and go elsewhere. In what way does the fact that the police in that locality have those particulars about him assist in controlling him in the future? It does not contribute to the problem in any way. If the police merely want to find out what has happened to him, they will not scour the country; they will go to the employment exchange, to the immigration authorities; they will go to the people who may know

1047
something about it. The whole point of my Amendment is that registration, whether it applies to aliens or Commonwealth citizens or anybody else, seems to serve no practical purpose. It is that matter of principle that I thought should be discussed before we go on to the question which follows from other Amendments, whether to register with the police or with some other authority. I found the Minister's answer unsatisfactory, and I hope that it will be in accordance with the wishes of the noble Lord opposite that we should now carry this matter to a Division.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Before we divide I should like to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was saying about this being a question of principle separate from that raised by the following Amendments which really deal with the mechanics when the principle has been settled. I have no experience with regard to the registration of Commonwealth citizens coming in here for a limited period in the first instance. For two years I had responsibility for the administration of the law relating to the entry of aliens. It appeared to me that the system of registration with the police was essential if aliens who had been admitted for certain types of work were to be prevented from going off to other forms of work for which they would not have obtained permission to enter the country. I quite understand Lord Brockway's concern that the case should be proved; but I think that before we go to a Division it would be helpful if my noble friend Lord Windlesham were granted time to answer the point made by Lord Brockway, because I think the Committee would rather take a decision on this with the full knowledge
of what would be the difficulties that would arise if Lord Brockway's suggestion were adopted. We know that this does not apply to Commonwealth students: but we should like to know what would be the difficulties if there were no post-entry registration for Commonwealth citizens admitted here for employment for limited periods.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think that I should delay the Committee. I have noted what the noble Lord said. We have to interrupt the proceedings on this Bill at seven o'clock, and perhaps we should put this issue of principle to the vote. I appreciate the noble Lord's intentions, but this is an issue of principle and we can debate the details when we resume.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: May I ask my noble friend whether he will think again about that? There are many of us who feel strongly about subsequent Amendments. I came with the strong belief that, given the general purposes of the Bill, post-entry registration was unavoidable. Certain arguments have been advanced which have made me doubt whether my first resolution is correct. I think it would be of great help if, after the next Bill, the noble Lord could give a more detailed answer to the points that have been raised.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, on this point. I feel that we have not got through to the end of it.
7.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Archibald, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Foot. L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blyton, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Longford, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gardiner, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maelor, L.

Burntwood, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Pargiter, L.

Caradon, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Perth, E.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Platt, L.

Collison, L.

Hylton, L.

Raglan, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Slater, L.

Wade, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Walston, L.

St. Davids, V.

Stonham, L.

White, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Willis, L.

Segal, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Oakshott, L.

Abinger, L.

Dudley, E.

Powis, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Albemarle, E.

Essex, E.

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Rothermere, V.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

St. Just, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Barnby, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Grenfell, L.

Savile, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Belstead, L.

Hailes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sempill, Ly.

Bethell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Blake, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hives, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Inchcape, E.

Strang, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Burton, L.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Caccia, L.

Kilmany, L.

Suffield, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tenby, V.

Carrington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teviot, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teynham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Conesford, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Monck, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wigram, L.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Derwent, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Young, Bs.

Digby, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORD WINDLESHAM: I beg to move that the House do now resume until eight o'clock for the consideration of the Hijacking Bill.

HIJACKING BILL
7.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill is brief and, I believe, non-contentious. But it is not only for that reason that I think it will commend itself to your Lordships. The title too is brief, and if"hijacking"is not the most elegant of words everyone knows what it means—what is more formally called"the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft ".
1050
This evil and pernicious form of banditry is fraught with the gravest danger for passengers and crew, aircraft and property. It knows no boundaries. It has occurred in most parts of the world, and is still occurring. Still fresh in our minds are the terrible events involving a British aircraft on Dawson's Field less than a year ago. This month there was the hijacking of an American aircraft of the Braniff International Airlines over Texas. The aircraft subsequently landed to refuel at Monterey, in Mexico, where the passengers were allowed to leave after the airline had paid 100,000 dollars as ransom to the hijacker. The aircraft then flew to Lima in Peru, where it again refuelled, and then on to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil where troops tried to seize it but failed. From there it flew to Buenos Aires in Argentina. The police there refused to allow the aircraft to refuel and deflated its tyres, while the hijacker threatened to blow up the aircraft and its crew of six. Eventually, after the

1051
aircraft had been on the tarmac for 20 hours, the hijacker surrendered. This prolonged incident illustrates how complex a hijacking can be and how many countries may be involved in a single incident. I shall refer to it again later.
It is all too clear that the hijacking of aircraft still goes on. The threat remains, and we must do all we can to bring it to an end. One side of the international campaign against hijacking, and against sabotage and other acts of violence against aircraft, consists of the development of practical preventive measures such as detection devices and improved security arrangements at airports and elsewhere. This work goes on, but I am not concerned with it to-day. What I am concerned with is the other side of the campaign, the creation of a structure of international law, designed to act as a powerful deterrent by ensuring so far as possible that there is no place of refuge for the hijacker.
The Tokyo Convention of 1963 may be said to have been the foundation stone of this structure. That Convention was not specifically concerned with hijacking but dealt generally with crimes committed on board aircraft. The Tokyo Convention Act 1967 was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce (I am glad to see him in his place), who had already contributed much to this subject. Its enactment enabled the United Kingdom to be among the first to ratify the Convention, which came into operation in December 1969, and is now in force for 41 countries.
The second instrument is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, on which this Bill is based. Still to come is a draft convention dealing with what are described as"acts of unlawful interference against international civil aviation ". Here again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has played a leading part. It is specially aimed at sabotage and similar acts of violence other than hijacking. Its preparation was put in hand largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom at the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was convened in June 1970 especially to consider the security of civil aviation, and we hope
1052
that the convention will be finalised at a diplomatic conference which is to be held in Montreal in September.
The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft was concluded at a diplomatic conference at The Hague on December 16, 1970 (for convenience I will refer to it as The Hague Convention). It was signed at the time on behalf of 50 countries, including the United Kingdom, and since then there have been another 20 signatories, making a total of 70. It has been ratified by at least five States, and several other countries are known to be preparing for ratification. It will come into effect between ratifying countries 30 days after the tenth ratification has been deposited. The sooner the Convention enters into operation the better; and the more States that adhere to the Convention, the more effective it will be.
All Conventions are to some extent a compromise and the same applies to this one. Some States wanted to go further than the Convention goes, but to have done so might have discouraged other States from adhering to it. What really mattered was to get agreement on a plan which would as far as possible ensure that any hijacker landing in a country which had ratified the Convention would be brought to justice, either in the country where he landed or in a country which was entitled to request his extradition. What the Convention does, in brief, is to require contracting States to make the hijacking of aircraft an offence punishable by severe penalties. It includes provision for arrest, facilitates the extradition of offenders between contracting States, and requires any contracting State in which the offender is found to take jurisdiction to prosecute him, if it does not extradite him. If it had been in force between the countries concerned, the rights and duties of those involved in the Braniff International Airlines incident, to which I referred earlier, would have been much more clearly defined.
The main purpose of the Hijacking Bill is to enable us to ratify The Hague Convention. Effect can be given to some of the provisions of the Convention administratively; no legislation is needed to implement them, and so they are not reflected in the Bill. Short as it is, however, the Bill does cover two points which are not in the Convention. These are,

1053
first, what I may call"domestic hijacking ", taking place on a flight which begins and ends in the territory of the State in which the hijacked aircraft is registered; and secondly, the hijacking of a military, customs or police aircraft. For both provision is needed in our law.
I shall briefly explain the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the ingredients of the offence of hijacking in almost the same words as those used in The Hague Convention—namely, the unlawful seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in flight by means of force or threats."In flight"is defined in subsection (5) to include any period from the moment when the aircraft is on the ground with all its external doors closed until they are re-opened on arrival. In the case of a forced landing, the flight is deemed to continue after landing until the competent authorities take over. Subsection (4) provides that anyone who commits the offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life, and it does not matter what was the nationality of the hijacker, what was the country in which the aircraft was registered or where the aircraft was when the offence was committed on it.
This means that any hijacker who turns up in the United Kingdom, whether his hijacking flight ends in this country or elsewhere, can be brought to justice here, if he is not extradited under the Extradition Acts or returned under the Fugitive Offenders Act. Subsection (2), however, restricts the universality of the provision by excluding domestic hijacking and the hijacking of military, customs or police aircraft, except where the offence is committed by a person who can loosely be described as British, or where the act is committed in the United Kingdom, or where the aircraft is registered in the United Kingdom or used in the service of United Kingdom military, customs or police authorities. This accords with Article 3 of The Hague Convention.
Clause 2 gives effect to the provision of The Hague Convention which requires each contracting State to ensure that its courts have jurisdiction over offences of hijacking and over acts of violence committed against passengers or crew by the hijacker. This means that where another serious offence, such as murder, is committed in the course of the hijacking, a State will be able to deal not only with
1054
the hijacking but also with any other serious offences.
Clause 3 amends the law so as to give effect to those provisions of The Hague Convention which relate to the extradition of hijackers between contracting States. First of all, subsection (1) of Clause 3 ensures that hijacking is an extradition crime under the Extradition Act 1870 and a returnable offence under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. This does not mean that we are bound in all cases to extradite a hijacker to a contracting State which requests his extradition. Whether in any given case he will be handed over depends, in the case of a Commonwealth country, upon the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act and, in the case of a foreign country, upon the terms of the arrangement with that country under which extradition may take place.
In either case, there are traditional safeguards which prohibit the return of a fugitive in certain circumstances. For example, a request cannot be granted if the offence is of a political character. Nor would the fugitive be returned if in the opinion of our courts there was insufficient evidence to justify his committal for trial. Moreover, extradition is not normally granted where criminal proceedings in respect of the offence have already begun in this country. These are some of the matters which have to be taken into account before a decision is taken whether to accede to a request for extradition, and the Bill does not in this respect treat hijacking any differently from any other extraditable offence. When a hijacker is not extradited, our courts will, of course, have wide jurisdition to try hijackers who land here or otherwise make their way here.
So far as foreign countries are concerned, extradition may take place only where the Extradition Act has been applied to the requesting State by an Order in Council under Section 2 of that Act. As that section now stands, such an Order can be made only in respect of a State with which the United Kingdom has a bilateral extradition treaty. In other words, a hijacker could not as things stand be extradited to a country with which the United Kingdom does not have a bilateral extradition treaty. To remedy this, subsection (2) of Clause 3 amends the Extradition Act 1870 by

1055
providing that an Order in Council may be made under Section 2 of that Act as if The Hague Convention were an extradition arrangement between the United Kingdom and any State party to The Hague Convention with which no bilateral extradition arrangement is in force. This will permit the extradition of the hijacker to such a State.
I need not detain your Lordships with the remaining provisions. In conclusion, I will only add that both the previous Administration and the present Administration have played a leading part in the development of the Hijacking Convention. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House are anxious that we should carry on the good work and be among the first to ratify it. The Bill will enable us to do so. I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.21 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are exceptionally indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the way in which he has set out the provisions of this Bill, and for my part I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing in the Bill. The noble Lord went to some extent through recent history, and many of us will have those events very fresh in our minds. I have no wish to go over them now. I shall be content to say that the sooner we get this Bill on the Statute Book, the better. What is needed now is to see throughout the world a uniform and effective law in this field. I hope that we shall do all we possibly can, using our undoubted diplomatic expertise, to get others to follow the lead which Her Majesty's Government have taken.
There is one other point that I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He may be able to answer it now, or possibly to refer to it at a later stage. I understand that the shipping interests are also concerned with this matter and would have liked to see a provision made covering ships which are in some danger, as they see it, on the high seas. I know that it is quite impossible to extend the Bill to cover shipping if we are to get it on the Statute Book within the time that has been set,
1056
but I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any assurance that something will be done in future concerning ships. Meanwhile, I only say that, as I have certain other engagements outside the Chamber, I hope that I may be excused if I attend to them.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches, may I echo everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick?
7.22 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I want, in a very few words, to congratulate the Government on their promptitude in bringing forward this Bill implementing the Convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, explained, this is one of a series, starting with the Tokyo Convention of 1967, and later this year coming to another Convention on unlawful interference, all of which will make a whole of international legislation dealing with this very difficult problem. Of course, as noble Lords appreciate, one cannot stop hijacking by legislation alone; one has to supplement it not only, as the noble Lord said, by detection devices, but also, as I think all Governments in this country are aware, by attacking the evil at its source; that is, by trying to increase measures of pacification in the trouble spots where hijacking takes place, such as the Middle East and Latin America. All these things go together, but it is important to have a sound legal structure, and the need for it can be seen by the complicated and detailed provisions that we now have in The Hague Convention and in this Bill.
I should like to draw attention to the provisions relating to extradition, which represent a remarkable advance in international law and the law of this country, and would have been inconceivable ten years or so ago. An Article in the Convention contains this provision:
" Contracting States undertake to include the offence as an extraditable offence in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them."
It also states:
" The offence shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between Contracting States."
That is implemented, concerning this country, in Clause 3. It is a remarkable Convention, and undoubtedly it is the one single legal measure that is going to have

1057
practical effect in deterring potential hijackers and ensuring that they will be punished. I can say, since this is one of the few international Conventions in the field of air law with which I have not been concerned, that the Convention, to my mind, is extremely well drafted, thanks to the expertise of those in the Department for which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is able to speak; and the Bill is correspondingly effective and practical. With those few words, I am very glad to approve the Bill and to thank the Government, so far as I can, for bringing it forward so quickly.
7.27 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise only to ask one question. The points I desired to make have been made already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to whose very great role in this field of legislation I am sure the whole House would be glad to pay tribute. I follow what he said by this question which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He said that the Order in Council to be made under subsection (2) of Clause 3 would contain the necessary safeguards. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could expand on that a little. As the noble and learned Lord said, the provisions in regard to extradition represent a rather new departure in this field and they are of the very greatest importance.
Clause 1 of the Bill creates an offence which can be committed by a person of any nationality in any part of the world unless it falls within subsection (2). Clause 2 creates a whole series of offences which again may be committed by a person of any nationality in any part of the world provided that the act in question is done in connection with the offence of hijacking. So, my Lords, the effect of the Bill is to give a jurisdiction to the English criminal courts in relation to a series of offences, and those offences can, as I have said, be committed in any part of the world by anybody. That makes it very important to make certain what we are doing in regard to the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870, and in particular to be perfectly clear as to what the impact of the changes which are being introduced will have upon the doctrine of political offences.
I yield to nobody in my detestation of this loathesome offence of hijacking.
1058
I do not seek to excuse in the slightest degree those ruffians who engage in it, and I greatly welcome this Bill which obviously is indispensable. But the principle of political asylum in this country and the principle which relates to the doctrine that people should not be extradited if the offence for which it is sought to punish them overseas can really be regarded as a political offence, is a very sacred principle in our constitution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will agree with me about that. I suppose one has to accept that a characteristic of these offences is that they from time to time have what could be regarded as fairly substantial political content, and therefore it is important to know what we are doing with regard to that.
Under the existing law, if I am not mistaken, a murder committed abroad, piracy committed abroad or treason committed abroad can form the subject of a prosecution in this country if the person charged can be apprehended in this country. The Bill greatly enlarges the number of offences of which that is true: that is to say, offences committed abroad which can form the subject of a prosecution in this country. The position before this Bill was introduced was, I suppose, that the offence of murder committed in, say, France could form the subject of a prosecution in this country. Yet if the French Government wished to obtain the extradition of the individual concerned, if it could be said that the offence was a political offence, extradition might be refused. In spite of this the offence would probably form the subject of a prosecution in the courts of this country. I suppose that that is now true of this wider range of offences. I am not saying that that is wrong; I just want to ascertain from the noble Lord whether I have correctly understood the position.
I suppose it may be the case in the future that extradition might be refused in the case of an individual offence within Clause 1 or Clause 2 on the ground that it constituted a political offence. But the offence would nevertheless form the subject of a prosecution in this country, and really there would be little option. If it were clearly shown that it had been committed, there would have to be proceedings. Proceedings in this country under Clause 3 can be taken only at

1059
the instance of the Attorney General, but he has not unlimited discretion in these matters. If an offence has clearly been committed, it is normally his duty to see that proceedings are taken unless there is a strong public interest in a contrary sense. I suppose, therefore, he would normally always have to institute proceedings, political offence or no political offence. Those are the questions that I should like to put, and I hinge them on the single question: what are the protective or precautionary provisions which it is the intention of the Government to embody in the Order in Council to be made under subsection (2) of Clause 3?
7.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to add my few words of wholehearted support to this Bill, and to congratulate the Government, and particularly my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade, for having moved with some speed to get his own Department and the Home Office to agree on the draft of this Bill. The second reason why I want to intervene is because, following the suggestion of certain interested parties, under the kind support and guidance of the Public Bills Office, I introduced a Private Member's Bill earlier in the Session termed the Aircraft Offences Bill—unlike the terminology of the present Hijacking Bill, which I believe derives its name from the stealing of liquor in the days of prohibition.
I should like to pay my tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his work in the Tokyo Convention and his subsequent work in this field. The Tokyo Convention, of course, was only the first step in reaching international agreement, and it dealt, as one understands, only with the offence on board aircraft, and with the prime object of restoring those aircraft safely to their rightful owners. Even so, with a slightly limited power, it did take some six years to ratify this Convention. I therefore feel that the Government's decision in ratifying the Hague Convention is encouraging. One hopes that the ratification of this Convention, with its power of extradition, will go some way to deter the would-be hijackers. I am sure everyone agrees that there is now universal admiration for the fortitude and courage of the pilots and crews involved
1060
in the hijacking and for their admirable restraint over the past few years, particularly in regard to the Middle East hijacks, when there must have been a great temptation to force a boycott during this period. But they felt it their duty to keep the aircraft operative.
Those to whom one talks in this specialist field often point to three questions in trying to firm-up the international agreement, and I should like to put them to my noble friend this evening. The first is: why could not more firm action be taken by the United Nations? The second is that, with the ratification of the Tokyo Convention and now The Hague Convention, and possibly the third, the Sabotage Convention, could it not be that sanctions against a non-co-operative State could be referred to and considered by the Security Council? The third question is: why have the Government not, as yet, added (and perhaps I could put in: will they add?) the aerial policy clause to all bilateral air service agreements between States? I believe that this has already been done between Canada and the United States.
I would conclude, my Lords, by welcoming the Bill, and welcoming again the prompt action of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that this ratification of The Hague Convention will be yet a further step to ensure effective international agreement to combat the growing threat which so often endangers the lives of totally innocent air travellers.
7.37 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I do not propose to take up much time on this, although I feel strongly on the question of hijacking. It deals with a situation which is one of the most serious problems that we have to face at the present time. With aircraft moving from country to country, with a vast number of passengers and crews involved, the House will readily understand the anxiety of those who know the kind of hijacking that has been taking place and are anxious to deal with it in a practical way. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a description of what has been happening up to now. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for the part he has taken in this matter. This Bill is of course an important step at an important time. The timing here differs very

1061
much from the kind of timing that has happened in regard to other conventions and the acceptance of them by Statutes in this House.
What concerns me, my Lords, is this. I cannot understand why the position with regard to countries which accept and harbour the hijackers has not been more thoroughly investigated and steps taken to deal with it. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give us any information on that. The Arab States, for instance, have not joined in this Convention; nor have they participated in other Conventions. Does this mean that they are prepared to harbour hijackers in the future? We have had serious examples of it, and the House is aware of the incidents that have occurred. Is there no method by which the organisations dealing with air travel can be encouraged to refuse to travel to those countries which harbour hijackers openly and refuse to participate in international action in preventing this terrible crime which is being perpetrated and which is frightening a considerable number of people? Fortunately, most people are sufficiently brave to travel even to and from those places where hijackers are known to be. I should like to ask the Government, while congratulating them on the steps they are taking in this particular Bill, whether any immediate steps are being taken to deal with this extremely serious position in the near future?
7.41 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I wish to raise one point with great diffidence, surrounded as I am by legal experts. Hijacking is a despicable and cowardly form of crime. It puts innocent humans in great peril. In the event of an attempted hijacking over this country, during which some member of the crew or a passenger takes steps to deal with the hijacker—probably not by means of a gun but by clubbing him on the head—and takes the hijacker's life, what is the position? I gather, as a layman, that he would undoubtedly be charged in the courts with the crime of manslaughter. No doubt the judiciary would acquit him; but it seems to me regrettable that if someone takes the life of a hijacker in saving other lives which might be at risk, he should be submitted to the ordeal of a trial by the judiciary.
1062
Would it not be possible to incorporate into this Bill so far as this country is concerned a provision whereby if a hijacker is killed, and rightly killed, for the sake of saving the lives of those in the aircraft, the man who by his action saves the aircraft and its passengers should not be subjected to trial in the courts?
7.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the reception which you have given to this Bill and I would like to say to all noble Lords who have spoken how grateful I am for what they have said. I would now like to reply, as briefly as I can, to the questions which have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked me about the Order in Council. The safeguards to be included in the Order under Section 2 of the 1870 Act will include all those in extradition treaties and, in addition, all the wider safeguards in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, with which I am sure he is extremely familiar. The most important of these are the restrictions under Section 4 of the 1967 Act on the surrender of fugitives who may be prosecuted or punished on account of their political opinions. I think it is important to underline what the noble Lord has said. We are entirely at one with him in our desire to ensure that there are no instances of extradition where political offences are concerned. As the noble Lord said, it is a fundamental principle of our extradition arrangements that the surrender of a fugitive accused of a crime must first of all be subject to certain safeguards. The first is the production of prima facie evidence such as would justify the committal of the fugitive for trial had his offence been committed within English jurisdiction; and the second is prohibition of surrender where the offence for which the fugitive is sought is one of a political character.
Let me just say, that so far as the political safeguard is concerned, it is a generally accepted international rule that extradition laws do not permit the surrender of political refugees; the only general exception there is in respect of persons who have committed crimes of genocide. The United Nations Convention on Genocide, which the United Kingdom has ratified, specified that such crimes shall

1063
not be considered as political for the purposes of extradition. The only justification for this exception is the quite unparalleled frightfulness of genocide, and there is no justification for treating hijacking any differently from murder or other crimes of violence committed on land or sea. As to the second point, the noble Lord instanced the possibility of a murder committed by a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies in France. As I am sure he is aware, the existing law permits the prosecution of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in this country for a murder committed abroad.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for his prescience, earlier in the year, in introducing a Bill which has been a kind of prelude to the present Bill. He said that our ratification was very encouraging; but first of all we must pass the Bill because it is not the custom in this country to ratify before we have the necessary legislation. I hope that will not be very long delayed. I should like to associate myself, as no doubt will all Members of your Lordships' House, with what he said about the courage and fortitude of pilots. For everyone who takes to the air there is some sense of risk, but they have additional responsibility. The way in which they have been carrying this in the light of the threats which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, so aptly described, and which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchyre described as"despicable and cowardly ", has indeed attracted universal admiration.
My noble friend went on to ask three questions. The first was, why cannot firmer action be taken by the United Nations? Of course, the International Civil Aviation Organisation works under the auspices of the United Nations, and it is to them in the first place that we owe these Conventions. The second question was, what about sanctions? This was a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, also touched. These have been considered in I.C.A.O. and may in due course come before the Security Council, which is perhaps the more appropriate body to deal with this sensitive problem. The matter is very much under study at the present time, but I am sure your Lordships' House will not underrate the very complicated legal and other problems involved in the application of sanctions.
1064
I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that it is at least encouraging that three Arab States have signed, though not yet ratified, the Convention—Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait—and we hope others will do so. Israel was one of the original signatories.
My noble friend's third question was why there was no aerial piracy clause. The inclusion of provisions on this subject in bilateral air traffic agreements has been considered, but it gives rise to serious difficulties. It is probably better to deal with this matter on a multilateral basis, as is provided in the Convention.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who has had to leave us, about shipping interests. This point was considered, but there was a balance of advantage here, and we had to balance the desirability of getting this Bill through as quickly as possible with the desirability of including provisions dealing with hijacking of ships. That would have delayed the Bill. The matter is under consideration, however, and I hope that legislation on this matter will not be long delayed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could refer him again to the United Nations. I appreciate that ICAO is a specialised technical Agency of the United Nations. What I was referring to was a draft resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I gathered that certain countries, in particular the Netherlands, moved a draft resolution. I wondered what support Her Majesty's Government were giving to this form of pressure within the United Nations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot answer that question off the cuff. The purpose here is to give a firm, legal basis. The intentions expressed in resolutions are one matter, but we want to have firm, legal ground on which to work and this is what this Bill is designed to provide.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked about the possibility of incorporating a provision which would exempt any legal consequences of taking action to deal with a hijacker on board a flight. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me unlikely in the extreme that the Director of Prosecutions would take

1065
any kind of action in a case like that which I should have thought was to a large extent covered by the Tokyo Convention. If a member of the crew was acting under the orders of the commander, as I imagine would be the case, I cannot see that there would be any possibility of a prosecution with regard to the use of reasonable force. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, will hasten to correct me if I am wrong about that, and he is able to give better guidance in this matter than I can.
My Lords, it only remains for me once again to express my appreciation of the expedition with which your Lordships have dealt with this very useful Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.54 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

IMMIGRATION BILL
8.2 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 34, leave out (" with the police ") and insert (" in the manner provided by rules ").
The noble Baroness said: I think from what was said before we went into retreat at 7 o'clock that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered now Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 together. Some of these are Liberal Amendments, some are from the Cross Benches, but they are all concerned with the same point at issue. We had a more general discussion earlier this evening on whether there should be registration of any kind. These Amendments in this particular group admit the principle of registration of some kind, but in each case wish to delete the reference to the police and to insert something else.
The Amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself is a little different in some respects from the others in so far as our suggestion is that the reference to the police should be deleted from the Bill, but it would leave open the form the registration might take to be provided by the rules or it could be dealt with when we come to Clause 4 (I think it is) by regulation. I do not know that we would quibble about that necessarily. But we are all at one with the objection to using the police as the vehicle for registration. I would put it to your Lordships that this is the issue within the Bill on which we have had more representations than on any other single subject. As your Lordships know, various people are not happy about the Bill as a whole. But, leaving that aside, within the principles of the Bill I must say that we have had very, very strong representations from three groups of people all of whom are concerned with this matter. First of all, there are the immigrant organisations themselves, there are those who are working in community relations, and then there are the police. There are those three groups.
From the immigrant organisations we have received, as I am sure other noble Lords have received, very strong representations that the procedure proposed might be all right for aliens but that they do not consider themselves aliens. They are not aliens; they are Commonwealth citizens. They may be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They are British subjects, whatever else they are. They feel that what is appropriate for aliens is not appropriate for British subjects. They feel this is something which breaks in a most vivid and emotive way the kind of connection that exists—it may sound sentimental if one says"family connection ", but there is that element in it. When they come here they have a feeling that they should be at home, that they should be within the family circle. This idea that they have to go to the police they find utterly repugnant.
I have spoken to various representatives of the most responsible immigrant community organisations in the country and they are absolutely at one on that. They say,"We feel that this very action

1067
of saying that we must go and register with the police at once puts us at arm's length. Right from the outset it makes us feel that we are suspect, although we recognise of course that we are not regarded as criminals as such." And, let us be honest, for most working-class people the police and criminal activity are inextricably joined. Let us also be quite frank about this. The way in which some members of some police forces behave—I would not generalise too far, but it is certainly true for some—when they are dealing with people who are socially rather different from most Members of your Lordships' House leaves something to be desired. There is no point in glossing over this because experience shows that it is true. There are therefore real apprehensions on the part of those who are already working in this field that the whole idea of having to register with the police is something which they intensely dislike.
May I say that this intense dislike—and it has to be felt for it to be believed how intense it is—extends to having to carry around with them the kind of documentation which was described by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and which aliens carry around. It might be said that this attitude is irrational, but any of us who have had any connection at all with Commonwealth affairs will know the absolute detestation that coloured citizens of the Commonwealth feel for pass laws and passes. This is an element in their intense dislike for this proposed procedure. It extends not only to those who may be coming here but to the people we have been discussing, those who are already here, although they themselves will he exempt from this rule. What they say is,"We are conspicuous citizens of this country. We apprehend that if this system is to be imposed upon Commonwealth immigrants coming here, and if they have to carry these passes, which is in effect what is meant, if anything goes wrong or is in the least bit suspicious the police will turn to us and say, ' Where is your pass? Where is your document?' and they will do that to a coloured person a hundred times for every time they do it to a white person." It means that even though one is in fact exempt from the requirement to register, and consequently to have the necessary
1068
documentation one will not be immune from possible unpleasantness and harassment.
It might be said that this view is exaggerated. All I am saying to your Lordship is that, after the most careful consideration and investigation with those concerned, this is what they tell us with absolute conviction. I am not speaking now of just anybody to whom one might speak on the subject; I am speaking now of responsible leaders of the immigrant organisations on whom. I would beg your Lordships to remember, we so largely depend for peaceable communal relations in this country.
This is not a one-sided thing; it is not just our general benevolence that can secure such an atmosphere. We depend very largely on those who run the organisations of immigrants—the Indian workers, the West Indian Association, and so on. Therefore I think their views on this matter should carry weight with us. I will return in a moment to the subject of what they themselves have suggested to us, but meanwhile I would draw the attention of the Committee to the opinions of what I might call the indigenous organisations in this country who are also concerned in these matters. I speak of the British Council of Churches and the Community Relations Commission, both of whom have made it quite clear to us that they strongly disapprove of the proposal that Commonwealth immigrants—British subjects—should be required to register with the police.
The British Council of Churches believe that such an arrangement would jeopardise the endeavours of the police to develop good relations with the non-white populations. The Community Relations Commission, which after all is an official body, has stated, in notes (which I think some of your Lordships will have seen) dated July 12 of this year:
" If there is one matter on which all who work in community relations are agreed it is that relations between minorities and the police are of crucial importance; that they are not as good as they should be and that they need to be improved. Concern about this is universal. To introduce in the Bill "—
that is, of course, the Bill we are discussing—
" a clause which compels immigrants to register with the police can only make this difficult situation more difficult."
Finally we have the police themselves. We have already been referred to the views of the Police Federation, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is well aware of their apprehensions. Among their apprehensions not only is there the general one that they do not wish to have this job of registering Commonwealth immigrants, because they themselves think it will impede good relations, but they have also a particular worry in that there are police community relations officers in various areas where there are community problems. In most places these officers are doing a good and useful job. The Police Federation are of the view that if the police are made responsible for this kind of administration it will make their work more difficult and less successful. They are also, incidentally, concerned lest the community liaison officers themselves might he used for checking up on immigration registration, which would put them into the category of—not exactly enemies of the community, but, at any rate, somebody on the other side. Obviously, this would not be the intention, but this is the opinion of the Police Federation. I understand also that two of the other major organisations, of superintendents and chief officers of police, while they do not take as strong a view as the Police Federation (I must make that quite clear) would nevertheless be perfectly content that this particular task should be laid on some other authority than the police.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, that if somebody is found to be in breach of whatever regulations may be made the police at that point will have to come in, as they do for any other breach of the law or regulations. But in such circumstances they come in, obviously, in a different capacity. They are then concerned only with those who are suspected of being somehow in dereliction. It does not mean that everybody, quite regardless, has to have this relationship with the police.
If not with the police, then how else, on the assumption that some form of registration is desirable? It will be observed that Amendment No. 37 leaves this open, by saying that it should be decided and put in the rules but that at all costs the statutory obligation to register with the police should be removed. We have had further discussions with some of those concerned, and I would advise
1070
my noble friends, who naturally would wish to listen to the arguments put forward by the Liberal Peers and by the Peers on the Cross Benches, that we are advised by those who are most closely in contact with the immigrant organisations that what they would much prefer is for the Department of Employment to be responsible for this, because, they say,"After all, we come here to seek work ".
Some people have been speaking about the Department of Education but that is really not relevant because students are not concerned: the people with whom we are really concerned, and the noble Lord referred to this in an earlier intervention, are those coming here to seek employment. After all, approved employment is part of the conditions. Therefore they say"We would regard it as perfectly right and proper if you said that we should keep in touch with the Department of Employment. We have to do that anyway because it is they who decide whether or not we can change our jobs. They have the vetting of employment. We have to have our National Insurance card. There is a number for each one of us when we are registered as workers, so that we can all be traced. That we do not object to because everybody else in the country also has a number and can be identified in that way."
So it was put to us very firmly that if there is to be registration at all the Department of Employment is very much the preferred vehicle for registration. This would not be resented in anything like the same way; it would not have the same psychological overtones or undertones. As I understand it, this would be acceptable, and the immigrant organisations to whom I have spoken, who are responsible people, would be willing to"sell"this, so to speak, to their constituents. The police they will not have; the police they resent; the police they will oppose all along the line. They left us in no doubt at all about that. This is something that they regard as insulting and they all feel passionately about it, although it will not affect the persons about whom we have been speaking as individuals, but they feel the whole concept is quite wrong. They say"We are British subjects and we feel we ought not to be treated as aliens. We would resent this bitterly. If you want to keep some check on us for employment purposes, that we

1071
can understand." They come here on certain conditions, and the noble Lord himself mentioned, in an earlier intervention, that we have to be concerned about the state of employment in various occupations in this country, and therefore it is a logical thing.
What real difference would it make from an administrative point of view? The noble Lord has said that if they are in London they will go to the office in Lambs Conduit Street and they will not see a policeman. He made that very clear, so there is no question of getting to know the police. All they would see would be a clerical officer, so what possible difficulty would there be in attaching those clerical officers to the Department of Employment instead of to the police? It would make no difference whatever, physically or financially; it is a purely administrative thing.
We are talking of a total number of some 20,000 persons at a maximum, because there are only 20,000 all told within any period of five years, taking account of those coming in and those going out. It will build up over the first five years, but at the maximum it will be 20,000 people over the country as a whole. Forty per cent. of these, I understand, are in the Metropolitan area and therefore go to this place in Lambs Conduit Street. Another 10,000 are in the West Midlands; it should not be beyond the wit of man to organise something there. The others are scattered in Yorkshire and one or two other areas. But wherever they go there would be an office of the Department of Employment; it is not a question of having to set up new offices. This, I know, would make an enormous difference to the attitude of people who, after all, it is in our own interest to help and to make them feel as contented and secure as possible.
LORD ABERDARE: Is the noble Baroness suggesting that only Commonwealth immigrants should register with the Department of Employment and that aliens should continue to register with the police; or that aliens and Commonwealth immigrants should in future register with the Department of Employment?
BARONESS WHITE: The number of aliens is very much larger; we were given a figure of 179,000. They are in a different
1072
relationship to us than Commonwealth immigrants. At least we regard them so. The Government seems to be rather doubtful about this. We believe that there is a real difference between people who are British subjects, whatever their actual status; they are all British subjects ex-hypothesi. I am not necessarily pressing that aliens should be included in this. If the Government thought it easier to have joint administration it is up to them to propose it. But on behalf of myself, and I think I am speaking for my noble friends, I am not pressing the case of aliens one way or the other. If the Government wish to make a change for administrative convenience, I am sure we would not object. But this is not the burden of our argument at the moment. We are speaking for this group of people who do not at the moment have to register with anyone and are now being required to register with the police.
We regard this as a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with this particular group of persons, and they are bitterly resentful about this. Anyone who has had any contact with any of these organisations over the last few months knows that this is something which really sticks. I would therefore hope, in spite of all the reasons the noble Lord gave in his reply on the earlier more general Amendment, that he will reconsider this point because it is one of the most important psychological things in this whole Bill. We may differ on the general philosophy, but this is not something within the philosophy of the Government; it is not a matter of high principle; this is a matter of sensibility. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will look at this again. We are discussing this whole group of Amendments. We shall be very much interested to hear any arguments put forward for any other authority, but at the moment I would advise my noble friends, if we go to a vote at the end of the group of Amendments, that our disposition at the moment is to support Amendment No. 38.
8.25 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: In dealing with Amendment No. 40, which would substitute for the police the Department of Health and Social Security, and which stands in my name and the names of the noble Earl, Lord Perth and

1073
the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am not attacking the police. Indeed it is hardly likely that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Chairman of the Parole Board (who cannot be here tonight because he is engaged with Parole Board activities), would associate himself with me in an attack on the police. I feel that this series of Amendments that we are dealing with now is perhaps the most important series left in the rest of the Bill, as I shall explain later. I should like also to make it clear at the outset that I am not—and I understand that the same is equally true of the noble Earl, Lord Perth—wedded to the idea of substituting the Department of Health and Social Security for the police. We are keen that something should be substituted, and we shall, we hope, encourage the Government to use their ingenuity in devising whatever alternative may seem to them best. As I say, I am not moving this Amendment in a spirit of hostility towards the police, and I am not using this provision of the Bill to have a go at our splendid police force; in fact, I am doing quite the reverse. I think that, given a fair chance, our police make every effort to behave well towards the coloured immigrant community. What I object to in the Bill as it is at present is that under it the police will not be given a fair chance. By imposing this duty upon them Her Majesty's Government are undermining one of the most important areas of community relations and handicapping the police.
Your Lordships may think: has not the alien system worked very well for many years? Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, asked a question about this. You may think: what is wrong with extending that system to people from the Commonwealth? You may think that these Amendments are asking for special privileges for the Commonwealth, particularly the Black Commonwealth. I will leave aside the question whether it is right for us to treat people from the Commonwealth as if they are aliens. Let me stick to the logical point. If all these people are to register, it may be sensible for them to register in the same way. But why should they all have to register with the police? What has registration got to do with law and order? As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham,
1074
himself has said, it is a clerical function; and as the Government have said repeatedly, this clerical function will involve only 15 or so new staff. Why not 15 or so new staff attached to the Department of Employment or of Social Security?
Let me make another logical point. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the most lightning reply to a Written Question I have ever heard of in your Lordships' House, gave me the other day some figures which showed there were approximately 179,000 aliens registered with the police at the end of last year. These include about 14,000 from Italy, 13,000 from France and 11,000 from Germany, besides many more from present and applicant members of the European Economic Community. If we go into Europe, all these aliens will cease to be aliens; they will be E.E.C. nationals. They will no longer have to report to the police. So the number of aliens involved in registration will drop dramatically. Again, the Government do not foresee a large increase in the number of Commonwealth people coming here for work. So the total number of those having to register will, if anything, so far as one can foresee at present, shrink. So administratively you will add 20,000, and, as my calculations make it, take away 40,000-plus. You will be adding 20,000 Commonwealth people and taking away 40,000-plus E.E.C. nationals. So the size of the problem is smaller rather than larger, and I should have thought that, from a purely administrative point of view, it would be easier for this whole administrative exercise to be carried out by somebody other than the police.
This Amendment is about fear—all these Amendments, in my view, are about fear. I hope your Lordships will let me explain why I say that they are about fear. If the Government make the police do this job it is giving a present to every rabble-rouser, every tinpot revolutionary, who wishes to stir up real and unreal, sensible and fantastic, fears among the coloured immigrant community. It means handing it to them on a plate. All newcomers need to feel that they belong, because obviously they do not yet belong; they need to tune themselves in to our way of life. The way the police behave in this country is not the same as elsewhere, but this is not realised by the

1075
people who come here. You cannot convince a man intellectually that our police accept him as one of the members of our country; you cannot prove it in the same way as you can prove Pythagorus's theorum. These people must be introduced to our police in the best possible way: we all accept that. Let them do it as they become part of the community in their daily life, as they see the police going about their normal duties, rather than by going to see some clerical officer in the early, uneasy, moments of arrival when anxiety is at its highest.
I have nearly finished, but I should like to say something directly to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is in charge of the Bill. When he was answering the first Amendment we dealt with, the noble Lord said:
"…I believe that those who are opposed to this Bill are opposed to it root and branch and in principle. If one makes a concession of this sort for a reason of this sort one is hoodwinking oneself.—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 19/7/71; c. 682.]
I suppose that by"this sort"the noble Lord was referring to a remark a few sentences before, when he said (col. 681):
" This would be an act to reassure those who are worried, to reassure immigrant opinion."
I do not like this Bill: I oppose it in principle. But it is here; and we must endeavour to improve it. That is the point of the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. There are many outside this House actively involved in community relations who oppose this Bill in principle, all deeply. But it is here; and it must be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said:
" If one makes a concession of this sort for a reason of this sort one is hoodwinking oneself."
I do not want to lecture him, but I must say that one does not have to be a bigot to disapprove of the record of both major Parties in this field. The noble Lord has to triumph over a lot of recent history if he is to make an impact; but I appeal to him to try—or is he, so soon in his experience of Government, utterly pessimistic about the future of community relations? Surely he must believe that some of those working in community relations,
1076
some of the immigrant leaders, some of the black children in our schools, are responsible and eager to contribute. Even the actions of Governments can touch off a spark of hope in human hearts. I say this to the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is the job of Government to aim for popularity or to expect gratitude, but if they can concede this point—and I say this with all the sincerity and moderation that I can muster—they will be making a notable improvement to this Bill; they will give heart to all those who honestly work for good community relations, and they will begin to still the fears of the black immigrant that this country wants him only for his labour and not as a human being.
8.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: I am glad immediately to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. This is in no sense his maiden speech for he has made a number of most valuable contributions to our debates. I am sure that we were all of us deeply moved by all he said, not least by his concluding words. To those who, like me, are very old and have spent a long time in considering overseas problems, it is a particular joy and encouragement to find someone of the noble Lord's age taking such a passionate but restrained and sensible approach to the problems that confront us all, not least his own generation and those who follow after. The Committee has already decided in its wisdom—and I hope it will not be considered offensive if I say"also with an eye on the clock "—to agree with Her Majesty's Government that post-entry registration is, according to different views, desirable or inevitable or unavoidable, whichever plain English word is most appropriate to the particular point of view. May I just say in passing in regard to plain English that I was sorry the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches did not pursue his intention to try to substitute the word"unlimited"for"indefinite "?
The Committee having so decided, the question is now: registration with whom? Of course, all conventional arguments are for tidiness—the same people, of course, as the aliens have to go to, the police. I am not impressed in the least by this argument. Tidiness in human affairs and tidiness in legislation often mean great unhappiness; and, anyway, why should

1077
not Commonwealth citizens have a different form of registration? There are not very many of them. There is not much left for Commonwealth citizens, alas! to-day in some people's minds. Why should they not have this almost trivial, from the administrative point of view, concession made on their behalf? Of course, logic points in favour of one registration for all. But logic in human affairs is no sure guide.
The truth is, as a number of noble Lords have already said, that however many different views there may be about different aspects of the Bill, all outside Westminster who are daily concerned with race relations, however much they may differ on different clauses of the Bill, are unanimously of the view that registration must not be with the police. I share my noble friend Lord O'Hagan's view that this is no reflection on the police, who, incidentally, do not want this particular privilege.
It is because we feel—as those in this House or outside and nearly everyone that I have spoken to who is engaged outside feel—that it is very unwise that the first contact of a puzzled and often frightened immigrant coming to the heart of the Commonwealth and proud to accept the same Queen as ourselves as head of it, should be with the police, especially the police exercising a regulatory role. It may be an unreasonable feeling, but it is very strongly felt. I am bound to say to my noble friend that I am not impressed by the argument that whoever does the interviewing will be in plain clothes. The interview is at the police station. This is what matters. Of course, to all of us the policeman is a friend, and to the overwhelming number of immigrants, after a time, he is a friend, too. But they have been brought up under different circumstances, and when an immigrant arrives here I can even imagine that the fact that the policeman interviewing him is in plain clothes is more alarming than if he were in uniform. Plain clothes in Europe to-day have a certain significance as far as inquisitorial roles are concerned. This is no reflection on the police here.
I urge my former colleagues and noble friends to think again and to take note of the fact that a number of noble Lords who have had direct administrative responsibility for immigrants in the
1078
Colonial Office and elsewhere, and also noble Lords who have had high administrative roles in Government Departments dealing with immigrants, feel the same in regard to the suggestion that the police should be the registering authority.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said lately, and rightly, that anyone who stirred up unnecessary alarm among immigrants about the Bill was to be condemned, and that a heavy responsibility rested on them. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend's view. A great deal of exaggerated language has been used about this Bill, but in this particular case even the most temperate people are unanimous in what they feel should be done. I would accept gladly the proposal that registration should be with the Department of Employment, with whom the large majority of the people will have their first real contact. I really cannot believe that, whatever was said in another place, in dealing with what is about the most sensitive side of life that any of us are likely to know, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government not to have a change of heart. With very considerable experience in this field, I, with many other noble Lords, do beg them to think again.
8.41 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: That was a most impressive speech that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton, and it certainly shows that in the House there is going to be a good deal of difference of opinion on this subject. We have already heard from many noble Lords with distinguished public records and long experience of administration in the service of the country. I am glad that I chanced to be in the Chamber when I heard the appeal so graciously and persuasively made by the noble Baroness, Lady White. With all respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd, I am going to venture to be one of those who take a different view. I should have thought that, from all angles of administrative logic, the obvious thing would be that this should be done by the police.
Before hearing the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton I thought there was not much necessity to say very much about this, and that we might be sure that the Government view would be

1079
decisive in standing by what is proposed in the Bill, and that if a Division was pressed that would be confirmed by the result. But we have heard many statements that this is a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill, and some lengthy and quite impassioned appeals have been made on some of the other Amendments in the earlier part.
Why this sensitivity about registering with the police? I should have thought that it was the obvious organisation to deal with newcomers to our country. Aliens who come here do not object to having this relationship with the police. They respect the police. This is the obvious thing to do. What is this feeling that what an alien would be ready to do—and I include among"aliens"people from sophisticated countries in the world—they should not do? I cannot help thinking of one remark of the noble Baroness. She said most emphatically."Well, of course, it will affect so few in the country why will the Government not agree to it? ".
My mind goes back to a similar discussion about the role of the police in this country when we discussed the abolition of hanging for murder. The argument was pressed that one person being wrongly hanged was the strongest reason why it should be abolished. The argument was exactly the reverse to what it is here. Something was then done which did as much to discourage the police as could have been done. That has been a misfortune for our police service, and no wonder we have a police force understaffed, underpaid, and overworked.
To come back to this particular matter, there has been emphasis on the sensitivity of people being addressed by the police. Well, we have all seen these marches and parades of aliens by birth to our country through the streets, thereby making themselves emphatically subject to the marshalling of the police. That is an additional reason for using the police as the instrument that should be used in this case. While I am talking about that, there has been a great reluctance to accord people from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa any position of greater consideration than newcomers from other countries. The Government have already emphasised that administratively
1080
it is not possible to do anything which would permit that, and that has to be accepted.
I repeat, we have heard many expressions of this being a bad Bill, and most eminent Members of this House have said it is an unnecessary Bill, and here we have a very impassioned appeal by a noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, which was, as the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, has said, a tribute to his sincerity in this matter. But what is our position if we go into other countries? I spent a large part of my early life in the States, and I remember what the position was on several occasions. After all, there is a security angle. Why one earth should there be a reluctance to impose upon people who come here, and are not born here, the necessity to have that relationship with the police? It is in that feeling that I personally most emphatically hope that the Government will stand to their proposals, and use the police for this purpose.
8.48 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: I am afraid that I am quite unable to go along with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Barnby. I have often discussed Commonwealth matters with him outside this Chamber, and I know of his great experience, but there was nothing of any substance in what he has just said—and I say this with respect to his views—with which I could possibly go along. My noble friend Lord Windlesham knows my views on this statutory requirement in Clause 3 of this Bill, because before we had this Committee stage I discussed it with him.
I am not happy about this statutory requirement for several reasons. The persons who would be compelled to register under it would, in the main, be those who come from overseas and from the Commonwealth, with whom we have a very warm relationship. From my service overseas I have always been aware, throughout the years in which I served there, that there is an endemic fear of the police which persists, and will continue to persist for many years. It is no good blinking our eyes in the face of this. This is a fact; the fear exists, and it will continue to exist in this country. It was even a fear which persisted when I was overseas.

1081
Never for one moment would I level any criticism against the police forces of our overseas administrations, but superstitions die hard and I am convinced that it will be many years before that superstition dies here, eminently fair though our police force is in this country. When we get fears and superstition we also get tension, and if there is one thing we want to remove at the present time, it is tension. This is a basic problem with our community relations committees. I would conclude by saying that I would support whichever one of these Amendments goes to a vote.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: In a very few words I should like to speak from these Benches in support of Amendment No. 38. I would urge the Government very strongly to reconsider this matter. It is, I think, one of the most objectionable features of this Bill. There is certainly no single point on which Councils of Churches and community relations committees up and down the country have expressed themselves so strongly or find so objectionable. The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned that in many places the police forces have appointed community relations officers, who are concerned to strengthen understanding and cooperation between the police and every kind of group within their local community. Their aim is to strengthen the contribution of the police as a positive social force in our Welfare State. This is a hard enough task anyway, especially among immigrant communities. It will be virtually impossible if the police are to have the sort of regulatory role at present laid down in this Bill. I would support the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, most strongly in asking the Government urgently to reconsider this matter.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: Most of the arguments have already been used on this matter, but I venture to intervene partly because of my general view on the Bill and partly because I may be able to throw one graphic light on the point we are discussing. I am not against the Bill, because I believe it to be necessary. I am not anti-police, and I resent the activities of the anti-police lobbies. I am also not one who reacts favourably to every act of pressure, vocal or otherwise, from immigrant community organisations:
1082
I try to use my judgment on this. But I have lived for many years in one of the countries from which many of our immigrants come. If, in that country, there is a minor accident, say on the road, is the instinct of the simple person to send for or talk to the police? No; it is to run as fast as he can go towards the horizon. That is not a comment on people's natural timidity or courage. It is simply an example of the deeply ingrained feeling built up over centuries, which as one noble Lord said, will not die overnight simply because people have come here.
That is why, with the greatest respect, I say that this is not a matter of administrative logic. I am not a worshipper of administrative untidiness. I have tried to help in merging two Government Departments, and if I had been a worshipper of untidiness I could not have attempted to do that. But I implore the Ministers to accept that this is not a matter of administrative tidiness. The way in which we can approach it has been amply explained by speakers in this debate. It is a matter of public relations of the most fundamental kind, and I would ask the Ministers to bethink themselves—their public relations have not always been of the most felicitous—that this is one of the most sensitive with which they have been faced. If they do, I feel sure that they will on this occasion come to a change of mind which will do them credit.
8.55 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: May I intervene here, briefly, because there are Amendments on the Order Paper which concern two Departments, with one of which I am intimately concerned. May I begin by making the point that under this Bill we are introducing one single system of work permits for aliens and Commonwealth workers? We have already been through this on Clause 1 of the Bill. It has been agreed, and it seems to me a little odd that we are now considering two separate forms of enforcing this work permit system. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, has argued forcefully that we should introduce different forms of treatment for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens. We have included various special provisions for Commonwealth citizens throughout the

1083
Bill, but in relation to the administration of the work permit system, where there is to be no distinction between the work permits issued to aliens and to Commonwealth citizens, I do not see much alternative to keeping the system as it is—and at the moment it works perfectly satisfactorily with aliens.
I see the initial attraction of saying that the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security might do the registration instead of the police. But there are several points on this. The first is that the actual registration is of a purely clerical function and can be carried out by anybody. The police do it extremely well, and so could anybody else. At the moment, 175,000 aliens are dealt with by the police, and if they were to have the additional responsibility of a maximum of 20,000 Commonwealth immigrants, it would mean that 15 new staff would have to be employed. But if this responsibility were thrown on one of the other Departments, it would certainly involve their employing many more staff than 15. The local offices of my Department and the local employment exchanges are already fully occupied with their normal duties without having to take on additional registration duties which are not the least bit akin to their function.
LORD SEGAL: Is it not a fact that the Department of Employment now do outside work in the granting of forms and facilities for passports which has nothing to do with employment? That is undertaking a type of work outside the normal scope of their duties. Surely the police would be relieved to an enormous extent of extra burdensome work in having to receive registration of aliens and leave them free for far more important work.
LORD ABERDARE: Of course we can take it away from one Department and give it to another. But there are other arguments for the Government's view that it is better done by the police than by putting an extra burden on the employment exchanges and on the social security offices.
The second point which I would make and which has been made admirably by my noble friend Lord Windlesham is that it is really essential they should
1084
register with the same people who have the responsibility of enforcement. It really is very difficult to expect the police—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD ABERDARE: The police have to make their inquiries, and it is very difficult for them to find out the details from a quite different Department.
LORD BYERS: Will the noble Lord help the Committee? He gave the impression that registration with the police was something to do with the work permit. Surely the police do not issue a work permit. Which Department does issue it?
LORD ABERDARE: The work permit is issued by the Department of Employment, but the registration is with the police. The police check up and know where a man is living, and this is a function of the police which I should have thought was much better done by them than by the Department of Employment. The third point that I would make, which is to me the most important of all, is that the local Social Security offices and the local employment exchanges are places where we want immigrants to go for help with their personal problems, and we do not want them to be associated with the control of immigration regulations. It seems to me that this is a function of the police and not of the Department of Employment or of the Department of Health and Social Security.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: Presumably, we also want the police to be their friends in subsequent life, and is it really possible to say that they must approach the police in the first instance, and not the employment people, without regard to what effect it has on their subsequent relations with the police?
LORD ABERDARE: If we are going to have a registration system the registration must be with somebody, and all I am arguing is that it is better with the police. I have the same admiration as everybody else for the way in which the police discharge their duties at present. They deal perfectly satisfactorily with 175,000 aliens and I believe, and hope, that in the future, with proper administrative arrangements, they could equally well deal with understanding and good

1085
will with the new system that is introduced in this Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Would it be possible for Commonwealth migrants to register with their local post offices if they have this fear of the police? I should have thought that the police could easily check up.
9.3 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to put only one point. We have had a remarkable debate, and the most remarkable feature has been that Members of this House who have had responsibility for colonial administration, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, have all contributed the conception that in their experience those who come from Commonwealth countries will have an instinctive fear of the police, because of the circumstances in those territories. They have contributed from a point of view that is different from mine. They have contributed as colonial administrators—and during their period of administration I have been in conflict with all of them—but I want to contribute from the other side.
A large number of the colonial territories, particularly in Africa, have now gained their political freedom. It is one of my great disappointments that, after gaining political freedom, they have become Police States and the instinctive opposition to the police force which arose during colonial days has even been intensified by the Police States which now exist. We therefore have this quite extraordinary situation. Here are former colonial administrators arguing against this proposal from their experience in colonial administration, and here are some of us who have opposed their colonial administration also opposing this proposal, because we say that those who are now coming from those territories have a similar instinctive opposition to police administration, because of the Police States which have been established. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has a very acute consciousness of this situation. Those of us in this country and most visitors from America and other parts of the world who come to this country, appreciate tremendously our police. But, because of the circumstances that I have described, the people who come from the Commonwealth
1086
countries come with a mind which is apprehensive of the police.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is very concerned about this situation. There is even the fact that the Police Federation do not want this responsibility. He knows—and I need not go into details—that there are three areas in the London Metropolitan District where the relationship between the police and the coloured community is now very difficult indeed. He knows what those areas are. He also knows that in Liverpool there is a similar area where the psychology is dangerous; that there is an area in Birmingham where the psychology is similar. He knows that there is an area in Manchester where the psychology is similar, and where the danger of some conflict between the immigrant community and the police makes those of us who have knowledge of it very apprehensive indeed. I know (because the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is aware of these problems, just as I am, and is sympathetic to the position, as I am) that in this situation, where the great majority of the police wish the best possible relations with the Commonwealth community, he will not want to place this duty upon them, in conflict with their own leaders and with their Federation, when alternative possibilities are available. I beg the Minister, because of my desire to see good community relations in this country, to reconsider this proposal, which will be so dangerous for community relations here.
LORD BARNBY: Will the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, help the Committee by expanding a little as to why there is more dislike by those who come to our shores from the Commonwealth than by those who come from foreign countries? The aliens who come here from the United States should surely be considered just as much as others. Could the noble Lord help the Committee a little on that?
LORD BROCKWAY: No, I do not propose to develop this point. It has been made by three ex-colonial administrators, and I have contributed—
LORD GORE-BOOTH: For the sake of accuracy, may I say that I spoke from the point of view of a diplomatic observer.
LORD BROCKWAY: I agree, but it has already been stated. I put it from another point of view. I think this feeling is very real.
9.10 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am chary of speaking again, for my previous two interventions in this Committee stage have both been treated rather light-heartedly by the Government, but I have some experience in this and I think I ought to say what I believe about it. I am not carried away by the argument that a system which works satisfactorily for aliens should ipso facto be applied to Commonwealth citizens; but, equally, the fact that it applies successfully to aliens is not a reason against applying it to Commonwealth citizens. We must always bear in mind the difference in approach. I have never forgotten a girl from Trinidad saying to me, when she first came to this country as a law student, that she felt from the moment she was here that she was in a different and better position than those who did not belong to the Commonwealth. She spoke from her heart, and it is exceedingly important that feelings of that kind should be preserved and not damaged.
At the same time, it is very undesirable that we should in any way accept that it is reasonable for people to think of the British police as enemies. I cannot speak from colonial experience, but those who come to this country from the Commonwealth must realise that in this country the police are regarded as friends by all except law-breakers, and that there is nothing insulting or offensive in asking people to register with the police. It has never been felt insulting or offensive by aliens that they have to register with the police, so far as I am aware, and it should not be so in the case of Commonwealth citizens. I am not for a moment denying what has been said in the debate, and I am not denying what leaders of immigrant opinion, and others, have said. Nevertheless, it is very undesirable to give any encouragement to the idea that the police in this country can be looked upon as enemies; and one wonders whether people who come with that feeling are likely to integrate themselves quickly enough in the British community.
I said on Second Reading that I thought that this was the most difficult
1088
and delicate point in the Bill, and that if a practical alternative to registration with the police could be devised I should welcome it. Since then, I have thought this out as far as I can, with the benefit of such experience as I have, and I am inclined to the opinion that, even allowing for all the psychological and Commonwealth arguments that have been adduced, the case for registration with the police is overwhelming. But it has not yet been stated to your Lordships' Committee, and the reason why I am on my feet is to make a fresh plea to the Government Front Bench that they will explain why the Home Secretary has in his own mind seemingly come down firmly on the side of retaining this provision in the Bill. He said at an early stage of the debates on the Bill in another place that he had an open mind about this. We all know the present Home Secretary, and we all know that when he says he has an open mind he speaks the truth. I have no doubt whatever that he was speaking the truth then, and that he has gone into the matter most thoroughly and objectively since, and has come down seemingly decisively on the side of the argument that the reasons for retaining registration with the police are overwhelming. But this has not yet been stated by the Government to your Lordships' House.
We know the objections of the Police Federation. We have not been told by the Government the views of the chief constables; and the views of the chief constables, who I presume have been consulted, must be important in this matter. While I have many friends in the Police Federation, and great respect for them, it must be in the last resort the chief constables by whom the Home Secretary is guided in these matters. My main request to the Government is to explain why the Home Secretary has, as he appears to have, come down decisively on the side of registration with the police. He must be aware of the strong doubts and apprehensions and fears if this finally gets incorporated in the Bill. But Mr. Maudling is a scrupulously honest and open-minded man. I think your Lordships in all quarters of the House will accept that. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the reasons which have convinced the Home Secretary.
9.15 p.m.
LORD WADE: There are occasions which arise both in this House and in another place where the issue is a psychological one, and so often the answer by the Government is, perhaps understandably, one of administrative convenience. It is very difficult for us to say what is most convenient from the point of view of the Government, but I am quite sure this is one of the issues that should not be decided solely on grounds of administrative convenience.
It is almost inevitable that there should be some repetition in a debate such as this, and I hope that the opinion from all sides will have some effect on the mind of the Government, but may I limit myself to such experience as I have? I referred to this on Second Reading. It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that there are those who come to this country from Commonwealth countries who have towards the police a different attitude, a traditionally different attitude, from our own. There are historical reasons for that, and I think we have to accept it. Realising that, there are people engaged in community relations work and representatives of the police—I should like to commend the work of some of the representatives of the police—who are helping in trying to bring about a change of image, in trying to explain what the police here are for, in trying to get across the idea that the police are the friends of anyone who is not actually breaking the law. That is going to take time; it cannot be done quickly. I am not talking about those who are never satisfied. I recollect the words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but it is not true that concessions do no good. That perhaps is an unfair paraphrase of what he said in reply to the first Amendment. Concessions can help, and the overwhelming opinion of those who are engaged in this kind of work is that this provision for registration with the police, even if it is administratively convenient, would be a set-back.
As to whether ultimately we can work out some kind of administrative machinery whereby aliens could be registered otherwise than at present, I should not like to say. It might take time to work that out. I should be pleased to see the police relieved of some of their duties; but whether the aliens and these newcomers
1090
are treated differently or not, I am quite sure that the Government would be wise to accept the proposals, or at any rate one of the proposals, that are put forward in this group of Amendments.
9.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I still have not made up my mind on this issue. When the question of whether registration at all was necessary was first raised I was extremely doubtful and I felt rather as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did, that maybe with registration that has to occur at the airport and with the Department of Employment and Productivity this further registration was not necessary. If, on the other hand, it is—and it may well be that the Government, knowing the facts, have reasons which they are not prepared to state in this House—there are one or two arguments one could put on the contrary side for asking the police to do it.
We have heard—and this I entirely believe—of the respect and awe in which the police are held by those coming over here. If there is, for example, some difficulty in ensuring that these people keep to the terms, it may be wisest that they should register with the police, where because of this respect there is a sanction against breaking the terms. I do not know the facts, and I suspect that the Government would not wish to disclose them from the Front Bench. However, I put forward that point of view.
There is also this counter-argument. Sooner or later the people who come in will have to realise that our police are rather different from what they are thought to be. I wonder how far personal contact might not be a good thing at an early stage in getting this over; and how far our police, if they are as good as we think they are, could help and possibly avoid the troubles which these people might otherwise get into. I am merely putting forward that other side. What I am really saying is that I have not made up my mind on this issue, but I strongly suspect that the Government have other reasons than pure administrative convenience for their attitude tonight.
9.22 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken is doubtful as to whether the police are the proper authority or whether some other authority

1091
should do the registering. I should like to put this additional plea to the Government. The police themselves obviously know best how to create good relationships between the immigrants and themselves. It is a very different thing for an alien coming over from the Continent, and knowing all about our police. Mind you, my Lords, there were some people who were extremely worried about having to register, particularly those who came from States which were Police States, even in Europe. But be that as it may, the average person who comes over here from the Continent has some idea about the police in this country; he forms an opinion accordingly, and is not really affected in the same way as people coming from the Commonwealth.
Why do the police themselves want this? I do not think it is because they want to shirk any duty. There is no doubt that they have plenty on their plate, and that they are a remarkable set of people. But they themselves feel that there is a different method of getting under the skin of the people who come in from the Commonwealth. That is really what it amounts to. They believe, and I think rightly, that there are other ways in which they can help to create good relations between the people who come from the Commonwealth and their neighbours. The police can, and do in certain instances, ingratiate themselves in their own particular way with the immigrants, giving them to understand that good relations can exist in that way.
I myself heard a large number of immigrants in the Committee that was set up in the other place, and I should like to say this. If the police are given their proper role in this matter—and they can serve a very proper role—in time they can remove the tension. But there is no doubt at all in my mind that people coming from the Commonwealth to this country, as we have heard from those who have had vast experience, are suspicious, not particularly of the British policemen but of all policemen. They fear policemen. Supposing an individual feels that way and he goes to register—in other words, he is putting down particulars of himself on a register—what will his reaction be? That he is being watched by the police while he
1092
is staying here. That is really the point to be faced. He will feel not that the policeman is his friend but that the policeman is spying on his actions, with a view to ascertaining whether he is a desirable person or whether action might be taken against him, or something of that kind. That is all right for the police if the person is not registered with the police. We understand that certain precautions have to be taken, but the policeman's role can be of such a nature that he can reduce the tensions. I hope that the Government will look at the matter from that point of view. They are dealing with a peculiar problem and a different type of immigrant from that which came before, and each case has to be considered from its own particular point of view.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary is a man with a sympathetic heart, and I believe that he sincerely believes that this is a job that the police ought to be doing. But if the police, who are dealing with 120,000 (or whatever the number may be), are themselves convinced that, in spite of the fact that they are dealing with aliens who are coming in in large numbers, the smaller numbers would best be dealt with otherwise, in my view they are the authorities who are really able to guide us. In these circumstances, I hope that the Government will change their mind on this matter and will at least try out some other system for the time being and see how it works.
LORD GRENFELL: May I just make one short plea to my noble friends on the Front Bench? It is that they should take this away and have some further consultations with the Home Secretary. I believe that all of us in this House are deeply disturbed about this one factor in this Bill. What we feel so deeply about is that there is some element of fear in this matter which could, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, produce violence. I hope that my noble friends will be able to do this, and then come back with some strong evidence one way or the other. I am sure that we should be prepared in the meantime to think this one out. I am a little nervous because we have four Amendments here, and I have a feeling that one of them might be passed and that it might be the wrong one. I am not certain in my own mind which is the right one, but I

1093
am absolutely certain that more thought needs to be given to this, and I hope that the Government will feel themselves able to accede to this request.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I was brought up as a boy in a British Colony and I know, like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the present feeling amongst colonial people. I am inclined to support the Government in this matter. My purpose in speaking is to ask this question: why do the police not want this job? If they are dealing with 175,000 registrations, it can mean nothing at all to handle another 20,000. It seems to me quite absurd to register 175,000 persons in one place and 20,000 in another. Put the whole lot with the police or somewhere else, but do not divide it up, for that would be ridiculous.
LORD GARNER: May I attempt to answer a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby? He asked why, if aliens have been quite happy with the procedure of registration with the police for so many years, there may be difficulties so far as Commonwealth citizens are concerned. The answer is: because they are not aliens. It is quite natural for a foreigner to expect that when he goes to a foreign country he will have to submit to all sorts of rules and regulations that apply to foreigners. This has never been the case in the Commonwealth. At least until this Bill came forward. Commonwealth citizens were welcomed into this country as fellow members of the Commonwealth, and were given every indication that they would be regarded as welcome members in the community. This Bill puts them in a totally different category.
I urge the Government, with all the power at my command, to pay serious attention to what has been said from all parts of this Committee. There are deep concerns about a number of provisions in this Bill, and there are many that I am worried about, but none causes more apprehension than the implication of this one—unreasonable as the fear may he. We are dealing here with a question of psychology, and I hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to the representations that have been made by people who feel deeply about our relations with the Commonwealth, about community relations in this country and about so many things that matter.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I be allowed one observation upon the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down? I am known to be a South African. The South Africans are now aliens; that does not worry them at all. The point made by the noble Lord was that a Commonwealth immigrant would expect to be treated differently. It may be that the first time a South African came here as an alien the situation surprised him, but he found the police friendly, and the situation did not worry him at all; so I do not think there is much in that point.
LORD BARNBY: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garner, for what he has said? May I remind him that the emphasis was that here was one of the characteristics; but if the immigrants are going to be well-behaved why should there be more fear on the part of those who are other than aliens than there is among aliens? The situation is the same in other countries.
LORD SEGAL: For what it is worth, I wonder whether I may be allowed to recount to the House a personal experience which I had as a visitor to a country in North Africa. There I had to register at the local police office. The official by whom I was seen could not have been more kindly and friendly, yet I vividly recall the feelings of relief when I emerged afterwards into the freedom of the open street. A week later, when re-registration was due, I was visited by the same officer in plain clothes at the private house where I was staying. Again, his visit could not have been more kindly or courteous, but I well remember the relief with which I finally saw him leave.
I wonder if the police realise that it would make all the difference in the world to an immigrant in this country, if, instead of his being compelled to register with the police, the police, as they so often do, were enabled to pay a private visit to the immigrant to ascertain the circumstances in which he is placed. I think that would do far more to promote good relations than compelling an immigrant to register at a police station. Especially I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to consider what his feelings would be like if he, not necessarily as an immigrant but even as a visitor to this country, had

1095
to register with the police under conditions that were naturally alien to him. However kindly and courteous they might be towards him when he goes to register with them, I ask him to imagine what his feelings of relief would be once he had been able to complete this registration at the police station.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I think I understood the position rightly from the very well modulated arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He said that one of the reasons for registration was the fact that we should be able to send immigrants to approved jobs. Are we really afraid that immigrants are going to take the jobs of our own inhabitants? I simply cannot believe that. Surely we have not come to that stage at all. Surely we need the immigrant labour here, and I should like to give noble Lords an illustration of why we do.
A couple of years ago I saw a television programme in which a number of our unemployed engineers were being interviewed. Their earnings were from £35 to £40 a week. The interviewer asked each one of them in turn,"Would you take a job at less than £35 a week? ", and each one of them said,"No ". This will illustrate why I do not believe that there is any danger of immigrants taking jobs of inhabitants of this country, British people. I do not know why we are afraid of this, and I think the whole idea of approved labour jobs is utterly repulsive to those of us on this side of the Committee.
9.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Nearly all the speakers on this Amendment have raised the same point, the fear and anxiety that this particular reference to the police will give to those who come into this country. We heard the eloquent words of my some-time chief, Lord Boyd, and your Lordships would not expect me to be other than with him on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has referred to the Amendment which is in our name, but, as your Lordships know, we are not trying to argue in favour of one Amendment or the other; we wish to remove the words"registration with the police ". I will not go over the arguments which others have expressed much more eloquently than I could, except to say that I am in entire agreement with
1096
them. If these words are left in, then what is of the greatest importance, namely, that those who come into this country now should look on the police as their friends, will not happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when explaining matters rather earlier in this debate, made the point that an employer, having originally arranged through the Department of Employment that a particular person should come here to work, has the duty when that person has arrived of presenting to the Department of Health and Social Security the insurance card, with all registration particulars. It occurs to me that perhaps one of the ways the Government might consider dealing with this problem, which concerns the police, to achieve unity of administration which so many of your Lordships are asking for, is as follows—and let me say that this idea is not one for which I take credit; it has been suggested to me by somebody else. The idea is that, rather than having the immigrant compelled to register with the police, it should be arranged that the employer, who already has to do this job in relation to the insurance card, should send the particulars also to the police.
Just let us think what that would achieve. It would avoid the immigrant having to go to the police station, with the enormous importance implied in that from the psychological point of view. At the same time we would have the tidiness of administration, for which so many of your Lordships have asked. Personally I do not care too much about tidiness, but never mind. Would it not be an easy thing for the employer to do just this? As he has to do with the insurance card, so he would do with the police. I know this does not follow from any of the Amendments we are discussing. It nearly follows an earlier Amendment tabled by the Liberal Party which was defeated, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would give most serious consideration to this suggestion.
Obviously he cannot do it now, because it does not follow any of the arguments, but if the noble Lord said that he would give consideration to this I would be inclined to say,"Let us see what comes out of it"and not go ahead with one or other of the suggestions we have made. If the noble Lord cannot do this, I suggest there is only one course

1097
open to all those who have felt and spoken so strongly about this, namely to go into the Lobby against the Government.
9.42 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I have to work closely with the police as a magistrate, and I would like to make the point quite clear that most of the criticisms this evening are not levelled at the police force in this country but at the possible police action in other countries.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I think this has been an extraordinarily good debate. I find myself in great agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—with whom I am not normally in agreement—but may I follow the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that if this Amendment could be withdrawn and if we could get an assurance from my noble friends on the Front Bench that this question would be referred back to the Home Secretary, who I am sure all members of this House will agree is a very fair and reasonable man, it would not then be necessary to press this matter to a Division.
LORD BOYLE: As someone who is unfortunately of necessity a very infrequent attender at your Lordships' debates I very much welcome the fact that we should have been discussing this important matter for an hour and three quarters this evening. I promise to be brief, but I can assure your Lordships that if my own experience in Leeds and the West Riding of Yorkshire is anything to go by, everybody I know who is involved in the world of community relations in the Leeds and Bradford area is deeply concerned about this matter. I am myself the chairman of the local Race Relations Board conciliation committee. The local Community Relations Committee asked particularly if they could come and see me, knowing that I might be able to take part in this debate.
I take very seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, at the start of the Committee stage, that one must beware of those who stir up this problem of community relations in an unhelpful manner. But I can
1098
assure the noble Lord and the Committee that the people I am thinking of do not come into that category. They include, for example, the chairman of the housing committee of a large local authority—someone with whom, I know well from past experience, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would himself have particularly liked to deal during the days when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government. A very wide range of opinion among those engaged in community relations is concerned about this matter. On the objective merits of the case I cannot improve on the moving words that the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan have already used.
May I say what a pleasure I think it must have been to everyone to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, speaking on this matter. I remember the days when surely no Minister in our history had more relationships with a wider range of communities all over the world than he did. I would say one thing in addition to what he said. I think we should remember here not only the anxiety he expressed—the anxiety that the first contact that members of immigrant communities have with the police should be when the police are exercising a regulatory role—but also the sustained concern of the Police Federation themselves; I was very much impressed by the sustained concern which Mr. Reg Gale and the Police Federation have shown over this matter.
It is, of course, true that we are dealing here with a relatively small number of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, very fairly pointed out, but to that I would simply say two things. First of all, like the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, I think it is right that we should want to treat generously those with whom we have a special link, many of whom look on the Queen as their Queen, and those with whom at the very least we have a historic link which I hope we shall never forget in this country. May I say something else to your Lordships? I have no doubt that in making an Amendment here, a change in what is now proposed, the benefits will rub off on the whole of community relationships in this country. If we take the right decision, the benefits will be felt much more widely; they will not only concern

1099
those who come subsequently to this country on work permits.
The last thing I would say is this. I join in all the tributes that have been paid to the open-mindedness of the present Home Secretary, someone I have been privileged to know for a great many years, one of the most civilised friends I have ever known. I hope that he and the Government will most seriously consider all possible alternatives, including the interesting alternative the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned just now. I must say that this is a matter of judgment, and I hope that the House will forgive my speaking frankly about it. But my own feeling, after the debate we have had, is that those of us who are most anxious about this matter would be justified in voting for the Amendment No. 37 which leaves out the words"with the police"and inserts the words"in the manner provided by rules ". After the debate we have had, I think this Committee would be justified in voting for that Amendment; but we realise there are other stages and other opportunities for the Home Secretary to consider alternative courses. I am sure that, in the light of the debate we have had, we are overwhelmingly justified in begging the Government to think again.
9.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, speaks on this subject with great experience and a high reputation. He said that he hoped that the Government could treat Commonwealth citizens in this Bill more generously than aliens, and related it to the Amendment which is before your Lordships now. There are other places in the Bill—we were discussing one earlier this afternoon—where, as regards the entry of people from the Commonwealth, more favourable treatment is granted; and I justified the provision on those grounds. Here I would say to the noble Lord that the question we should ask ourselves is not whether Commonwealth citizens should be treated more favourably, but whether they should be treated differently. Let us try to analyse for a moment some of the fears that have been expressed, some of the reasons why—and they are symbolised in that sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle—it is thought that in some way registration of Commonwealth
1100
citizens with the police is less favourable than with some other agency. We have the figures in our minds. There will be something of the order of 175,000 aliens and perhaps 20,000 Commonwealth citizens in four years' time who will be registered. Nearly all the aliens will be white, a number of the Commonwealth citizens will be white. The requirement will apply to Commonwealth citizens, white and black. It is likely that something of the order of 10 per cent. of those registered with the police will be coloured people—about 10 per cent.
Let us keep that figure in mind when we think of the fear that has been expressed that the immigrant community in this country may be asked to produce documents, may be"leaned on"by the police and asked to show their registration cards. That should not really be so, because 90 per cent. of those whom the police would expect to be registered will not be coloured immigrants; on the statistics which we have and which have been mentioned in the course of the debate they will be white people. Documents are not a new feature, alas! in the life of Commonwealth immigrants to this country. Since 1963, when Parliament first imposed controls, immigrants from the Commonwealth, if they come here for the purpose of work, have required a voucher. For the last two or three years if a dependant comes he has needed an entry certificate issued by the British High Commission abroad. I do not think that claims have been made by representatives of immigrant organisations that these documents have been demanded by the police to show that the man is here legally, to show that he has a document of entitlement.
The question has run through this debate, the very radical question that we debated before dinner: why registration should be necessary at all. The answer is: to ensure that the work permit holder goes to the job for which the work permit was issued and only changes his job for some other approved employment for which there is no local labour. I cannot say it more clearly than that. The present situation is hardly satisfactory. The"A"and"B"voucher holders can go to any job once they have been admitted, even if it is not in the category for which the voucher is issued.

1101
Not only are there the cases of the people who take low-paid work, risking the exploitation to which I referred at the beginning of the debate, but also the reverse. There are the cases of professionally qualified men who take semiskilled or unskilled jobs. A junior hospital doctor earns very much less than (shall we say?) a worker in the motor industry who will work for long hours and put in a good deal of overtime. He can earn considerably more than the junior hospital doctor. Perhaps it is a commentary on our society that this should be so.
If there is no system of registration there is no effective control. If there is no control the system of work permits is useless. We must fall back on one of two alternatives: the first is unrestricted entry, and I do not think that anyone in this House would feel that that is a realistic alternative. The second is the quota: quotas to individual Commonwealth countries; tiny numbers in relation to the population of their country. I wonder if noble Lords know what the system looks like at the moment. Let us consider a country the size of India, with 550 million people. Of those, some 780 people in all were admitted with category"A"and"B"vouchers last year. That is what the quota system looks like. If it is accepted that there should be a work permit system and a system of registration—and the Committee agreed to that proposition on the Amendment carried just before supper—what is the most effective system? Is it likely to be the police? Is it likely to be the Department of Health and Social Security? The Department of Employment? Local authorities? Noble Lords must ask themselves these questions, and must consider the alternatives. Which is likely to be the most effective? Which is likely to be administratively the most economical in financial terms? Which is likely to be the one most convenient to the individual? We must remember that employment exchanges are open for relatively short hours for somebody who is in employment to go along there. It may be a great deal more difficult than calling at a local police station, which is open 24 hours a day. These are factors not to be ruled out of account.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, told us of the fears expressed by the immigrant
1102
communities, and I listened with close attention to what he had to say, because I know of his interest and contact with this subject. He referred to the views of the Police Federation. I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about the police. We must recall that when we use the word"police"we do not refer only to the views of the Police Federation. The chief constables were consulted about this proposal, and have raised no objections to it in principle. Those of your Lordships who are interested in the views of the police (who will, after all, be closely associated with this proposal) might like to hear what one chief constable had to say on the record in Cambridge in March. He welcomed the proposal to register coloured immigrants. He said:
" If coloured immigrants come to this country now they do not have to register, and the first time that they meet the police is when they are concerned in some offence. If they have to go to a police station as soon as they arrive in the country to register, I think we can make a different impression on them. They will go away not having met the police only when they have committed an offence. They will he properly met and treated at the police station."
This is a point of view from a chief constable which I think we need to take into account.
THE EARL OF PERTH: On that point I understood that it was not to be the police anyhow, but that it was going to be people in civilian clothes and all the rest of it. Therefore, I think this is a poor argument of this particular police officer.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think it is a poor argument. Perhaps I may explain what is envisaged, in case the noble Earl did not follow what I said in my opening speech. I explained in some detail that the initial registration in the case of the Metropolitan Police District is carried out in the Aliens Registration Office, which is staffed by civilian staff. That is where the card is issued. When some registered person then changes his work or his employment, he does that at the local police station, so the subsequent changes are carried out at the police station.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Not the first.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It will depend. In some districts it will be the first. It

1103
will not be the first in the Metropolitan Police District, or in those areas where civilian staffs are employed. The noble Earl shakes his head, but outside London he will find that generally that will be the pattern. We have studied the matter very closely, and I hope that noble Lords will be willing to hear the results (whether they agree with them or not is a different matter), of the consideration that has been given to this particular matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: The Minister has said that the chief constables have not, as a body, objected. He has read the statement by one chief constable. Is it not a fact that other chief constables expressed a different view?
LORD DONALDSON OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE: Before the noble Lord answers this question, may I give some evidence on this? I took the trouble to speak to both the senior associations of police officers. Both are quite prepared to carry out the task of registration, but both express clearly that they have no desire to do so and would be perfectly happy if it were taken away.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think that we shall reach agreement on that. I thought that I read out an interesting comment from a senior police officer, and one, as it happens, with a good deal of personal experience in community relations.
My noble friends and I have listened with close attention to what has been said in this debate. I made a full statement of the Government's position at the outset. I was slightly taken to task for it, but I thought it right to do so because comment had been made (I put it no higher than that) about the Government's not having made a full and comprehensive statement on this important issue in the course of the debates in another place. It was said that it had come up on a number of occasions and replies had been given by different Ministers, but there had not been a full and comprehensive statement. Therefore I thought it right to give that to your Lordships at the start of the debate.
Clearly, as a Government we must pay attention to what noble Lords say, particularly when they have had the experience of noble Lords like the noble
1104
Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, a former distinguished member of the Government, with responsibility for the Colonial Office, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, also a former Colonial Minister We should be extremely foolish, if we refused to listen to what they said. What I would say in reply to them, and in reply to my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who I think put his finger on the feeling of the House in this matter, is that I will consider this very seriously with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I will suggest a meeting at my Department, at which some of the noble Lords who have spoken so strongly on this might be willing to join us to discuss various suggestions—the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made one in particular. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is not for me, standing at this Box, smartly to reverse the policy of the Government with a wave of the hand. I am not in that position, and not able to give any specific undertaking. But if noble Lords would like an assurance, we will certainly consider this matter very carefully indeed, in the course of the Recess, with those who have shown such keen interest in it. If they feel that we have not been able to meet them, there will still be an opportunity at Report stage for the matter to be discussed, and if there is still discontent with the point of view we may have come up with by way of a compromise, it will still be open to noble Lords to put down another Amendment.
10.4 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I think we all appreciate the position of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. As a former Minister of State, I thoroughly appreciate his position. He has indicated that he has been impressed by the arguments put forward from every side of the House. There has been no question of Party on this issue. All who have taken part have discussed it with their own experience in mind. I think it is particularly notable that some of the most emphatic speeches have come from those, like the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, who have had great responsibilities in relation to the Commonwealth territories from which the immigrants will be coming. With the utmost respect, I think that the Ministers who intervened in the debate have not shared that experience.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not want to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she will appreciate that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary himself held the same office as did the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord took the words out of my mouth. I would ask him, when consulting with his right honourable friend, if he would bear in mind that some of the strongest arguments have come from noble Lords who have had experience of immigrant communities, both in this country and also in the countries from which they come. It is their attitude when they arrive that is so important. This is one of the strongest arguments in the minds of all of us who have contributed to this debate. I cannot speak for other noble Lords who are concerned with this group of Amendments but, speaking for my noble friends and myself, in the light of the assurances that we have been given—while we reserve our position: of course that will be clearly understood—we should like to give the Government an opportunity to think again after the pleas which have been made from every quarter of your Lordships' House.
LORD BYERS: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to endorse what the noble Baroness has said. We appreciate the difficulties the Minister is in, but there has been a most impressive, almost overwhelming, weight of opinion against the Government. In agreeing to this course, we should like to say that we feel we shall get a better atmosphere for discussion and consultation if we do not press this matter to a vote. But, like the noble Baroness, we wish to reserve our position on Report stage.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to echo the words of the noble Baroness and of the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I very much hope that, as a result of the generous offer of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when we get to the Report stage he himself will be able to put down an Amendment suggesting an alternative to the police. If he is not, some others of us will do so. But let us hope that the consultations during the summer will be fruitful.
BARONESS WHITE: As there seems to be general agreement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to (" the ") in line 8, and insert—
(" ( ) A statement laid before Parliament under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was made unless during that period it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament:
Provided that, if a statement ceases to have effect in pursuance of this subsection—

(i) its operation as respects things previously done or omitted to be done shall not be affected; and

(ii) ").

The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to convert a Negative Resolution procedure into a positive procedure in connection with the rules that should be laid before Parliament in the form of a statement by the Secretary of State. As the Bill is drafted, the rules can be disapproved by either House of Parliament, in which case they become of no effect and the Secretary of State will be called upon to think again. This seems to me a signally ineffectual way of dealing with a matter of enormous importance.
What we have at stake here in the drawing up of these rules is the whole life and welfare of an individual coming to this country, multiplied many times over. It seems to be a mistake that this matter should not be closely under the control of Parliament; that the Secretary of State should have it left entirely to his discretion to make what rules he likes; and that there should be a possibility that they may—I do not say they will—go through Parliament almost without notice and without discussion. Something far more positive is required and, in my submission, what is required is an Affirmative Resolution procedure.
This proposal is not, I confess, one to which I am deeply wedded. There are two Amendments that follow it, which are set down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble and' learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the

1107
noble Baroness, Lady White. They are Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, which are, I think, alternative to each other. They provide a different approach to the subject. It is not my business to speak on those Amendments, but I think I should say now (and perhaps if I had seen the point a little earlier I would have made it earlier, and matters would have stood differently upon the Marshalled List) that I in fact prefer their Amendments to mine, for this reason. I hope I am in order in speaking in this way about another Amendment, and that noble Lords opposite will not object.
BARONESS WHITE: We are delighted.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am much obliged. The other Amendments refer to the rules, whereas my Amendment refers to the statement. There is a very considerable difference. Unless I misunderstand the matter, the rules will in fact have the force of a Statutory Instrument: the statement in which the rules are embodied by the Secretary of State is simply that—a statement. It has no statutory force at all; it is simply an announcement of what he intends to do, and if Parliament does not approve it he can take it away and change it and then bring back another one. In the meantime, the rules go on running. For that reason, I do not wish to speak with any strength on my own Amendment, but I shall listen with the greatest possible interest to those put forward by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. Technically, I think I am required to move this Amendment, but I shall await the outcome with an unprejudiced mind. I beg to move.
10.12 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If in my reply to the noble Earl I cover some of the ground which is likely to come up on the next two Amendments, I hope the Committee will forgive me, and perhaps my doing so will enable us to abbreviate our discussion on the later Amendments. This Amendment seeks to provide that the Immigration Rules required to be laid before Parliament under Clause 3(2) shall cease to have effect at the end of 28 days unless during that period they have been approved by Resolution of each House, and that if rules do so cease to have effect this is not to invalidate things
1108
done or omitted to be done under them before they ceased to have that effect. The Secretary of State would be under obligation, in the event of the rules ceasing to have effect, to change the rules as necessary and to lay fresh rules before Parliament. In the past, immigration rules have not been subject to any Parliamentary control, but by virtue of a Government Amendment put down in another place following pressure from Members of the Party opposite and others, my right honourable friend agreed that they should become subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and this is what is now contained in Clause 3(2) of the Bill. If they are negatived by Resolution, the rules continue in being; but the Secretary of State is required, as soon as may be, to make such changes or further changes as appear to him to be required, and to lay a further statement before Parliament.
When, in another place, the suggestion was made that this did not go far enough and that the more appropriate form of Parliamentary control would be the Affirmative Resolution procedure, the Home Secretary explained that the Government did not feel able to agree to the Affirmative Resolution procedure's applying to the rules since this would mean that they could not be changed promptly if the need for change should arise when Parliament was in Recess. It would be unacceptable if no change could be made in the rules, perhaps to deal with an unexpected breach in the control, until Parliament could sit again.
The noble Earl has sought to meet the objection to the rules being subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure by providing that the rules are to take immediate effect when made by the Home Secretary but are to cease to have effect at the end of 28 days unless by then approved by a Resolution of each House. This proposal, however, does not meet the objection we saw in the original proposal to make the rules subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure since, if the rules are not approved by the end of the period of 28 days, whether by an adverse Resolution or because there have not been two Affirmative Resolutions, there would then be no rules in being until the Home Secretary was able to make fresh rules. This is an arrangement that in practice could not be

1109
accepted since it would mean that during the interregnum there would be no effective immigration control in operation at all and there would be no guide lines for the determination of appeals by the immigration appeal system arising from decisions taken by immigration officers during this period.
This seems to us a strong objection to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and it would remain so whatever period laid down for the passage of the Affirmative Resolutions, whether 28 days or a longer period, was chosen. I hope that with that explanation of the significance of having effective immigration rules in existence in order to guide the appeal system and to guide immigration officers in the discharge of their duties, the noble Earl might feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I understand the point of the objection which my noble friend has put forward and, as I have said, I am not keenly wedded to the form in which my Amendment has been drafted, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.17 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER had given notice of intention to move Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, leave out lines 3 to 11 and insert—
(" Rules referred to in this subsection shall be of no effect until a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I am not sure what is the most convenient course for everyone. This is a most important subject. I understand that some have taken the view that it would be convenient to stop where we are now.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would like to say a word or two about his Amendment. I think that then those concerned with the usual channels may be able to give us some guidance.
LORD GARDINER: I agree of course with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, how very important this whole question of the control of the rules is because of the vital importance of the
1110
rules and because a number of things which used to be statutory are not now in the rules. It is said that the negative procedure under the Bill is applicable to the rules, but this, with great respect, simply is not so. If I should develop this at another time perhaps it would be convenient.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think perhaps it might be better if the noble and learned Lord developed this matter on another day and, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

FINANCE BILL
Read 2a: Committee negatived.
CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Reported from the Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
Reported without Amendment.
LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

1111

TEESSIDE CORPORATION

(GENERAL POWERS)

(No. 2) BILL [H.L.]

Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amend- ments considered and agreed to.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.