Sitting of 28 October 1971

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

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by his Department's inquiry into shoplifting, in the light of information given to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): My hon. Friend's suggestions, and others, are still being considered by a working party appointed to advise on ways of preventing shoplifting, and thefts by staff employed by shops.
    Mr. Adley: I am grateful for what I heard of my hon. Friend's answer. Does not he agree that serious social dangers have arisen, because of the establishment of supermarket trading in the past 15 years, particularly for the weak, the forgetful and the sick? Will he please bear in mind that many people feel that, in the same way as the Government seek to legislate to prevent the sale of such things as dangerous drugs, the Government also have a responsibility to prevent shopping procedures being legalised which result in people not being properly protected?
    Mr. Sharples: We realise that there are dangers in this, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, which are being very carefully considered.
    Mr. John Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there were general ex-
    2046
    pressions of support by the Magistrates' Clerks' Association and the Law Society for the setting up of the inquiry, the reservation was expressed by the Law Society that it would be greatly strengthened by the inclusion of a solicitor?
    Mr. Sharples: It is a fairly strong working party. The difficulty in trying to include everyone in such a working party is that it would be too big. But it represents all the interests concerned.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of persons found guilty of violence against the person, and of burglary and robbery, in the first six months of 1971 and in the corresponding period of 1970.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): These figures will be available in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of this increasing crime is concentrated in the large cities, and that some of them, such as Manchester, show a significantly bigger increase than others? Has he received any results from the research into the problem by the universities of Manchester and Oxford, research established by his predecessor? Is there any evidence that severity of sentence is a significant factor?
    Mr. Maudling: Those are very broad questions. I always look forward to receiving the results of research, but I cannot think of any specific results that I have received recently. There is evidence that on particular occasions, such as the Notting Hill case some years ago, severe sentences have checked a new and unpleasant development at an early stage.
    Sir G. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend has referred on many occasions recently to sterner measures being taken against those found guilty of crimes of violence against the person. When does he propose to publish precise details of his sterner measures? Does he intend to legislate in the forthcoming Session?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern in the Greater Manchester area about the statistics for crimes involving the use of violence there? Is he aware of the representations made by my Parliamentary colleagues from Manchester and me during 1970 on the issue? Will he make an early statement indicating what action he proposes to take about this alarming development?
    Mr. Maudling: There are disturbing developments in violent crime in more than one city of this country, though we must not generalise too much. Basically the answer from society must be to strengthen the police, which I am trying to do, and I think succeeding, and, second, to strengthen the power of the courts, which I intend to do.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: What can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about variations in the regional pattern, in so far as the incidence of certain types of crime is higher in some areas than in others? How far is that indicative of greater police efficiency or of criminogenic tendencies?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that I can fairly ask for notice of that penetrating question.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the statements made to The Times newspaper by two senior officers of the Metropolitan Police on 23rd August relating to the causes of the increase in violent crime and to deficiencies in the administration of the criminal law were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: My authority was neither sought nor required.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With reference to the subject-matter of the interview, is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep and increasing public concern on the whole subject? In his consideration of future legislation will he particularly bear in mind the advice given by these distinguished police officers about the undesirability of granting parole to prisoners serving sentences for violent crime?
    Mr. Maudling: I hope that before long we shall have an opportunity of discuss-
    2048
    ing all these important matters at greater length. I am very much concerned at the growth of violent crime and I have certain proposals to make about it. As to the particular interview, all I would say is that I cannot accept that the thesis put forward is necessarily supported by the facts.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the Home Secretary aware that far from this being an off-the-record Press conference, these statements were responsible for initiating something of a great national debate on crime and punishment? Does he not feel that if we are to have a debate on crime and punishment, it ought to be in this honourable House and not within the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force?
    Mr. Maudling: The wider the debate on the problem the better.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware how courts are ignoring existing penalties laid down in the Firearms Act, 1968, in that in about 7,000 successful prosecutions courts have imposed sentences averaging only 4 per cent. of the maximum Parliament laid down two or three years ago?
    Mr. Maudling: This is an important point. It is for Parliament to prescribe the maximum penalty, but it must surely be for the court alone in an individual case to decide which penalty is appropriate.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is rather inconsistent with the traditions of a disciplined force for a statement of this nature to be made by two senior police officers? Are there not more appropriate channels for such representations?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think I should comment on that. It is a matter for the Commissioner.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the increase in crimes of violence in the first six months of 1971 in the London metropolitan area; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: The total number of crimes of violence was 1 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1970.
    Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend take it that the great majority of Londoners have only praise for the way in which the Metropolitan Police are coping with crimes of violence, but will he realise that there is a growing use of firearms in these crimes and that, although it is still safe in London to walk in any street at night, the security of Londoners, including my constituents, would be greatly improved if there were less erratic and fewer inadequate sentences imposed for firearm crimes?
    Mr. Maudling: One must not make too much of just one figure, but it is most encouraging that the 1 per cent. increase here is much less than the increase in the previous year, and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, this reflects great credit on the Metropolitan Police. On the question of firearms and the penalties for their carrying and use, I hope to have an opportunity subsequently to make proposals to the House.

    Guard Dogs
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make proposals for reducing the number of attacks on the public by unsupervised guard dogs.
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now collected all the information he requires about the use of guard dogs; and when he will announce his conclusions to the House.
    Mr. Sharples: In consultation with chief officers of police, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have carried out a thorough examination of the material supplied by the police. The most significant point to emerge is that only a small proportion of the dog attacks known to the police are made by unattended guard dogs. They regret that incidents should ever occur of the kind which have given rise to their inquiries, and they hope that the publicity the incidents have attracted will bring home to those who own or employ dogs the importance of proper safeguards. But they do not think they would be justified in proposing any special measure of control to Parliament.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing
    2050
    answer? Does he recall that the last time this subject was raised in the House we were told that these attacks were proceeding at the rate of about 200 a year? It will not be long before somebody, perhaps a small child, gets killed. Is he not prepared to do something about the situation?
    Mr. Sharples: The great majority of cases involve dogs which are not guard dogs. In the Metropolitan Police District, for example, there were 3,374 incidents relating to dogs biting people, but guard dogs were involved in only 60 of those cases.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is the Minister aware that in some foreign countries the law imposes absolute liability on dog owners for personal injuries caused by dogs to third parties? In the light of his reply, does he not think it time that a similar reform was introduced in this country?
    Mr. Sharples: That involves civil law and is a matter for my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor.

    James Hanratty
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce the result of his examination of new evidence in the case of James Hanratty; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the holding of a judicial inquiry into the conviction of James Hanratty.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department if he will announce his decision on the request for an inquiry into the A6 murder.
    Mr. Maudling: I have reviewed the facts of this case, particularly in the light of Mr. Paul Foot's book and the letter which he has sent to me at my invitation drawing attention to points which he considered to be of special significance. I cannot, however, find that Mr. Foot has brought out any important point which has not already been fully considered, and after most careful consideration of all the detailed information before me, I have concluded that I should not be justified in appointing a public inquiry. The

    2051
    reasons which have led me to this conclusion cannot be stated briefly; and I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Whitehead: May I put one general and one political question to the right hon. Gentleman? May I say first of all that this ghost will not be laid by this decision and that the concern of many hon. Members in all parties in the House will not be allayed? May I beg him to think again about setting up a public inquiry into this business? More specifically, may I ask him what correspondence there was between the Home Office and a plaintiff who issued a recent writ, which was announced publicly on the day of my last Question in this House on this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I would ask the hon. Member to await seeing my fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand and respect the continuing anxiety on this matter, which I believe cannot ever be fully solved. On the second point, I have been to some extent inhibited by recent legal action and I must be very careful in anything I do not to cut across the courts.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Could the Home Secretary say whether he has had access to any documents or witnesses not available to Mr. Paul Foot? Could he say particularly whether he had access to the first statement made by Miss Valerie Storie which was not available either to the court which committed Hanratty or to the court of trial?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is well aware that there is information in the Home Office which has not been made publicly available, to which I have had the same access as my predecessor. As for Miss Storie's identification, I have found no basis at all for the suggestion that she has materially altered her description of the murderer.
    Following is the information:
    James Hanratty was convicted in February, 1962, after a long trial in the course of which the jury heard extensive evidence and argument. It was for the jury to reach a verdict upon that evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently dismissed Hanratty's appeal. It is not for the Home Secretary to set aside the verdict of the Courts. But I have considered whether there are any grounds for my intervention on the basis of material which was not before them.
    The case has already been closely reviewed on that basis by successive Home Secretaries, and over the years a great deal of information has been accumulated. After full examination of all the information available to me I cannot find that Mr. Foot, despite his very extensive research, has brought out any significant aspect of the case which has not already been thoroughly considered.
    Mr. Foot has not had full access to all the available material, and in some respects his arguments are based on premises that are not supported by the facts. I cannot, for example, find any basis for the suggestion that Miss Storie materially altered her description of the murderer, and accordingly I cannot accept any inferences sought to be drawn from this suggestion. Nor is it the case that the police were put on the trail of Hanratty as a result of information received from Mr. William Ewer.
    Other material which has been described as new evidence has proved upon examination to relate to matters which have already been the subject of investigation. I find, for instance, that inquiries were made of Mrs. Lanz at the time of the crime and shortly after the trial about persons she had seen at the Old Station Inn, Taplow, and her present recollection of events is not consistent with the statements she made nearer the time.
    My predecessors gave special attention to the possibility that Hanratty might have been at Rhyl at the time of the murder, and I have for my part examined with care all the additional evidence tending to support this alibi. At a trial, alibi evidence is subject to searching cross-examination to verity its relevance and reliability; and after close scrutiny I remain unpersuaded that any of the evidence produced since the trial could stand up to such a critical examination, bearing in mind that the recollection of witnesses must necessarily become impaired by the passage of time.
    I recognise and entirely respect the doubts which still remain in many minds, and I have considered carefully whether the appointment of a public judicial inquiry would help to resolve the issues. I have concluded for two reasons that it would not. I do not believe that any judicial tribunal can be expected to arrive at a convincing opinion as to the facts on the basis of the recollection of witnesses as to specific details ten years after the event. Mr. Justice Brabin, in his report on the Evans case, has graphically described the fallibility of any such process. Secondly there are fundamental objections to the use of such a procedure as a means to the informal trial of some other person outside the normal processes of law which would be inevitable in this case.
    After an exhaustive review, I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no further action which I should take in a case which, I fully recognise, has given rise to much genuine anxiety.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

    2053
    will make a statement on Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maudling: It is the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government to defeat terrorism and to ensure for all communities in Northern Ireland an active, permanent and guaranteed rôle in the life and public affairs of the Province.
    Mr. Wall: What is the Home Secretary doing to disseminate and make understood the important new proposals to give better political representation to the minorities in Ulster? Would he agree that, unfortunately, they have little chance of widespread acceptance until the urban guerrillas have been defeated?
    Mr. Maudling: I would not accept the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The proposals put forward in the Green Paper by the Northern Ireland Government are very important. I have no doubt at all that anybody concerned with the long-term health of Northern Ireland will study them very seriously indeed.
    Mr. Fitt: Would the Home Secretary not agree that he and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have expressed sentiments in recent months to the effect that a place will be found for the minority to have
    "an active permanent and guaranteed rôle"
    in Northern Ireland, and that this seems to have been brutally rejected by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who has clearly stated that he will not sit in any Cabinet with any person who even expresses a long-term ideal of bringing about the unity of Ireland? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that at present we have
    "an active, permanent and guaranteed rôle"
    for the minority in Northern Ireland—we have actively opposed Unionism, we have been permanent second-class citizens and we have been guaranteed by the Unionist Prime Minister that this is to be the position in the future? Would the Home Secretary keep in touch with the Government of Northern Ireland so that we may have clarified once and for all what is meant by
    "an active, permanent and guaranteed rôle"
    for both communities in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Maudling: I have been seeking discussions with all concerned whereby we can reach by agreement
    "an active, permanent and guaranteed rôle",
    and I have seen representatives of the Northern Ireland trade unions and the Northern Ireland Labour Party. We now have the proposals of the Northern Ireland Government in the same context, but we cannot reach agreement unless we talk. Those who are not prepared to talk about these things are postponing agreement.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the ungenerous, destructive and fairly easily anticipated approach by certain people to the new appointment of a member of the minority to the Northern Ireland Government yesterday, will the Home Secretary welcome that appointee's sensible statement that he does not intend to indulge in widely publicised interviews and speeches but to work quietly and sensibly for improvement in community relations among men of true good will in the minority?
    Mr. Maudling: I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that very sensible statement.
    Mr. McNamara: To turn from these new proposals, which I regard as perfectly useless, could I ask the Home Secretary about the position of the Compton inquiry? Would he be kind enough to clear up the confusion arising from a statement made about the terms of reference of that inquiry with regard to people lifted after the action by the security forces on 9th August? If the Compton inquiry is not to cover people lifted after 9th August, what firm proposals has he to look into allegations which are being made? Is it not in the interest of everybody that they should not be allowed to continue and that we should avoid exaggeration and not have the British Army being referred to as the Black and Tans, which none of us wants?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry that there should be any confusion. Having studied carefully what I said, I do not see why there should be cause for confusion. I said that the Compton inquiry was in the context of people taken in on 9th August. I had asked it to look into allegations published inter alia in the

    2055
    Sunday Times about what happened to people under interrogation who had been taken in on the 9th. It has always been understood that the Compton inquiry cannot be a continuing or standing inquiry. I have in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will consider it.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the fact that an R.U.C. sergeant in my constituency was brutally murdered last night, what definite steps does the Home Secretary intend to take for the protection of members of the R.U.C. and their wives and families and their police stations? Will he now, at this late juncture, reverse the foolish policies of the Hunt proposals and allow the R.U.C. to be equipped with such fire power as to be able to resist those who would murder them? Would he also make provision for the arming of the police reserve?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think it would be wise to go back on the principles of the Hunt Report. As for the protection of the police, everybody in the House recognises the appalling burden carried by the R.U.C., which is composed of men who do not merely go there for a few months to serve but who live there with their families. We recognise this factor very much indeed. The security forces are well aware of the need to give the maximum protection to the R.U.C. In particular, I hope to see a large expansion of the U.D.R. I am sure that the hon. Member will help in this way.
    Mr. McManus: Is the Home Secretary aware that I have in my possession a telegram stating that an interned person named Mallon from Newry is critically ill as a result of a disturbance in Long Kesh and that his relatives have been called to his bedside and that it is evident from that telegram that his life is in danger? Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a direct and inevitable result of his disastrous policy of internment? Will he now change his mind before further tragedy and loss of life occur? Will he instead take some positive political steps to clear up the damnable mess which his Government have made of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Maudling: Of course I am always ready to look into any individual case brought to my attention by hon. Mem-
    2056
    bers. It is my duty, and I am certainly prepared to do so. But I do not believe that it would be wise or in anyone's interest to release upon the streets of Belfast people who would joint the ranks of the murderers.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the outbreak of violence at Long Kesh and the hunger strike now going on there, could the Home Secretary tell the House whether any action has been taken on the recommendations for changes in conditions made by various hon. Members from the all-party Parliamentary delegation which visited Long Kesh?
    Mr. Maudling: Their recommendations have been carefully studied. I think I am right in saying that the administration of the camp is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, but I will certainly consider what hon. Members have suggested.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)? Apart from the probably far more important political arguments about internment, many of us felt that there were changes which it would be sensible to make. Is the Home Secretary saying that, although in good faith we passed on these recommendations, having spoken to internees in a way which was not open to others, and having been told particularly about wives and families who were afraid to pass through certain areas near the camp because of religious affiliations, this problem has not been looked into two or three weeks ago?
    Mr. Maudling: Of course not. It has certainly been looked at and action has been taken, but the detail of the action is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. Watching the situation closely as I do, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many changes and improvements are being made, in many cases as a result of the visits of hon. Members.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home department what further consultations he has had with the Northern Ireland Government about the enforcement of law and order.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign and

    2057
    Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Lord President of the Council and I had discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on 7th October, during which we reviewed the security situation.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the outrages against R.U.C. families, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Constabulary's arms are sufficient? Second, is not the appointment of Dr. Newe highly relevant and highly welcome in relation to this problem, and do not those politicians at Stormont and here, who crab his appointment and fail to welcome it, although making long speeches at Question Time, condemn themselves?
    Mr. Maudling: I know that the G.O.C. is well aware of the danger to which the police are exposed. On the second point which my hon. Friend raises, I think it a pity that this appointment should have been received in some quarters a little churlishly.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us welcome the appointment of Dr. Newe, even though he is described as a "Castle Catholic" by some people? But may I ask him to make absolutely clear that, in his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), the right hon. Gentleman was not himself attempting to inhibit Dr. Newe in any statement which he makes in regard to the maintenance of law and order and the creation of better relations?
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly not. I referred to a statement made by Dr. Newe, which I said I regarded as a very wise statement on a principle which all would wish to follow, namely, the need to do everything possible to achieve harmony between the communities.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Has any request been made by the Stormont Government to this Government to bring pressure on the Dublin Government to extradite people who are responsible for the murders of policemen and soldiers and who, at this moment, are hiding in the Free State?
    Mr. Maudling: In keeping with our responsibilities in this matter, I am always prepared to consider a proposition of that kind put to us by the Northern Ireland Government. If my hon. Friend has any
    2058
    particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his constant emphasis on law and order is, in the view of many of us, only making the situation worse and is leading to more and more repression? If he would only begin to speak about a permanent political solution, he would have much more support from many people in the country.
    Mr. Maudling: That is not entirely fair. I and my colleagues, in the speeches we have made, have always said that there are two problems, the security situation and the political situation. Both are equally important, both must be resolved, but so long as murder continues the security situation must be in the forefront of our minds.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: First, may I make perfectly clear that nothing I said was intended to inhibit Dr. Newe in any way, and ought not to have been taken as such. As regards law and order, will my right hon. Friend condemn the appalling performance directed against the troops and against policemen in Northern Ireland yesterday, and will he use every opportunity open to him, and ask every other member of the Government to use every opportunity, to show that we are now dealing with a band of men whose cowardice and ferocity probably exceeds that even of the E.O.K.A. and the Viet Cong? Will he ensure that the British public are not in danger of being brainwashed by Republican propaganda to a much greater degree than any internee, according to any of the allegations, was in danger of being brainwashed by British soldiers or policemen?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members would unite in condemning violence, murder and terrorism and in supporting the security forces in putting them down.

    Obscenity in Advertising
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the progress made so far this year by local authorities in controlling obscenity in advertising in public places; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: If my hon. Friend has particularly in mind the advertisement of films, the answer is that cinema licensing authorities are undoubtedly aware of their responsibilities in this matter; that there have been noticeably fewer complaints from the public recently; and that I hope to see a further improvement in the situation.
    Mr. Lane: While my right hon. Friend's reply is encouraging, in view of the continuing public concern about the wider problem, would he look sympathetically at any proposals which may be made for amending the legal definition of "obscenity", if that would make the law more effective?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look with great care at any proposals. I cannot promise sympathy; I certainly promise attention.

    Probation Service (Pay)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the revised pay settlement for the Probation Service.
    Mr. Maudling: I have prescribed, with effect from 1st April, 1971, new pay scales of £1,395 to £2,078 for main grade officers and £2,298 to £2,618 for senior probation officers. From the same date a main grade officer on completing 10 years' service on the maximum of his scale will receive an additional increment of £72 bringing his total salary to £2,150.
    This settlement is to run until 30th June, 1972, and an inquiry is to be held with a view to determining an appropriate relationship, with effect from 1st July, 1972, between the pay of probation officers and other social workers.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Home Secretary aware that, although a promise to set up an inquiry was made on 6th August, to date the Probation Service has had no information from the Government about this inquiry and no explanation has been offered? It appears to the probation officers as though the promise were merely a sop to cool their anger. Are these new scales the result of an independent inquiry, and, if so, why have we not heard about the independent inquiry?
    Mr. Maudling: The new scales are agreed and the independent inquiry is being set up. I must admit that I am disturbed that it has taken so long to set up this inquiry and I am doing what I can to speed it up.
    Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. However, in future will he remember that we have had to have a long fight, quite unnecessarily, for all these pay scales ought to have been put into operation a long time ago? Is he aware how much I and many others who know the work of the Probation Service resent the fact that the Home Office did not do its job properly, honestly and fairly a long time ago? Would he please see that this kind of thing never happens again in our civilised society?
    Mr. Maudling: I share my hon. Friend's regard for the Probation Service. I do not accept her strictures on the Home Office. The fact is that there are big changes in the whole of the social services and there are difficult problems concerning the appropriate relative salary scales for those working in the Probation Service and those in fairly comparable services. We believe that this should be sorted out in everyone's interest, and that is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Pavitt: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring forward his study of the comparability of the pay of probation officers and that of other officers in the social services? Is he aware that graduates with social science diplomas can obtain a rate of pay outside the Probation Service which is very much higher than even the revised scales for the service, and that this is having a bad effect on recruitment?
    Mr. Maudling: I will do what I can to speed up the inquiry. I am concerned that it is taking so long.
    Mr. Fowler: Would my right hon. Friend accept that many of us consider this a good award; but would he also accept that the past neglect of the Probation Service, neglect which has stretched back over many years, cannot be settled by one award, and that an inquiry is of vital importance? Can he say by when he hopes the inquiry will be set up and whether it will take outside evidence?
    Mr. Maudling: When the inquiry is set up, I am sure that the chairman will

    2061
    decide from where he wants to draw evidence. So far as I am concerned, the wider the better. The date is determined by the new pay award, which will he from 1st July, 1972, and the purpose of the inquiry is to ensure that we are by then in a position to have good advice on the comparative pay positions of the Probation Service and other similar social services.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that within the last 48 hours representations have been made not about the general agreement, made in August, but because no news has reached the association concerned about the pay of principal probation officers and London weighting? The complaint is that it is taking an inordinately long time to deal with relatively. Has this now been dealt with, or is it still outstanding?
    Mr. Maudling: The pay of the principal probation officers is still outstanding, but I hope to be able to make a move on that very shortly.

    Prison Regulations (Persons Remanded in Custody)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake to review the prison regulations with particular regard to those affecting persons remanded in custody; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Yes, Sir: the Home Office is reviewing the arrangements for persons held on remand.
    Mr. Davis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his answer will please many of us, having regard to the obvious demand for an urgent inquiry into very illiberal regulations? The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the liberal interpretation which he placed on certain regulations about hair cutting for persons remanded in custody in July and August.
    Mr. Carlisle: The decision to set up an inquiry predated the raising of the question of hair cutting. It was a decision by the Home Office. The hair cutting was in accordance with the rules which then applied and which made no distinction between convicted and unsentenced prisoners.

    Maintenance Orders (Attachment of Earnings)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the new provisions for strengthening the machinery for enforcing maintenance orders by attachment of earnings, which came into force on 2nd August; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: More time will be needed to assess the effect of the new provisions on the enforcement of maintenance orders.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that over the summer many of us have been receiving an unstaunched flow of instances of pathetic women who have found that court orders in their favour were simply not being implemented? In the circumstances, could he not raise with the legislation committee of the Cabinet the possibility of bringing in legislation to make alimony and aliment payable through the Inland Revenue, or the Ministry of Social Security? It needs to be done.
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that anybody in the Home Department who is involved is fully aware of the many disturbing instances of women being unable adequately to enforce maintenance orders. But one must make the realistic observation that it is very difficult to enforce any order when the other party to the order deliberately chooses to do his best to evade it. All I can say is that we believe that the effects of the Attachment of Earnings Act, 1971, will assist. On the wider issue; a committee under Mr. Maurice Finer is looking at the problem of one-parent families.

    Work by Prisoners (Amenity Projects)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the use of selected prisoners on work on projects to beautify areas in the neighbourhood of prisons which are unlikely to be commissioned if the cost had to be met in the ordinary way.
    Mr. Carlisle: Where practicable, and subject to safeguards for local interests, labour is supplied to charitable or voluntary organisations undertaking such work.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many jobs which benefit the community, but which would never be done in the ordinary way by private enterprise or public authority, such as the clearance of towpaths or, in his own part of the country, the restoration of the breach in the Bridgwater Canal not by pipe but for navigation and fishing?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of what my hon. Friend says. He will appreciate that it raises a difficult principle when it is other than of a voluntary or charitable nature as to whether the prison department ought to provide work free of charge for what may be private interests. It is a matter we are looking at generally.
    Mr. Heffer: While I have a great deal of sympathy for the point made by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask the Minister to consult the trade union movement about any work of this kind? Further, would he have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that in areas where there is a prison, such as my own area of Merseyside, ordinary workers now unemployed are set to work before dealing with this matter?
    Mr. Carlisle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always conscious of the effect of any work done by prisoners upon the availability of work for those outside prisons. I am happy to say that our relationship on this matter both with management and with unions is remarkably good.

    Immigration Bill (Registration)
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reconsidered registration with the police for future non-patrial Commonwealth workers entering this country under the Immigration Bill.
    Mr. Sharples: Commonwealth citizens will not now be required to register with the police.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome this announcement about which I first read in the Sunday Times, indicating a promised change of heart on the part of the Home Secretary as opposed to the strenuous view taken
    2064
    by some of his hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are problems about any other form of registration and will he undertake to draw the attention of the appropriate department to the necessity for an early announcement about other forms of registration?
    Mr. Sharples: We are considering alternative forms of registration and looking carefully into the question of the registration of aliens.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I say how grateful we on this side of the House are that the Government have changed their mind, albeit at a late stage? When are we to know the rules about work permit holders of all sorts, because they are the basis of immigration? We know about the Bill but not about the rules which will be applied.
    Mr. Sharples: The rules will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to the negative procedure.

    Prison Hospitals (Permanent Detainees)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number and the age groups of male prisoners in Her Majesty's Prisons who are permanently detained in prison hospitals.
    Mr. Carlisle: In August, 1971 there were 62 male prisoners in England and Wales who were located in prison hospitals and appeared likely to remain in them for the remainder of their sentences. I will, with permission, circulate a table of their age groups in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Cox: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give me some further information as to the kind of thinking in his Department about this and the general overcrowding in so many of our prisons? Is it not time that we considered some alternative form of punishment to prison sentences of less than six months since it is these which contribute to a large percentage of the prison population?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are giving urgent consideration to possible alternative penalties. My right hon. Friend has said

    2065
    that he hopes to be able to put forward proposals to the House shortly. As for those who spend their time in prison hospitals, the fact remains that there are some who are sent to prison and for various causes of illness may then have to be transferred to the prison hospital and who then stay there during their period of imprisonment, varying from life in one case to seven days in another.
    Following is the table:

    Age

    Number of prisoners

    Under 21

    1

    21–30

    20

    31–40

    8

    41–50

    13

    51–60

    13

    61–70

    4

    Over 70

    3

    Total

    62

    Courthouse (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for a courthouse to be built at Newcastle-under-Lyme from Exchequer funds.
    Mr. Carlisle: The provision of a new courthouse is the responsibility of the Borough Council. My right hon. Friend has no power to vary the financial arrangements set out in the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. Under these, the Council would receive repayment of about 80 per cent. of the cost.
    Mr. Golding: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the local council think it unreasonable that it should incur the cost of building a new courthouse at Newcastle? Is he further aware that while the Government argue with local government, witnesses have to stand outside in the rain during some sittings and magistrates are asked to make judgments under the most deplorable conditions?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is, with respect, under a misapprehension. The court required in Newcastle is a magistrates' court and the same rules apply there as for magistrates' court throughout the country. Under the Justices of the Peace Act, 80 per cent. of the cost is always found by central government and 20 per cent. by the local authority. Newcastle is being dealt with in no way different from any other place. We are
    2066
    fully aware of the need for a new court in Newcastle as soon as possible.

    Civil Defence (Review)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce the results of his review of civil defence.
    Mr. Sharples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on 5th August. The further work my right hon. Friend then referred to is in hand. Some detailed proposals have been put to the local authority associations concerned.—[Vol. 822, c. 369–70.]
    Mr. Blaker: I fully understand my right hon. Friend's desire to give this matter careful consideration and thus to get the decision right, but is the Home Office bearing in mind that there are thousands of voluntary workers throughout the country who have put in excellent work over the years on civil defence who are impatiently awaiting an announcement?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir, I realise that, and I realise also the importance of an early decision in this matter.
    Sir D. Renton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, pending these further negotiations with the local authorities, he does not preclude the possibility of members of voluntary civil aid societies being used to help in the further development of civil defence?
    Mr. Sharples: I think that the House should await the outcome of the consultations which are taking place. I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said on the subject of volunteers in his reply on 5th August.

    Enzyme Detergents (Health Hazards)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to receive the report of the special committee examining the health hazards from enzyme detergents and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now proposes to take to deal with the possible risk of dermatitis presented by enzyme washing powders.
    Mr. Sharples: A group of dermatologists have been investigating this matter on behalf of the Home Office's medical advisers. They have concluded that, although they have found some cases of dermatitis attributable to enzyme detergents, the problem is not great, and that the withdrawal of these powders on dermatological grounds would not be justified. But the group have recommended that, since previously damaged skin can be affected by this type of product, a suitable warning notice should appear on the packets. The manufacturers, while not accepting that enzyme detergents are more likely to cause dermatitis than other detergents, have agreed, at the Home Office's request, to comply with this recommendation.
    Mrs. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that many of us believe that these products were launched on the market before adequate account was taken of the health risks, including not only dermatitis but lung damage and possible effects on the blood cells, and we greatly welcome that he has now decided that a warning should be put on all packets of these detergents? But will he ensure, also, that the report which he has received is published and that further research is undertaken into the health side-effects of these products?
    Mr. Sharples: The report is short and I will send a copy to the hon. Lady, who, I know, has a great interest in the subject, and I will see that a copy is placed in the Library, too.
    Mr. Normanton: Have my hon. Friend's experts taken into account the long investigations carried on in the United States? To what extent are his findings influenced by the American work?
    Mr. Sharples: We had full information from the United States on this subject, and I do not think that the findings of our committee of experts disagree with those reached in the United States.

  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has now received on the subject of Great Britain's entry into the European Community.
  Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received during the Summer Recess on the subject of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of unemployment since 18th June, 1971.
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 18th June, 1970, on the subject of unemployment.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer to the answer I gave on 19th October to Questions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and other hon. Members.—[Vol. 823, c. 540.]
  Mr. Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that both in his answers to correspondence and in every other possible way, the public has been more fully informed and more fully consulted on Britain's entry into the E.E.C. than on any other political issue in recent times, and will he agree also that, now that we have had the great national debate, the only sensible way of resolving it is by a vote here in the House of Commons?
  The Prime Minister: I should have thought that there would have been general agrement among all those who observe the political situation that of all the issues which have arisen in the past 25 years this is the one which, through television, radio and all the media of communication, has been the most thoroughly discussed.
  Mr. Tuck: What proportion of the British people did the Prime Minister intend to be understood in the words,
  "the full-hearted support of the British people"?
  Further, as neither he nor this Parliament has any mandate either for or against entry into the Common Market, how does he hope to obtain
  "the full-hearted support of the British people",
  and how will he know when he has it?
  The Prime Minister: For many years I have made plain that I do not believe in referenda as part of the British system, and in that I am in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. I have always

  2069
  said that this matter must be settled by the Vote of Parliament, and that will happen at 10 o'clock tonight.
  Mr. Skinner: My Question was primarily on the subject of unemployment. Will the Prime Minister take note that his Minister for Industry said a few weeks ago that too many people in this country are becoming over-obsessed with unemployment and repudiate that statement on behalf of his Government? Since the Prime Minister has allied my Question with Questions on the Common Market, will he say—not in an abstract or generalised way as he has done in the past—precisely how going into the Common Market will reduce our unemployment figures?
  The Prime Minister: The opportunities which a larger market will give our industry for greater sales should give it also the opportunity of expanding its employment. I should have thought that that was quite clear.
  Mr. Grant: Will the Prime Minister say whether, having viewed the underlying trends of unemployment, he now believes that a winter unemployment figure of one million is likely to be reached?
  The Prime Minister: I propose to follow the example of my predecessors and of all Governments of not making forecasts.
  Mr. Lane: Does my right hon. Friend agree, from his correspondence and meetings, that support for British entry into the Common Market is strongest among the younger members of the public who have most at stake in our decision tonight?
  The Prime Minister: In the circumstances of the last day of the debate, I do not propose to venture a forecast as to individual aspects of public opinion. As I have always made plain, this question can be settled only by Parliament, and that is what Parliament is about to do.
  Mr. Callaghan: The Prime Minister has said that this question has probably been discussed more adequately and fully than any other question in the last quarter of a century. Does he draw the conclusion that it is because this is so that the British public remain so obdurately opposed to entry?
  The Prime Minister: As is well known, I am not one of those who allows policy or decisions to be influenced by public opinion polls. In this I am reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who, on 3rd June, 1970, just before the General Election, said, speaking for his Government:
  "If given the opportunity the Government will take the decision on the basis of their own assessment and Parliament will decide whether it is right for Britain to go in or not. Opinion polls have the habit of differing from time to time. It is a matter for the Government and Parliament to judge the wishes and the needs of the country before deciding."
  I agree wholeheartedly with him on that, and that is what we are doing.

  CONCORDE
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he now intends to take a flight in Concorde.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
  I should like to add that in answer to my hon. Friend for Bristol North-East's supplementary question on Tuesday, I said that the Government are providing £1 million a day for the Concorde. I should have referred to expenditure of £1 million a week, and I apologise to the House for this mistake.—[Vol. 823, c. 1470.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is getting accustomed to that kind of minor mistake by this Government? Will he understand that his reluctance to engage in the great adventure of flying in this aircraft is widely interpreted as a decision that the Concorde is unlikely to be an economically sound investment by this country? Will he either get up in the aircraft or get up in the House and say that he thinks it will be a going concern?
  The Prime Minister: There is no justification whatever for drawing that conclusion. As I pointed out on Tuesday, the resources which the Government are putting into this aeroplane are very great. I also mentioned that the airlines

  2071
  —and they are the people who matter—make their judgment upon their assessment of the viability, the commercial advantage and the performance of the aircraft.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome the decision of the Conservative Government in 1962 to start the project and have every confidence that the present Government will see it through to fruition?

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to call a conference of Heads of Government of all European Economic Community countries and all European Free Trade Association member countries.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir, but we are in continuing contact at Ministerial and official level with member Governments of both the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association.
  Dr. Gilbert: If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in dragging a divided and resentful country into the E.E.C., and should certain E.F.T.A. countries not succeed in making arrangements suitable to them, will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that he will look after the interests of those countries and that they will not be cast aside once they have served our purposes?
  The Prime Minister: There was an agreement between the members of E.F.T.A. that reasonable opportunity would be given to other members to reach such arrangements as they wished to negotiate with the Community. That is what we are doing.

  RELIEF OF POVERTY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Marksasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment on matters relating to the relief of poverty.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is already close co-operation between all Departments concerned with family support and the relief of poverty.
  Mr. Marks: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the Education (Milk) Act, which deprives children living in poverty of free milk, with the statements made by other Departments? Does not he realise that this Act has offended not only Labour councils but also Conservative councils, and will he instruct his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to repeal this Act as soon as possible?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Bill was thoroughly discussed when going through the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, but has failed to say, special arrangements are made for children who require milk on medical grounds. In any case, his Government withdrew free milk from children at secondary schools.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although the accent may be upon the nutritional value of milk, obesity and the necessity for a balanced diet for children are raising fresh problems? Will his experts have a look at the evidence of the Medical Research Council on this aspect?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I am perfectly prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to arrange for that to be done.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will not the Prime Minister add to his reply that, whereas a relatively modest sum has been saved by this school milk Measure, four times as much has been added to expenditure on primary schools, which is vastly more important in present circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: This is the change in balance which the Government have been seeking to achieve. Only the Government of the day can provide more and better primary schools and improvements to hospitals, especially those dealing with mental illness, and this Government are therefore pursuing much larger programmes in those respects.

  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS)
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the social and economic progress arising out of

  2073
  Government policies; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I have described the progress we have made on a number of recent occasions, for example, in the interview I gave on the B.B.C. programme "Panorama" on 11th October and in my speech to the Conservative Party Conference. Transcripts of both are in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that his satisfaction will be widely interpreted as complacency in the face of savage unemployment and falling living standards? After 15 months of divisive Government policies, may I ask him precisely what he means by his concept of "one nation"?
  The Prime Minister: There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's customary accusations. No Government who have reduced taxation—by £1,400 million in the future—with the subsequent impact of that on the economy, can be accused of not trying to deal with unemployment.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister say whether the present unemployment rate is higher or lower than expected, or what the Government have always expected?
  The Prime Minister: It has been made plain that no forecast showed that in the face of wage pressures such as we have had in these last two years employers would shed labour to the extent to which they have done.
  Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main divisive forces in the nation today stems from the failure of many trade union leaders to realise their responsibilities to the country?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think it is right in those terms to speak in generalities. Many leading trade unionists are endeavouring to bring home to their members the realities of economic life. This I welcome. I think they also recognise the advantages of the Act which has just been passed.
  Mr. Swain: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that unemployment is caused by the lack of markets and will be reduced if we enter the E.E.C., and his
  2074
  answer to the last Question to the effect that high unemployment is caused by the huge wage demands of trade unions?
  The Prime Minister: They are not in the least irreconcilable. If employers are trying to keep down costs that, too, has an impact on the number of their employees. The fact that they can keep their costs down enables them to compete effectively in Europe and, with an expanding market there, to give greater employment to people in this country.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. William Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to Questions Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 11? This is a matter of some importance to back benchers. In the past the present Leader of the Opposition always gave figures on specific subjects and of letters received. In fairness to the Prime Minister, one must say that for the first 15 months of his term of office he did so, too, but he now says that it is not possible to break down these figures.
  Is the fact that the Prime Minister claims that these figures are no longer available going to preclude hon. Members from asking such questions? Is it not time that back benchers had some protection from the arrogance and determination of the Prime Minister to answer nothing?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the responsibility of the Chair.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that in 40 minutes of Questions we got through precisely 22 Questions.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Missed my No. 23 as well.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yesterday, in 55 minutes, we got through just over 30. There is no doubt that there has been a considerable slowing down in the number of Questions answered. Whether that is because of the length of supplementary questions, or the amount of them, I know not. That matter is in your hands, and it is your responsibility, but it is rapidly becoming not worth while to put down Questions unless one can get them in at the beginning. There is no hope of an

  2075
  Oral Question being answered unless it is in the first 20, particularly on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
  Could you, therefore, look into the matter with the appropriate authorities, to see what can be done to speed up the number of Questions answered, particularly on Tuesdays and Thursdays when the Prime Minister answers at 3.15.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the House. Today I deliberately allowed a considerable number of supplementary questions on the Question relating to Northern Ireland, because I thought it was in accordance with the wishes of the House that I should do that. I also allowed rather more than the usual number of supplementary questions relating to probation officers, again because I thought that that was a matter in which many hon. Members were interested. The fault today, to some extent, was mine, but I am certain that the hon. Member's general observations will be noted.
  Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that I shall get to Question No. 40—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to that request is very easy. No.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st October]:
  That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated.—[Sir Alec Douglas-Home.]
  Question again proposed.
  3.33 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: When I began my speech earlier this morning I thought I noticed that the House was beginning to fill, but I never expected that it would be as crowded as it is now. At that time I expressed surprise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in his place, as I had written to tell him that I was going to speak and would be making reference to him. I would always—and I mean this sincerely—show the greatest courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall do so this afternoon to him and to the House and not take too much time from the right hon. Gentleman. But I feel that I owe it to the House, as I have the opportunity, to express my views on the great decision that stands before us and also to mention some of the problems which I face in my constituency.
  My constituents have known my views as a supporter of Britain's entry into the Common Market for many years, and I have listened to their views, too. I have listened, in particular, to the views of a minority of my constituents, but a very important minority, who are concerned at the prospects of Britain's entering the Common Market, and I refer to the fruit growers in my constituency, the fruit growers in Kent.
  All I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that a problem still exists and it is no use ducking the issue. The price of apples and pears in this country will be affected by overwhelming supplies arriving here from the Continent when we are full members of the Community at the end of the transitional period. We in the fruit industry are not in for an easy time, but we are not throwing in the sponge. I am very close to the fruit industry and to the fruit

  2077
  growers, and I can say that we are prepared to meet the invasion.
  The small growers have decided that they must get together and co-operate to become much bigger and more efficient and effective economic units. I believe that when we are in the Common Market we, as a Government, must aim to see what changes we can effect, minimal though they may be, in the manner in which we allow this flood of fruit to come to this country, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of this important section of English farming to allow a flood of poorer quality fruit to drive off the market and away from the consumer and housewives the best quality fruit that we produce in this country. I do not believe that such economic forces should go altogether uncontrolled.
  My attitude to the growers is that they are an important minority. I believe that they have a case. They accept the overall economic and political reason for Britain's joining the Common Market, but they need help—help now, and in the future. They must not be forgotten. They must be sustained. The questions that we have to answer in regard to this industry are: first, how big an industry are we going to have in the future; second, how can we make it more efficient? People in the industry will require generous compensation—and I mean generous in a very big way when we are considering farmers being driven out of their livelihood.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in his excellent speech in this debate, spoke of the safeguards which he thought were necessary for the fishermen in Orkney and Shetland. I, too, have a fishing industry, in Whitstable, and I am equally concerned about it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he allowed his judgment on this issue to be conditioned by his duty to his constituents. I have both fishermen and fruit growers in my constituency, and I am not prepared to see them sacrificed to our larger economic interests.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a kind of buzz of conversation going on which gives me the opportunity I have long wanted of reminding the House of what Speaker Cook said in 1593,
  2078
  "it is not the manner of the House, that any should whisper or talk secretly, for here only public speeches are to be used."
  Mr. Crouch: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your support. I thought that I heard a murmur of assent and understanding for what I was saying. It may be that as I pursue my arguments the type of reception that I get will be different.
  I believe that the economic case for Britain's joining the Common Market is clear and convincing. I do not believe that we can find an opportunity for increased growth anywhere else. Of course there is room for argument about the costs, about the benefits, and about the time for such a move and such a decision. I accept the costs, and I accept the opportunity to gain benefits, but I stress to the House that the benefits come not by decisions in this House but by the initiative and energy of the British people, of British industry, and of British trade unions and trade unionists. I believe that the British people will respond and that British industry will meet the challenge.
  I believe that the Community will advance from its present free trade area towards greater co-ordination of production and ever greater co-ordination of research and development, greater coordination of markets and orders—orders big enough to support the massive research and development and production costs—and greater co-ordination perhaps of temporary protection even as those industries develop and grow. I would not like to be outside such an organisation if it developed on such efficient and organised lines.
  Much has been said about sovereignty. It is not humiliating to go to Europe today. Britain in Europe is respected and admired. We have friends throughout Europe in all the Common Market countries. None of us in this House wants to lose one jot of our significance, the sovereignty of the British Parliament, but let us not get puffed up with our own self-importance. First and foremost, we must strive for the well-being of the British people. I would be prepared to sacrifice some national sovereignty if I felt that it made a contribution to this peace. The sovereignty that I most desire is the sovereignty of peace itself—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the apple growers?
  Mr. Crouch: The hon. Members asks a question about an important minority. I have taken a great interest in an important majority, the miners—
  Mr. Skinner: Opencast miners.
  Mr. Crouch:—and I hope that he will show consideration for the minority that I have mentioned.
  Today a question mark hangs over Europe. Today we should be concerned about Europe's future and security. We cannot stand aside and say we are not involved. We are alongside Europe already. Europe today has an opportunity of much greater influence, greater size and greater strength. I believe that Europe could become the greatest influence for peace that the world has ever known.
  I am sad at the arguments which so many hon. Members have advanced against our entry. We have an opportunity today to make a greater Europe. We have an opportunity to make history. Europe's influence could be an influence to balance the new super-Powers in the world. It could be an influence for greater peace and stability, for friendship and understanding and an end to bitterness. Are we really afraid to make this decision? I do not think so, but we have to be sure that we know where we are going.
  This great debate has been robbed of some of its greatness by the insincerity of some of our parliamentary leaders. We in this House know the reasons for this political finesse which has affected these decisions, but the public have no time for them. They distrust politicians who have put party before country and themselves before the people. We have a duty to earn the people's respect—not only for our debate but for our decision and the reasons for it. The public are dismayed at the attitude of some of our former leaders who have changed their minds for the wrong reasons. They see it as a sham, a political trick that fools no one. Let the Opposition oppose for all they are worth the Conservative policies which they dislike, but our decision today is above party politics: it is a turning point in our history.
  I do not believe that the Labour Party is turning its back on Europe. But what has happened to the Leader of the Opposition, who used to be so keen? He
  2080
  said that he was going to go into Europe at a hell of a pace. He said that he believed in the big market, in the technological community. He said that he accepted the Treaty of Rome. He wanted European unity and told General de Gaulle so. He was so confident that I supported his ideals, as did the great majority of hon. Members, and we went into the Lobby behind him.
  Why has he turned against us now and let us and Parliament down? What sort of a leader has he become, and where do his loyalties lie? Do they lie with his principles or with those who push him hardest? No wonder the people are confused and dismayed, because the alternative Prime Minister has proved a pushover.
  I respect all those who do not believe that we should go into Europe at all, but I respect above all those who have decided, on the principles of the issue, to vote according to their real judgment and their real beliefs. These are the men who will be remembered in future—who put their country first and made the right decision today.
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The House has heard the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and has been much impressed, as I was, by his arguments about technology, a subject to which I hope to come a little later.
  The geat debate for which the Prime Minister and I called has now reached its culmination in this parliamentary debate of the last six days, and the decision which the House must take tonight. I feel that it is right today to pay tribute to the standard reached on both sides of the debate in all parties and, indeed, more widely. With very few exceptions, it has been carried on at a high level, in no way unworthy of the fundamental importance, the historic nature of the issue which we have been debating.
  But the right hon. Gentleman will have recognised one incontestible fact. The full consent of the British people for which he rightly called in the General Election campaign has not been forthcoming. What he appealed to is not now at his command. This is after one of the most expensively-financed P.R. campaigns in our political history—transcending, I think, all others—liberally

  2081
  financed, mainly by private interests. This has been aided by a somewhat less than fastidious attention by the Government to the established rules about the use of the taxpayers' money for such purposes on any issue on which Parliament has not pronounced—a long-standing rule. The Secretary of State for Employment invoked this rule at the Conservative Party conference when he said that before the assent of Parliament had been given the Government could not constitutionally distribute information on his Industrial Relations Act. It has been done, of course, in this case.
  In addition to that, we have had the united pressure of the whole of the Common Market Press. Never have the Press and the other communications media been so united or so ineffective. Their only achievement has been an unprecedented loss of circulation. Their campaign has succeeded only in boring the pants off the British electorate. What we have seen has been a classic confrontation—the Establishment against the common sense of the British people—and it will continue. Today is not an end; it is a beginning.
  The two major national parties and the Liberal Party have taken their decisions at their annual conferences. Last week, my right hon. and hon. Friends, in a free vote of the Parliamentary Labour Party, took their decision by a substantial majority against entry on the terms negotiated—if the acceptance of the diktat enshrined in the Prime Minister's meeting in the Elysée Palace can be called negotiation.
  The House has debated these terms, or at least such constituents of these terms as the Government thought it politic to reveal to the House in their White Paper in July. Now for a week this parliamentary debate has continued, and in these two debates, I think I am right in saying, 223 hon. Members have been called by the Chair. Every point of view has been expressed. On this I should like to pay my tribute to the Leader of the House for the arrangements he made, as he promised us, for ensuring that this should be so, and certainly to you, Mr. Speaker, on the way this debate has been conducted.
  So my comments on the terms—and that is basically what this debate is about
  2082
  —will be no more than a survey or a summary of what a number of us said in July and have said again in this debate recognising, as we must, that what so many said in the July debate has been massively reinforced by events since July.
  To my mind, the most serious charge against the right hon. Gentleman in negotiating these terms relates to their consequences for Britain's balance of payments with all that that means for prices and unemployment, and I shall come to this subject a little later. But there are other issues which should not be glossed over before this House, and, still more important, the country, makes its final decision. I should like to deal with them point by point, as briefly as I can, before putting my more general conclusions before the House.
  I begin with two major measures affecting the Commonwealth. It is a grave commentary, I think, on the parameters within which this debate has been conducted not only in the Press but elsewhere, and nowhere more than in the speeches and arguments of right hon. Gentlemen, that we have had what has been tantamount, I think, to a conspiracy aimed at discounting the Commonwealth throughout the debate. In asserting this I do not seek to impress the right hon. Gentleman, whose stamp of Government on every issue, from South Africa to what we shall shortly hear about Rhodesia—though that will not be till he has collected every conceivable vote in his Common Market Day—has shown his total unconcern, his contempt even, for the modern Commonwealth.
  I take, first, Commonwealth sugar. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was negotiated more than 20 years ago by Board of Trade Ministers, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), under my direction as President of the Board of Trade, and so the House will, I think, afford me some sentiment in this matter.
  I regard the Government's deal over sugar as a betrayal. Yes, I know they will quote in aid the acquiescence of Commonwealth representatives, to say nothing of my noble Friend Lord Campbell of Eskan in this context. With whatever shamelessness this Government

  2083
  can muster, this is what they will argue. I would not have accepted, and no Cabinet I chaired would have accepted, any settlement—[Interruption.]—I hope the right hon. Gentleman could say the same—which failed to maintain the privileged access to the British market accorded by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement or the equivalent access to a wider European market. Under-developed countries in the Commonwealth uniquely dependent for even a minimum standard of living, depended on that agreement, and depend today on the maintenance of the privilege accorded by that agreement.
  When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster caved in on that agreement, after his strong words at tea time—remember, he caved in in the small hours at the coffee and cognac stage—the settlement was immediately condemned by Commonwealth countries, and, indeed, by my noble Friend, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Sugar Exporters Group. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman got to work with the Commonwealth—at a meeting at Lancaster House, I think. Commonwealth countries were concerned, as were hon. Members in all parts of the House, that the negotiations did not provide a bankable proposition—bankable in the sense that sugar is a seven-year crop, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had caved in on a three-year settlement. He called the Commonwealth representatives together and spoke encouragingly in terms of positive commitments going far beyond three years. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to them lie read into the Brussels record, but the Six gave him no undertaking. They simply took note. They said they would aura à coeur what he had said. There was no undertaking that the Common Market countries would maintain the benefits of the C.S.A. Why not? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been negotiating as an equal, not a suppliant, he would have demanded an undertaking.
  As for the Commonwealth representatives, what could they say? If they did not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's note for the record as a bankable proposition, how could they convince the banks to advance the money for a seven-year production period?
  2084
  Their action carries no more conviction than the right hon. learned Gentleman in his other sell out on this question of the beet sugar interests of the Six. The interests of the British housewives and of the Commonwealth countries called forth no response from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I turn to New Zealand. In July I told the House, with quotations no hon. Member, and certainly no member of the then Cabinet, can gainsay, the exact basis on which the Labour Government applied for entry. It may be true that the Commonwealth Press, with their consistent record of selective representation or misrepresentation of any facts inconvenient to them, had some success in suppressing these facts. I quoted, as I say—and I do not think hon. Gentlemen are in a position to query this. I have read much of the arguments in these months about what the Labour Government would or would not have accepted in the final terms. I gave the House the facts. I quoted the basis on which the Labour Government were recommended by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord George-Brown, and myself to apply for entry. No one has denied the reporting of what he and I told to the Cabinet.
  On New Zealand, I set out what my noble Friend and I had said to each and every one of the Heads of Government about the terms on which we would insist for New Zealand. I am not going today to repeat those statements. It is not necessary. They have not been challenged. If hon. Members will refresh their memories by reading the exact words used by my noble Friend in the capitals of the Six, they much accept that the basis of any settlement we then decided that we would regard as acceptable is totally different from what this Government brought home. I repeat that in the recommendations from the Foreign Secretary and myself, on what the then Cabinet made application, it was laid down, and was accepted by the Cabinet, that either by a permanent derogation or a period of transition lasting "for a generation" the British consumer would have a guaranteed right to buy cheap New Zealand butter.
  Right hon. Gentlemen, perhaps the Prime Minister tonight, may argue that such an insistence was unrealistic, that it could not possibly be accepted by the Six.

  2085
  The fact is that after the then Foreign Secretary and I had so argued in all the capitals of the Six—and I set out the precise words we used and which I quoted in July—after we had so argued with the Heads of Government of the Six, there was no demur that this was what we demanded. Five out of the Six, nevertheless, urged us to make our application without delay, knowing what our terms were. The sixth, General de Gaulle, did not want us in on any terms.
  It will be argued—it has been argued—that the New Zealand Government have accepted the terms. They were closely involved in the negotiations, and again I ask: what else could they have said? What they have said has not been endorsed by the Labour Opposition in New Zealand. I emphasise that. The New Zealand Tory Government could hardly, after their involvement in the negotiations, have gone back and admitted to their electorate that they had about one-tenth of 1 per cent. as much influence with a British Tory Prime Minister as the President of France had; still less did they wish to see the electors as a whole arguing that the President of France held the key to Britain's entry and to that extent could dictate the terms. Indeed, still less again could they argue that a British Prime Minister, contrary to his General Election pledges to the British housewife, contrary to the national interest, was more concerned to meet French demands to secure hundreds of millions to subsidise inefficient French farmers than he was to discharge our obligations to the immeasurably more efficient New Zealand farmers. No. What the New Zealand Government said is not conclusive here.
  The condemnation of this Government is not that they failed to secure terms which would have ensured that the Labour Government's stated requirements were met. The condemnation of them is that they did not even try. The pass was sold in the Elysée. Some would say that that is arguable. I believe the pass was sold first in the British Cabinet by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  While I am on the subject of New Zealand, I hope the Prime Minister will comment on reports in the New Zealand Press this week about the British Government's levy on the New Zealand lamb. This was, of course, oriented to Market
  2086
  entry, but was introduced independently of it; and since it was introduced before we knew what the terms were, it must have been a deliberate decision of the Government irrespective of whether or not we got in. It has created a total crisis in New Zealand lamb production, with the likelihood of a large number of producers going out of business. That of itself means, with virtual certainty, an acute shortage and high prices for the British consumer.
  I understand that the New Zealand Government have appealed for urgent action by the Government, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to comment on reports, said to derive from Whitehall sources, that the British Government said that they would take no action on New Zealand's request, or even discuss it, until tonight's vote was in the bag.
  I pass briefly over the other constituents in the terms we negotiated. First, fisheries. This is not only a matter of importance to the constituencies of 20 or more hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was the subject of a remarkable announcement by the Chancellor of the Duchy in Brighton when he said:
  "I will make this clear this afternoon".—
  We saw him say this on televsion:
  "we should not sign a Treaty of Accession which would commit us to the present fisheries policy, nor would we accept any arrangement which did not satisfactorily protect our legitimate interests."
  Despite this uncharacteristically robust pronouncement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, hon. Members will not know the outcome about fisheries until after the vote tonight. A Minister who has shown his ability to surrender on major issues overnight is playing the fisheries issue long. Could there be a reason? What is it? The Market correspondent of the pro-Market Guardian reported on 16th October under the headline "E.E.C. Lets Fishing Issue Dangle":
  "The Common Market countries are going along with Britain's unofficial—but no less clear—request that they should not reach a common negotiating position over access to fishing waters until after the parliamentary vote on E.E.C. entry on October 28th."
  It went on to speculate that no action would be taken in the Norway negotiations either, since Norway might insist on and get, better terms than Britain. Hon.

  2087
  Members in all parts of the House may have their own views on whether this is the best way to secure Britain's interests on fisheries, but they can have little doubt that it is a contemptuous way to treat Parliament.
  The question of regional policies I shall leave for the moment while I refer to what I believe to be the key issue, which is the financial burden and the commitments laid on Britain by every aspect of the terms negotiated, and principally by the Government's total surrender on the common agricultural policy.
  The Government have not given their estimate of the cost to our balance of payments. We pressed them to do so in July. We urged them to publish a White Paper and have a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Duchy was particularly reticent, even for him, and misleading on Monday about the figure he disseminated during the summer. He sought to deny it when challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Later he conceded that there was a figure. It was, of course, £500 million a year.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Could not the right hon. Gentleman, just on this one occasion, abandon this degenerate fondness he has for trivial fallacies? [Interruption.] I thought I made it perfectly clear that I had said nothing at all privately that I had not said publicly. The only figure I used—I quoted it—was the one I gave when I said that we might have a balance of payments surplus of £1,700 million. I agreed that that was the utmost, or optimistic edge, but everything else I said, whatever the newspapers may have quoted from published sources, did not go beyond what I have said publicly in this House.
  Mr. Wilson: I entirely respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention. I was hoping to come to this point in more detail shortly. When I do, perhaps he will then allow me to quote what he has said in the House. He has been wrong again—in what he just said—and when I have dealt more fully with the statements he has made in the House, I will, of course, allow him, if he wishes, to intervene again.
  2088
  The fact remains that we have had no statement from the Government except this figure of £500 million, which was quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Rippon Mr. Rippon indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wilson: I can only give my understanding of the matter.
  Authoritative calculations suggesting not £500 million but £700 million, or even more, have been put forward as the cost to our balance of payments. Indeed, some of these, based on entirely reasonable assumptions, give a figure rising to over £1,000 million in the early 80s. I grant that this is a sphere in which estimates are bound to be speculative and controversial.
  On visible trade, the whole Government case is that Britain's destiny will be changed by the reduction of Europe's tariff on manufacturers from 7½ per cent. to nil over four and a half years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said in the debate last week, the advantage is less than the appreciation of the deutschemark and the yen. And the deutschemark-yen appreciations are much more painless. They are gained without having to pay hundreds of millions of £s a year in subventions to the European agricultural welfare state for the privilege of joining the Community.
  There is general agreement—I am still speaking about exports and imports in terms of visible trade—that in the early years we shall fare badly. Our tariff on manufacture is higher than that of the Market, and certainly keen exporters will exploit this.
  This point was well made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was reported on 20th May as having said that Britain's external trade was likely to drop in the early period of Common Market membership. He said that there would be "a downturn", and went on:
  "It is likely to prove the case that the balances 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."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and fairly so; and, of course, in the short-term it will, therefore, be harmful

  2089
  net. It will deteriorate, though in the longer-term, perhaps after 1978, it might improve. The right hon. Gentleman was, I thought, eloquent and strong about what he thought were the long-term advantages after 1978. The Chancellor of the Duchy argued on Monday, however, that any discussion of what would happen after 1978 was "irrelevant"—and that was his word.
  On invisibles, I think there may be better prospects, and probably the City stands to gain a good deal from our entry. It may well do so because of our invisible exports. Our calculations in the February 1970 White Paper suggested a deterioration for some years, and, rather to my surprise, not one argument has been produced from the Treasury Bench to suggest otherwise.
  Capital movements are likely to be adverse, and possibly heavily adverse. We are, far more than any of the Six, highly vulnerable to short-term capital movements, and these, as successive Governments have learnt—this was said by the Home Secretary in 1968 on the radio—are capable of developing on a multimillion pound scale whenever there is doubt about our balance of payments and whatever Government are in power.
  But this is not all. When the then Foreign Secretary and I—I am now taking a point that was thrown at me in a selective quotation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday—were in discussion with the Heads of Government of the Six early in 1967, we clearly warned that special arrangements, special derogations from the E.E.C. policy, would be required, and, as I tried to point out yesterday in an intervention, we said this for one main reason—the provisions made by the Six on these matters make no discrimination between short-term capital movements within the Six and between the Six and the outside world.
  For a generation successive British Governments have maintained a comprehensive system of exchange controls to prevent the free movement of funds to the outside world, varying from time to time in method and intensity but never varying in determination to check an outward flow of funds on British resident account. On the right terms of entry—right in balance of payments terms—I would have far less fear of movements
  2090
  from Britain across the Channel, to Paris or Frankfurt, than I would have of movements from Paris or Frankfurt, through London and then across the Atlantic. Our terms, clearly stated in 1967, required control over the movements of British funds to Europe until an effective ring fence was erected around Europe to prevent triangular transactions under which a British house could, almost simultaneously—with two telephones linked to, say, Brussels or Paris, and New York—transfer millions and millions to Europe, to be followed within seconds by a further transfer to Wall Street. This is what we set out to ensure, and I am not satisfied, in the terms negotiated by the Government, that this has been done.
  On top of this, in my view—others may disagree; many of us are bound to disagree on many of these questions—there would be a further loss of capital as a result of the Pompidou-Heath deal about a progressive run-down of sterling balances. We have not been told exactly what it means, but unless that was backed by a simultaneous special creation of long-term international liquidity, this could mean, under a 20-year run down exercise, the loss of a further £100 million or so across the exchanges each year, unless there was especial cover by an international creation of credit.
  All I have referred to is, in the main, short-term capital. What about the long-term capital? Here again, different views may be taken, both in the short and in the long run. We heard the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment in his unequal cross-talk act with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on Monday evening. My view on this question—unless one believes in fairies in international capitalism—is that the movement would be adverse to Britain and, more than possibly, heavily adverse. In this context, hon. Members will have seen the calculation of Professor Cooper of Yale, arguing on the basis of the relative profitability in recent years of capital investment in Britain compared with that of capital investment in the Six, that that movement of long-term capital would be heavily adverse to Britain.
  So there is little in any sector of the balance of payments, on trade account or capital movements account, to suggest

  2091
  anything but a heavy drain on our balance of payments as a result of the terms negotiated. Having said all this, it is Hamlet without the Prince because, as the House knows, the key factor in our balance of payments is the commitment the Government have entered into on the financing of the E.E.C. agricultural programme. We must accuse right hon. Gentlemen opposite of frivolity, not only in their negotiations but in their presentation of what they have negotiated to the House.
  The Government's case in defence of what they have given away—we have heard a lot of this during the summer, but rather less in the last week or two—is that the gap between the world prices we pay and Common Market's managed prices will narrow as compared with recent years. There is no warrant for this, except an assumption based on two years' bad harvests. This year's good harvest is widening the gap. The world grain market has collapsed, and consumers and livestock rearers all over the world are deriving benefit from it, but not in Britain because of the Government's levies. But the very size of the levies, related to grain prices which are far below Common Market prices, shows the shape of things to come. Meanwhile, they are burning grain in America, which does not suggest to me that there will be this narrowing of the gap about which we have heard.
  But even since the House last debated this, a new factor has emerged widening the gap and forcing a still larger balance of payments burden on Britain on the C.A.P. account and, incidentally, by an estimate which I have seen, raising by 6 per cent. the already excessive burden of rising food prices falling on housewives, which entry to the Market will mean.
  Hon. Members will have seen the lead story in the Sunday Times Business News on 24th October under the heading,
  "U.K. faces massive $ crisis bill".
  The Economics Editor makes this assertion:
  "A new wave of increases in Common Market food prices and import levies, which would raise both British food prices and the U.K.'s contribution to the Community Budget, is now foreseen in Washington following a new analysis by officials of the backwash of the impending international currency realignment.
  2092
  "They foresee grain support prices in France, Italy, Britain and Denmark going up, by an average of as much as 6 per cent. As the import levies would go up too, America's already-dwindling grain exports to Europe could be stopped, and bigger grain surpluses would flow outward from Europe and spoil America's world-wide grain sales.
  "For Britain, the threatened increases would add to her entry costs, over and above the price increases envisaged at the time membership was being negotiated."—
  That was three months ago—
  "They would add to prices in the shops, and proportionately rather more to the balance of payments cost."
  The C.A.P. is an established feature of the Market in the second five years of its development. In its present form, it is General de Gaulle's price for accepting French involvement in a Community he had not himself taken any part in creating and which, in many of its aspects, he actively disliked. From the moment he took office—this he made clear, publicly clear, beyond doubt—he made its subordination to the requirements of French national policy, especially on agriculture, his condition for not precipitately wrecking the Community.
  In the earlier speeches in the debate, the Minister of Agriculture and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made great play of one quotation from my speech in the debate on 8th May, 1967—I kept asking them to read the other relevant part—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at it again yesterday. The reason for their selective quotation—I am not accusing them of any lack of good faith—is that they were taking all their briefing from the Tory Central Office's dirty little red book clearly written by schoolchildren for people of a less than mature age. The Ministers concerned, one after another, refused to read out the key words about the terms of entry, even when I generously gave them the column reference. So I shall read it to them. I ask for their close attention:
  "'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 sharing of the financial cost and impose on our balance of payments an additional burden which we should not in fairness be asked to carry'".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1070.]
  Why could not they have quoted that? Admittedly it is not in the book. Those

  2093
  words were not only said on 8th May, but they were a direct quotation from my statement on 2nd May announcing the application, and from the Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 3269, for which right hon. Gentlemen as well as the Government voted. More than that, those words represented much fuller statements on the same lines made by my noble Friend, and by myself, to each of the Common Market Prime Ministers whom he had met before deciding to submit the application. This is what we said to each of them. More than that, the House should know that we made this point to the Commission when we met them in Brussels on the same series of visits. They accepted that the existing arrangements would be inequitable on the C.A.P. as it then existed—but I say, as it then existed. But that was when we should have been accepting an obligation to surrender 90 per cent. only of food levies, not the 100 per cent. of today; there was no suggestion then of the whole of our Customs duties—and we are a leading trading nation, if not the leading trading nation, on imports other than foods—nor did it then involve the further burden of an automatic transfer of up to 1 per cent. of the yield of V.A.T. When we said then, as we did, that calculations on 90 per cent. of the levies were inequitable and that we could not accept this—and that was the position before the Cabinet in 1967—how much more unacceptable would be all those further burdens now accepted by right hon. Gentlemen?
  That was in fact the basis of our application. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that there was something dishonest about making an application to see whether we could get the right terms: he thought that was really not quite comme il faut. I remind him that that is not only what his manifesto said at the last election but that our commitment is no more and no less than what his Government did; because in 1961, when the Prime Minister himself was Britain's Common Market negotiator, that negotiation was on the basis of a Parliamentary Motion which clearly set out the basis of the negotiations.
  This is what the Motion said:
  "That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see
  2094
  if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after"
  and then it set out about the consultations.
  That is what the Chancellor voted for in 1961. That was the basis of the negotiations between 1961 and 1963. So much for the Chancellor's argument yesterday that it was dishonest to negotiate in order to see what we could get.
  Our application and every statement made in the House, outside the House and in our General Election manifesto, made it clear that, although the Labour Government saw great political advantage in entry on the right terms, a Britain strong through her own efforts, with an unchallengeable trade and payments position such as we handed over to right hon. Members opposite—£600 million surplus, very different from £800 million deficit—was not prepared to see that strength destroyed by crippling terms of entry.
  I believe that the terms so frivolously negotiated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman inevitably have that effect. They involve an intolerable and disproportionate burden on every family in the land and, equally, on Britain's balance of payments.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not, as he rushes to admit, given us any calculations about what our contribution to the Common Fund will be compared with that of others. We must rely on such calculations as have been made. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not agree with these calculations—he would carry more conviction if he would give us his own—but I do not think that he will disagree with the general relativity of these calculations.
  At the end of a surprisingly short transition period—it is a short period, much shorter than the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for last June—we shall be transferring by levies and other imposts placed on the family budget—that is, transferring across the exchanges—a total sum which, it has been estimated, after allowing for estimated receipts the other way from the Fund, would mean

  2095
  a net outgoing from Britain of £470 million a year, against £131 million net outgoing for Germany, minus £2 million for Italy—that is a net gain for Italy—minus £27 million—a net bonus—for Belgium and Luxembourg, a £179 million benefit for the Netherlands net, and £315 million for France, mainly paid for, for the lot of them, by what will be exacted from Britain.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to give his own estimates if he does not agree with those. At least I do not think that he will for one moment disagree with the view that, if the figures are reasonably accurate—they may be wrong in detail because of the speculative nature of what is involved—Britain will be making a big payment across the exchanges to the Common Fund and with the exception of Germany, which will be paying less than Britain, all the others will be making a net gain out of the Common Fund as a result of our contribution from the British taxpayer and the British housewife.
  It is virtually inevitable, not only that our total, but also the disparity between it and the other countries, will grow in the years following 1978.
  I must tell the House again that the Labour Government, before making their application, made it clear to every Head of Government of the Six that we could not accept such a disproportionate burden. This cannot be gainsaid. What we said capital by capital is on the record. It was summarised in my statement to the House on 2nd May, 1967, in the quotation that the right hon. Gentleman could not read out, quoted in the White Paper, and quoted again in the debate on 8th May. It was the definitive statement governing our application for entry. It has been my definitive position throughout and is today, and it involves a total rejection of the Government's terms.
  This is not all. It is not only a question of what we asked for—
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: We understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not particularly like the terms. Will he now tell the House whether the Labour Party is officially in principle in favour of Britain's joining the Community if satisfactory terms can be obtained because otherwise those who go into the "No" lobby will not
  2096
  know what they are voting for and what they are voting against?
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's apparently not having read or understood what I said in the debate in July when I said clearly, repeating the statement which I had made from the Government Front Bench and at party conference after party conference—
  Sir T. Beamish: Answer.
  Mr. Wilson: Listen.
  Sir T. Beamish Sir T. Beamish rose—
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me a question and then, when I am in the middle of a sentence answering him, he rises. I will begin again, hoping that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is listening this time. I am sorry that he did not hear or read—it is in HANSARD—what I said here in July—
  Sir T. Beamish: I did.
  Mr. Wilson:—repeating everything that I had said on the Government Front Bench, at my party conferences and in our election manifesto, namely, that we saw great advantage in getting into Europe if the terms were right, but that, if the terms were wrong, we thought that Britain was strong enough to stand outside and prosper. I am sorry if there was a little misunderstanding between us, because I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did want to listen.
  Sir T. Beamish: A very bad answer.
  Mr. Wilson: As I said when I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
  Mr. Sandys: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he make it absolutely clear, because these references to past speeches are not wholly satisfactory in a debate, that it still remains the official policy of the Labour Party to seek entry into the European Economic Community provided that the terms are satisfactory?
  Mr. Wilson: I was hoping to come to that point at a proper moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to make speeches in their own way. I was intending to come to the point raised by the right

  2097
  hon. Gentleman. I can well understand why some hon. Gentlemen are anxious that I do not pursue the question of the present Government's terms on C.A.P., because I was just about to say that when I interrupted the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last Thursday, when he was making his favourite selective quotation from his little red book, I not only challenged him to read to the House what I have just read, which the right hon. Gentleman refused to do, but I made another point which is relevant to the present position.
  The C.A.P. of 1967, indefensible as it was, and entry on the then terms being indefensible, as I made clear, it was interesting that not one of the five Heads of Government with whom my noble Friend and I discussed this defended the C.A.P. or could find anything good to say of it. Some were caustic in their criticisms. I say five Heads of Government, because the comments of General de Gaulle were much more stratospheric and did not deal with such questions. Indefensible as they regarded it, the C.A.P. as it exists today is an entirely different animal. President Pompidou in the autumn of 1969 greeted the onset of negotiations by a determination, accepted at the E.E.C. summit, that the C.A.P. would be completed, finalised and put beyond all doubt and argument above and beyond the ability of any negotiations to change. That was completed after and not before I had made our Government's last pronouncement, in the White Paper, and my accompany statement, in February, 1970.
  There is a further factor. The suggestion has been made in the House in debate, and outside, that the terms that the Government have negotiated represent or are in some way related to a negotiating position, paper or statement agreed to by the Labour Government before we left office. This is, indeed, asserted in the present Government's White Paper. This I categorically repudiate. No negotiating position, no statement, was ever submitted to the Labour Cabinet in the June, 1970, negotiations, or to any Cabinet Committee of which I was chairman or, indeed, to any representative body at top Ministerial level of which I had any knowledge, and no paper was submitted to me for
  2098
  approval which could be regarded as in any way a statement of our negotiating position. That is another myth discounted, and I shall be just as surprised if that is printed in the pro-Market Press tomorrow as I would be if any other such discounting material were to appear.
  That being so, right hon. Gentlemen opposite must take full responsibility for the position that was put to the Six at the opening of the negotiations, as they must take full responsibility for the conduct of the negotiations at every stage. This I am sure they accept. I am sure they accept full responsibility for all that they have done in the negotiations.
  I do not underrate the difficulties that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster faced in these negotiations. None of us would. My criticism of him is that he weakly bowed to the E.E.C. decision and meekly accepted an intolerable burden for Britain. It was this which resulted in terms which can only mean an unacceptable burden, in terms of prices, on the balance of payments on the average British housewife, and an equally unacceptable burden on the balance of payments of our nation as a whole.
  I will tell the House what this means for all of us, especially for those of us such as myself who saw in entry to the Market on the right terms the opportunity of sustained growth, export-led growth, in a wider market, and, no less important, an outlet on the basis of a wider market, for our technological industries capable of leading Europe. The essence of modern technological industry is the enormous cost of research projects, and the still greater costs of developing that research into production processes, which, with the risk and, indeed, the certainty of industrial projects going wrong, require a large market for the successes to pay their own cost and the cost of the failures. This is a valid argument that many of us have used. But in the last 16 months we have seen British technology dealt one blow after another by a Government preoccupied by a free market—Rolls-Royce, Upper Clyde and now Britten-Norman—a world beater—where a cash flow problem has been brought to a head by arbitrary action by a clearing bank, despite the bulging order book, mainly from abroad. There is the other argument that many of us have used, the wider argument,

  2099
  on the economies gained from large-scale production, though I do not wish to get into too much controversy with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall have the pleasure of conferring the degree of Doctor of Technology on him on Saturday morning, so at least he will be in my lobby then. I hope this will inspire him to take more interest in technology when he becomes a Doctor of Technology rather than a destroyer of it.
  The wider argument about the economies gained from large-scale production is one that many of us have accepted. But this pre-supposes that we are economically free—as with our strong balance of trade surplus we are today free—to go all out for economic expansion, with full employment, so that we can take advantage of the economies of large-scale production. But, on these terms which have emerged, the balance of payments burden means that we shall not be free. It is this fact which underlies the fallacy of what the Chancellor of the Duchy admits he told journalists after misleading the House on Monday by completely denying that he had said any such thing. He now tells us that what he told them, that one particular point which was seized on,
  "was that I said we could have an overall improvement in our balance of payments of £1,700 million by the end of the period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1249.]
  This is not so. What the Press printed was his indoctrination that G.N.P. would rise by £2,200 million—not balance of payments—while the balance of payments effect would be minus £500 million. In that event, they were instructed, the net gain to the economy would be only about £1,700 million a year. It is on the record. It is not a gain of £1,700 million to the balance of payments, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to tell the House on Monday, and he repeated it this afternoon.
  This is illiterate. The £2,200 million he postulated from increased production which he assumes would emerge from the magic wand of joining the Market. Even if he were right—and I do not agree that he is right—this has nothing to do with the balance of payments. One cannot subtract from £2,200 million increase in G.N.P. £500 million on the balance of payments and call it a net gain of £1,700
  2100
  million to the economy, least of all, as the right hon. Gentleman did on Monday, call it a £1,700 million gain to the balance of payments. I shall not torment the right hon. Gentleman further. I will put this question to him.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman want to reply?
  Mr. Wilson: I will put this to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose that one envisages a consumer boom in this country yielding £2,200 million extra production. Would that automatically accrue, wholly or in part, to improving the balance of payments? All experience under successive Governments since the war proves the opposite. Expansion can be soundly based only if the balance of payments is kept strong by specific policies to help exports, policies which the present Government reject and which entry into the Market on these terms would preclude.
  The same argument applies to employment. Entry into the Market on these terms is a prescription for more unemployment and not less. I think this is reinforced by anxieties about the regions, so forcefully advanced on Tuesday. In 1967, for reasons which I have given the House, I was somewhat reassured about our ability within the Market to pursue the regional policies which we consider necessary. I think this has been quoted this week in the House. For the reasons I gave in July, and I will not repeat today—they have been reinforced by reports coming from Brussels—we no longer have that reassurance because of policies for public industry—coal and steel, E.C.S.C. pricing policies, transport cost policies, because of policies for private industry, and the growing pressure to ban so many of the incentives which successive Governments have considered necessary. I.D.C.s would be meaningless, R.E.P. investment allowances and many of the decisive operations used under the Local Employment Act, and certainly some of the special development area incentives, would be out.
  I invite right hon. Gentlemen who have taken a contrary view in this debate to study the exact mechanism, assistance-varied, comprehensive, which added up two years ago to a sufficient incentive to get the Leyland bus factory established in hard-hit Cumberland, and say, not

  2101
  before tonight perhaps, how much of this would have been allowed under the rules of the Community. It is a fair test.
  In this debate, I do not believe the House has fully come to terms with the major change in world economic relationships as a result of the events of 15th August, President Nixon's statement and all that followed. The Six, at their meeting, immediately after the statement, even with the Chancellor of the Exchequer waiting outside the door until the Six had deliberated—and when the door was opened, I thought he talked more sense than they did—have presented the world with a sorry spectacle. It is a shambles which is steadily getting worse. The deep rift between Germany and France has widened, this morning's Press says, to its widest for many years, and there is talk of a summit to attempt to bridge it.
  It is a widely held view, not just mine, that the Government's preoccupation with not upsetting the Six, and, above all, with grovelling to their French patrons, which is what they have been doing, has decisively weakened British influence in this crisis.
  I grant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, when he finally found his tongue at the I.M.F., he said a great deal which we could applaud, and he spoke the language of sucecssive Chancellors in this country, from the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friends the two Labour Chancellors onwards, in terms of the creation of new international liquidity, free of any link with gold, the language of special drawing rights, and the proposals of successive Governments to build on special drawing rights as a new source of liquidity.
  But that speech was six weeks after the crisis began, six weeks during which our influence was needed, and was not there. Hon. Members will have seen how The Times reported the matter last month:
  "…the Americans were apparently particularly cross with the British for ganging up with the Europeans on the gold price issue rather than making constructive suggestions…There is a strong suspicion in American minds that, as the price of Briitsh entry into the Common Market, Mr. Heath promised M. Pompidou British support for French anti-American monetary policies and that pressure from Downing Street and the Foreign Office is preventing the British Treasury from playing its usual constructive role in the Group of Ten."
  2102
  The same line has been taken by commentators in other pro-Market papers. There must be some reason. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has prevented us from exercising our influence.
  These things are relevant when we hear so much from right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the influence that European accession would bring us, and all we have heard, and, no doubt, shall hear today, about the political case for entry. In nine Ministerial speeches in this debate, we have, in fact, heard little on this subject from right hon. Gentlemen, except for a few amiable generalities from the Foreign Secretary in opening. The effect of the rest of the speeches from Ministers on this particular question of world influence recalls the immortal words of Ernest Bevin—"cliche after cliche after cliche".
  There may, indeed, be a reason, a serious reason, for this. The real political case for Europe—I do not share it, and the Prime Minister has said several times that he does not share it—is the federal case. Many of the pro-Marketeers on both sides of the House and many young people throughout Europe have this vision, and they are entitled to respect. But if Ministers share that as a long-term objective, if they vaguely hope that something will evolve from what the early Fabians would have called "gas and water Europeanism" into a political reality in Europe, it seems to have been their present purpose this week to deny it. They are playing down, even denying, such unworthy suspicions, because they dare not lose support by even a hint of supra-nationality or loss of sovereignty—not in economic but in still more sensitive political matters. At any rate, that is their posture today, and until the long weary series of parliamentary procedures which they envisage is complete.
  The E.E.C., as it stands today, was recently described in a pro-Market Sunday paper as a Monopolies Commission writ large. That is not true. It is a Monopolies Commission writ large on which there has been superimposed a gigantic public assistance committee, handing out doles without any means test to European farmers. The difficulty right hon. Gentleman have is to show just how joining such an organisation of itself generates the political revolution in

  2103
  Britain's position in the world which, one after another, they have postulated.
  On political matters, I think it necessary again to warn right hon. Gentlemen and the House. At all points in our debates, from 1961—I think that that was the first time the mess of pottage argument was used in relation to a nuclear package—and throughout these 10 years, some of us have consistently warned about any policies relating European entry to questions of nuclear defence. Last week, answering questions about the article in Le Monde and about the MacMahon Act, the right hon. Gentleman said that his views on these matters had been the same for six years. I long suspected that this was so, though he was singularly unforthcoming about them in the House for a long time and totally dumb on the subject at the General Election. I hope that he will be explicit tonight and, in particular, will tell us whether it is his view that any change in the MacMahon Act should be sought from Congress, and whether this and related matters were discussed in any shape or form in the Elysée.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) asked me about the position of the Labour Party in relation to the Community. I had already answered his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), but I now wish, before coming to a conclusion, to deal with the position of a Labour Government coming into office, after accession to the Community, in, say, 1973 or 1974.
  The answer to this question was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) quite recently. As is well known, one Parliament cannot bind its successor. On the other hand, we recognise what is involved in a treaty signature. What we should do—this was made clear by my right hon. Friend—would be immediately to give notice that we could not accept the terms negotiated by the Conservatives, and, in particular, the unacceptable burdens arising out of the C.A.P., the blows to the Commonwealth, and any threats to our essential regional policies.
  If the Community then refused to negotiate, as we should have asked, or if the negotiations were to fail, we would
  2104
  sit down amicably and discuss the situation with them. [Laughter.] Well, neither coffee nor cognac but British beer, at its present standards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have been asked the question and I am giving the answer. We should make clear from that moment our posture—[Laughter.] This is a frivolous response to a serious question by the right hon. Member for Streatham. The right hon. Gentleman was entitled to ask it, and I am entitled to reply. It is a serious matter.
  We should make clear that our posture, like that of the French after 1958, would be rigidly directed towards the pursuit of British interests and that all other decisions and actions in relation to the Community would be dictated by that determination, until we had secured our terms. They might accept this, or they might decide that we should agree to part that would depend on them. That is our position.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough) rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to give way, but we must get on.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I have given way a good deal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, lie must resume his seat.
  Mr. Wilson: I apologise, but I have given way several times, and I want now to come to the end.
  I have referred to the speeches which we have heard during the debate. What appals me is their utter defeatism and their utter loss of any confidence in Britain and the British people. The impression I have increasingly gained this week is that Ministers, who knew all the answers, in May and June, 1970—on prices, on unemployment, the lot—are now desperately staking their all on entry into Europe, not as a coherent policy but as an escape from the realities they find themselves powerless to deal with. The Secretary of State for Social Services,

  2105
  for example, is reported as having said in Macclesfield,
  "I have to tell you that jobs in this country depend on joining Europe."
  That is not what they said in June, 1970—and all this regardless of the warnings of his colleagues from trade and industry, who had fairly warned of the worsening in the situation in the early years.
  The most pathetic intervention was that of the right hon. misnomer, the Secretary of State for Employment, who talked unhappily about the unemployment situation. Each month we have him expressing his amazement at the increase in the unemployment figures, and now he is even blaming his officials for getting their forecasts wrong. He must know that he is only in his office because enough people believed the right hon. Gentleman when he promised to reduce unemployment at a stroke. The right hon. Gentleman must bear the responsibility. If he misled the people then, no one will believe him now when in his vague way he says that jobs depend on getting into Europe.
  He must carry the responsibility, as the Prime Minister must carry the full responsibility for his clear commitments about Europe to the British people before and during the General Election. His claim to a mandate, which he did not seek and did not obtain, is shown to be false by his manifesto:
  "Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less."
  a sentence the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary forgot to read last week.
  Further, the right hon. Gentleman said in May last year:
  "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 B.B.C. television, on "Election Forum", he said:
  "…no British Government could possibly take this country into the Common Market against the wish of the British people…"
  He must tell us tonight whether he believes he has secured the full-hearted consent of the British people. I hope for his sake, because I wish him well, that he will do better than he did on "Panorama" a week or two ago, when he confirmed that it was still his view that
  2106
  "No British Government could possibly take…this country into the Common Market against the wish of the British people."
  Asked about that, he said that he had had
  "…a lot of letters from official organisations…I would have said that the organisations have become more and more strongly in support of our entry into the Community."
  The C.B.I., no doubt, the Chambers of Commerce, the employers, the merchant banks—oh yes! But not the trade union movement, not the pensioners, not the unemployed, not the housewife, not even the Housewives' League, if it exists today.
  Mr. William Molloy: Not even Bexley.
  Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman holds his office not by the suffrage of the organisations. He has no mandate, for he sought none and obtained none, to take Britain into the Common Market except with the full-hearted consent of the British people. That is not at his command, and no vote of this House can of itself redeem his personal pledge to the British people.
  We have warned what it must mean for the right hon. Gentleman, by whatever subterfuge, to take a divided and embittered people—divided and embittered by his policies—into Europe. Let him now seek from those people the mandate he spuriously claims by submitting this, and all his policies, to the free vote of a free British people.
  4.54 p.m.
  The Secretary of Slate for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There is one point on which there will be universal agreement, and that is the importance of the vote to be taken tonight. That being so, the best service I can give the House is to try to analyse the issues upon which the House will be asked to vote tonight. We have no reasoned Amendment before us, for fairly obvious reasons. I understand that there is determination by the official Opposition to vote against the Motion.
  I and my hon. Friends want to be quite clear exactly where the Opposition stand on the issue. The Leader of the Opposition said, as he rightly said in the debate in July, that
  "…the official position of the party, since 1962, at the time of the application in 1967,

  2107
  and at all times since has been support for entry given the right terms, the necessary conditions and the essential safeguards…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1472.]
  If that is the official point of view, we are entitled to say that there has been a fair number of rather unofficial speeches from the Opposition Front Bench in this debate. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), in a powerful speech, was not exactly friendly to the idea of joining the Common Market in principle, nor was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
  The Opposition Front Bench has suffered a considerable sea change since last the subject was debated under a Labour Government. Then the speakers supporting the now Leader of the Opposition were the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) and Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever)—rather different from the team supporting him now.
  Therefore, I hope that we can take it from what the Prime Minister said—[Interruption.]—in reply to interventions that the official position of his party remains quite definitely that it is in favour of joining the Common Market if the terms are right.
  An Hon. Member: The right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the Opposition, not the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Maudling: I meant the Leader of the Opposition. My mind sometimes dwells in the past, and very often on what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said in the past. I shall use some of their statements in my remarks.
  Let us be clear, therefore, that the Opposition's argument is that it supports entry given that the terms are right. The right hon. Gentleman has himself stressed in the past the enormous advantages of the wider market and the growth of the technological community. He has stressed it often, but he did not stress it very much this afternoon. [Interruption.]
  The right hon. Gentleman has also referred in the past to the political importance of our joining the Common Market. He said that there had not been enough reference to that in this debate, and
  2108
  perhaps there is something in what he says about that. I attach enormous importance to the political consequences of joining the European Community. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that
  "…the Government's purpose derives, above all, from our recognition that Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and that we can—and indeed must play our full part in it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746; c. 313–14.]
  Everyone will agree with those words; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself back in 1967, when he was passionately advocating both the economic and the political advantages of joining the Common Market.
  So we come to the following position, that the argument about which we are voting tonight, as explained by the Opposition, is not about the principle of joining the Community but about whether the terms are right. We must balance the economic and political advantages of membership, accepted by the official Opposition, against the possible disadvantages of the terms before the House.
  I will analyse, as did the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, the terms and the particular points to which he attached importance in his speech in July. They were the balance of payments, capital movements, Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand. He has gone through all of them today. They have all been points that the Opposition have been resting their case upon, and they are the points that we must analyse when we decide how we are to vote. There were one or two other points that he added subsequently: fisheries, regional policy, and iron and steel. I will also refer to them later on. I want to deal in detail with precisely the points the right hon. Gentleman has raised and the fundamental argument, which is about the terms we are now discussing.
  The question whether a Labour Government would have done any better in the negotiations is often argued. I do not think that it is a major point. I certainly feel it is a bad point. I do not think anyone in Europe who knows the facts thinks for a moment that a Labour Government would have negotiated better terms than have been negotiated by the present Administration.

  2109
  We have great respect for the judgment and ability of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), and we retain that respect. But I do not believe even he could possibly have done better than my right hon. and learned Friend has done in the negotiations which have taken place. Nobody in his right senses believes the governments of the Six, considering their own interests and the interests of Europe—as they would be bound to do in these negotiations—would have given better terms to a Labour Government because it was a Labour Government. This is not the major argument.
  The basic argument is that we have the terms, they are on the table in front of us, and we must consider the consequences of acceptance and the consequences of rejection—to which the Leader of the Opposition did not refer this afternoon. Does he really think he could have got better terms? If we break off now, this not only means rejecting the enormous economic and political advantages of membership, which the right hon. Gentleman has often described, and rejecting them permanently. It would mean a break in the political pattern and cohesion of Western Europe and possibly the whole Western world. This would be a very serious matter indeed.
  If the right hon. Gentleman votes tonight against acceptance of these terms, he will also be voting for acceptance of those consequences, and that is a very serious thing to vote for.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I appreciate his courtesy in giving way. Has he read the recent report of the E.E.C. which is gloomy in the extreme and says that consumption is rising rapidly, that industrial production is stagnating and that investment prospects for 1972 are most disappointing? How can he relate the grandiose dream of his right hon. Friend with a reluctant acquiescence to entering the Common Market?
  Mr. Maudling: I shall come to the economic problems a little later. At the moment, I am dealing with the consequences of a vote against the proposal, and the consequences to our future and to that of Western Europe as a whole would be very serious indeed.
  2110
  I am concerned also with what the right hon. Gentleman said about his action if at some future time he were to become again head of a Government with Britain inside the Community. As I understand it, he said he would sit down amicably with the other members of the Community and say, "These are our terms. Unless you accept them, we walk out."
  Mr. Harold Wilson: No, I did not.
  Mr. Maudling: It sounded extremely like it.
  Mr. Wilson: There was too much noise from behind.
  Mr. Maudling: There is very little noise from behind the right hon. Gentleman now. I believe we should know where the right hon. Gentleman stands. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would correct me if I am wrong. However, as I understand it, he said he would sit down amicably with the other side and present certain terms and, if the terms were not acceptable certain consequences would follow which I understood to be our getting out of the Community.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Obviously against the barrage of noise he did not hear what I said. I have not the exact words I used, but I can recall them. What I said was that we could not accept these terms. I said that one Parliament cannot bind its successor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I said that one Parliament cannot bind its successor, though we recognise what is involved in the signing of the Treaty. I said we would ask for negotiations to be reopened so as to get the right and acceptable terms. If either they refused to do that or if, when the negotiations began, they did not offer acceptable terms, I said that at that stage we should sit down amicably with them. [Interruption.] That is exactly what I said. Hon. Members opposite were too busy muttering to know what I said. I said we would sit down amicably and would make clear that in certain circumstances we would follow a policy such as the French did after 1958, when de Gaulle had a set-up he did not want and did not like but inherited. We would then follow British interests uniquely through this period, and

  2111
  in all our dealings with the Market that would dominate all we did. If when we sat down with them they said, "We had better part company", we would understand. And if they accepted it, we would work it as the French did after 1958.
  Mr. Maudling: That is rather what I thought the right hon. Gentleman said. It was that in the first instance we should sit down amicably, secondly, present our terms; thirdly, if we did not get them we would go on strike; and, fourthly, if they slung us out we would go. It is important to realise what precisely the Leader of the Opposition is saying in this matter. I think that what he is saying is going rather further than, on reflection, he will wish to have done.
  I turn to the four items upon which he bases his case, capital movements, sugar—
  Mr. Harold Wilson: What about my July speech?
  Mr. Maudling: The July speech was very similar to this afternoon's speech. I studied it carefully. I wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman really meant, and a great deal of study very often does not take one very far, but it certainly confirmed that he meant what he said in July.
  I refer to the four items on which the right hon. Gentleman based his case. First, there was capital movements—and I am baffled why the right hon. Gentleman should refer to those. In the opening statement made by the Labour Government in the 1967 negotiations, they said:
  "We fully accept the obligations of membership in this field subject only to a transitional period during which we would by stages bring our policy into line with yours"—
  precisely what we have arranged. There was the further point which I have not overlooked about what he called the "leak" of capital to North America and, in the same statement, the Labour Government said that they were worried about a
  "…possible leak of portfolio investment from the United Kingdom into third countries, particularly North America."
  Then they said:
  "We would propose, if it proves necessary, to take action and deal with it ourselves after consulting you as provided for in Article 70(2)."
  2112
  That is precisely what we have done. In other words, what we have done on capital movements is 100 per cent. what the Labour Government said that they would do.
  I come to the second and third points: Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand agricultural produce. These have always been immensely important points and much in the mind of the House, although not much reference has been made to them by Opposition Front Bench speakers.
  Mr. Fred Peart: What about me?
  Mr. Maudling: I know the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to it, but he always does—he knows the subject. I do not think, apart from him, these two problems have bulked very large in what has been said in the House. The reason is clear. They have been solved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have been solved to the satisfaction of the Governments and producers' boards of the countries concerned. [Interruption.] I know the Leader of the Opposition does not like it. He does not think that those Governments and producers should have agreed. He thinks he knows better than they what their interests are. What he is saying is that in expressing satisfaction with those results achieved by my right hon. and learned Friend those Governments were not telling the truth. I believe they were, and I believe that it is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest anything to the contrary.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone) rose—
  Mr. Maudling: I am sorry. I must get on. I am following a consecutive argument by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and am taking, point by point, what he said. All this is interlinked.
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) knows perfectly well that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, but I am following a consecutive argument.
  I have dealt with the capital movement point and I have demonstrated that both the sugar and the New Zealand products problems have been solved to the satisfaction of the Governments and producers' boards concerned. That leaves of the four original conditions only that about the balance of payments. Therefore, the decision to stay out of the Common Market and to miss all the economic and political advantages which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted time and time again, must rest on this one point of the balance of payments.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: You think so.
  Mr. Maudling: I think so and I find it very difficult to see how the right hon. Gentleman could refute the arguments which I have used in the last five minutes.
  The elements in the balance of payments problem are twofold. There is the major item, the consequence for our balance of trade of membership of the Community, and a second large item, the consequence to our balance of payments of the contribution to Community funds linked with the agricultural policy. These, after all, are the two things which will affect our balance of payments, and it is on these that we must concentrate in deciding how the advantage lies.
  I take first the effect on our trade as a whole, which is by far the biggest item of all. It is generally accepted that there are two elements, impact costs as they are called, and the dynamic effect, the impact costs of what happens as a result of changing our trading position, and the dynamic effects which arise from membership of the Common Market. We must try to assess where the balance between the two will lie.
  Of course it is impossible to make this precise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last night quite clearly that we could not quantify these things, but there are qualitative judgments. It is essential to point out that in this fundamental part of the overseas balance of payment what we have secured is precisely what the Labour Government wanted. They were not asking for special treatment in this
  2114
  respect. The conditions upon which we shall trade in Europe and outside Europe under our agreement are precisely the conditions which they would have accepted themselves. There was no difference and there could be no difference in this matter between what the Labour Government proposed and what we are proposing.
  I believe that the right assessment is:
  "If we take into account the benefit which would result from the expansion in demand for British goods which would come from the dynamic which an enlarged Community would be generating and the enormous and growing market for our own more sophisticated technological products which would result, I believe that within a very short period the balance of payments effect which I have been describing could be not negative but excitingly positive for Britain. And even if this took longer than, I would hope, the short-term balance of payments effects…are…well within our capacity to deal with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1084.]
  I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) disagrees with those words; they were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1967. That was his assessment and I entirely share it.
  Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not possible to quantify the effect on industrial trade of the tariff changes which would result from our entry, but he will be aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster quantified the effects when he spoke in the House on 16th December, last year, when he gave them as between £200 million and £300 million. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is an inevitable consequence of tariff changes, which are the most integral part of joining the Community, but what we argue—and I wish that he would come to it—is that for that reason the foreign exchange contribution which we make to the budget in other respects should be smaller. In spite of that, is it not the case that we should give net to the budget four times as much as Germany, which has a gross national product 50 per cent. higher than ours? That is a figure produced by the Government themselves in the document which they presented to the Commission in June last year, and which they confirmed in December, last year.
  Mr. Maudling: I was coming next to the point of the cost of the contribution to Community funds. I had already said that it was the second item in the balance of payments problem. I was saying that our total trade, running into thousands and thousands of millions, was by far the larger element in this calculation. On that total trade, what we have obtained is precisely what the Labour Government were seeking and it is precisely the situation which the Leader of the Opposition rightly said we should very shortly find was a positive advantage to our balance of payments.
  Mr. Douglas Jay Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—
  Mr. Maudling: Here we go again.
  Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster plainly said on 16th December that in non-food trade there would be a net loss of £200 million to £300 million a year? Is he accepting that or not?
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly answered that time and time again. A precise calculation is not possible in this respect, but I accept the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition that the terms which we have arranged will be a very good thing for this country.
  I come to the one remaining factor of the four conditions, the contribution to Community funds. I state quite categorically, and I am certain that the right hon. Member for Fulham, for instance, will support me in this, that the terms in this regard are as good as could realistically ever have been expected by anyone genuinely seeking to negotiate. The Labour Government knew perfectly well that the decision in December, 1969, was on the basis of the common agricultural policy. They knew that the general framework was a share on entrance in relation to the broadly comparative size of the countries involved and they knew also that transitional arrangements were needed for our protection in the course of negotiation. Transitional arrangements are what we sought; transitional arrangements are what we obtained; transitional arrangements are what the previous Government in their White Paper said
  2116
  they were going to go for. I quote paragraph 43 of that White Paper:
  "For the purposes of illustration, an attempt has been made above to show on various assumptions what the cost of the common agricultural policy might have been for the United Kingdom if we had been a party to the recent agreement by the Community on agricultural financing. But of course we were not, and 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 our full share of the recently agreed Community financial arrangements…"
  That is what the Labour Government said in paragraph 43 of their White Paper; that is what we have done.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of what was said in paragraph 44 on this question, following up something done by hypothesis, as he said. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary, in the debate following publication of the White Paper, said that the whole White Paper represented a statistical analysis and gave no indication at all of our policy in the negotiations.
  Mr. Maudling: I read the whole White Paper, both the preceding and the following paragraphs. The point is simple and it cannot be denied however much the right hon. Gentleman tries to deny it. What the Labour Government were then seeking was transitional arrangements on the starting contribution. We have done precisely that.
  We have negotiated on capital movements; we have negotiated as they would have done on sugar and on New Zealand products; we have the same conditions for the vast bulk of our trade; and we have negotiated a starting contribution and transitional arrangements for our contribution to the Community funds. All four conditions have been met. Therefore, the argument for voting against the Motion rests in fact and in truth not on the terms, but on the fundamental basis of the whole argument.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Maudling: No, I will not give way; I am just coming to the end of my speech and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I have devoted myself in consecutive argument to dealing with the four points of the right hon.

  2117
  Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and to showing that all are bogus.
  Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the subject of sugar. Of course there were negotiations, but would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster achieved in the negotiations and what was actually conceded by the Six?
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "Turning back to sugar, for the developing sugar producer countries of the Commonwealth the terms we have negotiated constitute a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market for sugar for all the developing countries which are signatories of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That is not just my view; it is the view of the Governments of the countries concerned, which have expressed their satisfaction, and of the representatives of the Commonwealth Sugar Exporters' Group and the West India Committee".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1238.]
  I have dealt consecutively with the four points. I now come to what is the real division of opinion in Parliament. That division is not about the terms, but about the merits. It is a real and serious division, not between the two sides of the House but running across both sides. Looking back and reflecting on many of the speeches made in this debate, the difference, it appears to me, is between those of us who take one view and those of us who take a different view of the nature of the Community we seek to enter. There are very different views held about this.
  Those of us who believe in entry believe that we shall be joining a partnership, a group of like-minded people who gain strength by co-operation and who, by safeguarding their own interests, respect the interests of their colleagues. This is the only way common success can be achieved, and this is the way the Community is working. This is the basis of the Luxembourg Agreement.
  This is surely the true spirit of partnership, which is the concept we have in mind. The Community, in practice, has shown that it is outward-looking and conscious in its attitude to international trade, to the liberalisation of international trade, to overseas aid and development. In all these matters the Community has shown up
  2118
  well. Our accession will strengthen those tendencies in the Community to liberalism, to aid, and, above all, the links between the Community and the rest of the world, the Commonwealth and North America. These are the beliefs in which we approach this question of joining the Community. If it is a partnership, as we believe, surely we lose nothing by joining and may gain a great deal.
  There is another view, sincerely held, in which it is believed that by entering we would be surrendering control of our own affairs to a group of foreign countries who would be determined to disregard or to try to override our British interests. This is a fear which, in issues about unemployment and regional policy, runs through the debate. People ask, "Supposing that you are not allowed to do it. Supposing the Commission, the Community, will not let you do what you ought to do in the interests of your people?" Why suppose that? Why suppose that we are joining a lot of people who want to do us down?
  Look at the truth of the way the Community works. Look above all, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, at the views of the Socialists, the Labour Parties and trade unionists in the Six. They do not approach this on the basis that it is designed to stop people getting jobs, to stop a proper regional policy. They believe, having had experience of the workings of the Six, that it has been advantageous to them. It could not have been advantageous to its members unless it had been a good way of dealing with the problems of unemployment and regional policy. The trade unions and the Labour Parties of the Six all agree that the Community has been good for them and they agree that our membership will be good for us and for them. This is the real basic issue. The choice is before us, there is no third alternative. There is no possible deferment. [Interruption.] If we turn our back on Europe now, we turn our back on it for decades.
  I beg hon. Members opposite to realise the seriousness of this and not to jeer and make noises like that. I am convinced, after 15 years or more dealing with European affairs, that if, after all the help we have received from our friends in the Community, we now turn it down, the

  2119
  shock will be traumatic. It is not right for this House of Commons.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Part of the argument of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen is that we have changed our views on Europe. I think we have shown today that we stand where we did in the application. Would the right hon. Gentleman, having referred to his 15 years in Europe, say whether he still agrees with what he said in the House before a certain election following which his Government applied for entry to the Community:
  "I cannot conceive that any Government of this country would put forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of Commonwealth free entry. It would be wrong for us and for the whole free world to adopt a policy of new duties on foodstuffs and raw materials, many of which come from underdeveloped countries, at present entering a major market duty-free."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1381.]
  Is that what he has learned in his 15 years? Why did he say that just before an election and vote for entry immediately afterwards?
  Mr. Maudling: As I recall that quotation, it referred to 1958. I have certainly changed my mind on this, but I would say that it is rather more understandable to change one's mind in 13 years than in 13 months. It is rather more reasonable to change one's views on the basis of a fundamental development in the pattern of world trade and payments than on a sheer geographical transition in the House of Commons.
  The issue tonight has been put before us by the right hon. Gentleman as one of terms. I have analysed the four points he made and shown that what he says about the terms cannot begin to justify an argument for voting against and voting out this opportunity facing the British people. Let us be quite clear that those who vote against the Motion tonight are not voting on the terms, but because they want to remain the littlest of Little Englanders.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I begin by agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition on at least one point. I should like to pay him a tribute for the part that he has played, although, with a certain degree of modesty and self-effacement he failed to take the credit. He
  2120
  rightly said that the campaign for the European movement had been liberally financed. Indeed, it has been and it is fair to say that he, myself and the Prime Minister, if we are not being immodest, must claim some part of the credit for the success of those money-raising activities, by our attendances at the great European Guildhall dinner on 29th July, 1969. I have no doubt that as a pleasant reminder of the occasion, we are all still using the gold pens and pencils given to us as a memento of the occasion.
  Secondly, we must be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us what he will do in the event of a disagreement following the "amicable chat". He will behave, if he were Prime Minister, like some pocket de Gaulle in Europe, rampant nationalism, Britain first, last and foremost. All I say is that I thank God that, when he was Prime Minister, he did not bring those narrow nationalistic ideas either to the policies which were followed at the United Nations or to his dealings with the European Community. One advantage of a Labour Government over a Tory Government is that those nationalistic considerations are less likely to be taken into account than under a Tory Government.
  If I had not been a convinced and converted European from the beginning, at the time of the Schumann Plan I would have been totally convinced and converted by the right hon. Gentleman's speeches from 1967 to 1970 and I would have been reconvinced by the speech he made today.
  There has been much talk about the sovereignty of Parliament and the value of our existing parliamentary institutions. I was one who advocated a free vote in this matter from the very beginning. I was also totally convinced that at the last minute the Prime Minister, albeit for the wrong reasons, would concede a free vote. It was one of the two very handsome bets which I have so far won on the Common Market. The other was one I entered into on 20th June, 1970, that the Leader of the Opposition would change his view on the Common Market.
  If we believe, with Burke, that Parliament should be the great inquest of the nation, then I say in all sincerity, and I can say this because I am a member of a minority who has no connection with either of the two major parties, that the

  2121
  reputation of Parliament will be greatly enhanced, probably more so than by any other single factor, by those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wherever they sit and whatever view they take, who, finding themselves honourably in disagreement with their colleagues, finding it difficult but none the less necessary to carry those convictions into the Lobby, not in company with the majority of their colleagues, do so tonight.
  Nothing to me symbolises more the rights and integrity of free men in a free Parliament. I hope that those who have this courage and integrity so to do will be enabled to carry on, having willed the end, to help to provide the means, or if they are anti-Marketeers, to plead the viewpoint they have expressed. I believe that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will have a higher place in Parliamentary history than the 101 Members of Parliament who said in a much-publicised letter to their Deputy Leader "We do not ask you to change your convictions between now and Thursday but merely to vote against it."
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Where does it say that?
  Mr. Thorpe: I have the letter here for greater accuracy. It says:
  "…we do not expect you, between now and Thursday, to change your mind about the merits or demerits of British entry into the Common Market on the terms so far proposed. But we do urge you to weigh your views on that matter against the damage which your vote and your example might well do to the nation and party."
  If that is not a suggestion first that a Member does not vote according to his conviction and secondly, either abstains or goes into the Lobby against this then I do not know what the English language means. It is no doubt typical of what I believe, if I may put it in the vernacular, to be the "lulu" of the Common Market debate which was the dictum of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) that "Members exercising their integrity could destroy the credibility of the whole party." It seems that those, whether pro or anti-Market on the Labour side who are doing precisely that are doing something to preserve the credibility of the Party not to destroy it.
  I prefer the rugged independence—on the Tory side I take one Back-Bench example—of the hon. Member for
  2122
  Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who gets up and says "I rise to oppose the Motion", being more in the parliamentary tradition than the reception accorded to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who dared to interrupt the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Then we saw democratic Socialism on the march, marching backwards from Europe and attacking anyone who wished to continue to advance. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to refer to "Free Vote Francis", but with his obvious relish for the rigours of three-line whips and the party discipline which he appears so to like, he will go down as "Martial Law Michael". I further believe that those who are asking for the free vote of the British public at a General Election would be more convincing if charity began at home with a free vote for their colleagues in the House of Commons. As for those who believe that the sovereignty of Parliament will be impaired, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) never answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) who asked how, even though the details of the conditions might be different, would a Labour application in any way have made a difference to the question of the sovereignty of the British House of Commons as compared with the current Tory application.
  My record is perfectly plain on the question of a General Election. When the Macmillan Government announced their conversion to the idea of joining Europe I applauded and supported it but suggested that there should first be a General Election because the Tory Party in the 1959 election had campaigned throughout the country against the Common Market.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: Not all.
  Mr. Thorpe: Not all. My own oppoment, supported by the hon. Member for Torquay, opposed the Common Market and it was not officially adopted in 1959. It was quite the reverse. I felt it was right, having no mandate, for the Government to go to the country on that account. We are now in a different situation. I asked the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale where in the Labour Manifesto did it say that a General Election

  2123
  was a re-condition before the Labour Government took the British people into Europe after the terms had been ascertained. He went off on another track and talked about what he said in his constituency, but nowhere did he answer that question.
  On the last page of the Labour Manifesto there is no reference whatever to the intention of a Labour Government to commit the Party or a Labour Government to a General Election before their final opinion was expressed. In case it was left out completely.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The right Hon. Gentleman is all in favour of people speaking for themselves in this House, and so am I. Would he tell us whether he thinks it proper that the last chance that the British public should have to pass judgment on this question of entry into the Common Market should have been in the election of June 1970. Does he think it fair to the British electorate that that should have been the last chance? Let him speak for himself.
  Mr. Thorpe: I never speak for anyone else but myself. [Laughter.] It so happens that, speaking as I do as a free man, my colleagues practically always find themselves in total agreement. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes." The Labour Party manifesto made it quite plain:
  "We have applied for membership of the European Economic Community and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. This will be pressed with determination."—
  Mr. Michael Foot: Go on.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am going on.
  "with the purpose of joining an enlarged community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded."
  Mr. Heffer: Go on.
  Mr. Thorpe: Very well, I will read to the end. This form of political masochism is something new to me. [Interruption.] I went to the Oxford Union three weeks ago where we had a three to one majority. I do not think that it will want me to go back for a little bit. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do wish me to go on—
  Mr. Michael Foot: Enough.
  Mr. Thorpe: I think enough is enough. The point that I am making is that the
  2124
  Labour Party made it perfectly plain that it would pursue its application. If the terms were right, we should join, and there was no reference whatever to having a General Election first. Having read the Labour Manifesto without receiving much help we should seek what inspiration was given to the voters of Huyton or of Leeds, East. If we look at the election addresses of the two right hon. Gentlemen representing those constituencies we see no references to it, still less to Europe. The word never even appears in the election address of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). The nearest he got to foreign policy was discussing east of Suez, and Rhodesia, which he had very nearly made a foreign policy issue through the total independence of that country.
  If we look at the election address of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) again apart from east of Suez there is no reference to need for a General Election, no reference to the question of Europe. All it said, and I am sure it was right, is that he had given good service to his constituents—and I concede that—that he had been visited at his surgeries by thousands of people or they had "nobbled" him in the clubs or written to him in the House of Commons. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that a lot of nobbling has been going on in the last two weeks.
  There is only one hon. Gentleman whom I must acquit of having failed to mention any of these matters or having failed to include them in his election address. I acquit the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Every Labour candidate is asked to send six copies of his election address to Transport House, and I regret to say that those from Ebbw Vale have not yet arrived. So I am in no position to comment.
  The talk of a General Election is sheer humbug. I can understand it; we have an incompetent Tory Government, high unemployment, disaffection in the country. The Labour Party thinks that it would win a General Election, and it probably would. That is why it cries for a General Election; it has nothing to do with the Common Market. In practice, it would be quite impossible to have a meaningful General Election under our extraordinary electoral system. Perhaps I could be told how a Tory pro-Marketeer would be

  2125
  expected to vote in Thirsk and Malton, and how a Labour anti-Marketeer would be expected to vote in Birmingham, Stechford. So much for the canard of a General Election.
  The somersault of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does not surprise me. What does surprise me, having heard the speeches of so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose opposition in this debate was fundamental and not as to the terms, is that the Leader of the Opposition managed to drag so many of his hon. Friends so near to Europe when he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) seemed to feel that we were causing offence to the Americans, and cast herself in the new rôle of a world-wide free trader. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was almost becoming a free trader. We have seen the conversion of protectionists. Years and years of protectionism have not eaten into their souls; they are now becoming world-wide free traders—another new argument that is being put up against Europe.
  We have had mute in this debate the Labour spokesman on Europe, the Labour Party Chairman and the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. We have had a procession of prodigal sons headed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). No fatted calves have been killed for them. They have been content merely to serve up the Leader of the Opposition.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the Central Hall, Westminster on 19th July, 1970 asked whether we should be dealing with people who are a rule-ridden bureaucracy. He said:
  "The negotiations would show whether the Community had 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, tariffs on imports of cheaper produce, backed by expensive export subsidies to sell high-cost produce to the world at low-cost world prices."
  If the right hon. Gentleman had these grave doubts about the people with whom he was proposing to deal, why did he apply to join? Would it not have been much more honest not to have done so, and would not this have given more satis-
  2126
  faction to the majority of the present members of the Parliamentary Labour Party?
  Is this really an inward-looking and protectionist organisation? Do hon. Gentlemen not attach any importance to the decision of the Council of Ministers on 31st March this year in which they agreed to lift trade barriers on £416 million worth of goods affecting 91 countries? Was U Thant wrong to say that this represented a major breakthrough by a world trading bloc and was the first definite move towards giving effect to the U.N.C.T.A.D. Resolution of 1968? Is it really inward-looking for the European Development Fund to have spent $1,400 million between 1958 and 1969 on the 18 African countries associated with the Six? Is it right to say that it is inward-looking when overseas aid between 1960 and 1964 from the Six has gone up 50 per cent. compared with our own 6 per cent. increase?
  Do not we recognise the value of the forms of association or other preferential trade rights already according to 30 countries, the options open under the Arusha and Yaoundé Agreements and other forms of association to 20 independent members of the Commonwealth, and the association under Part IV with 19 British dependent territories; in the event of our joining, so that at the end of the day an enlarged Community of 10 members, 30 associated and 39 independent and dependent would give us a world trading movement of nearly 80 countries? Is that really narrow and inward-looking especially when the Six have expressed their intention to expand their trading relations still further?
  What about the cost? Of course it is difficult to calculate the cost; I accept that. No one made that point more clear than the Labour Government. It is true, and it is only fair to say, that when the Labour Government produced their White Paper negotiations had not yet reached finality, or at any rate the negotiations had been temporarily vetoed by President de Gaulle. But even the Labour Government said, in paragraph 35 of their White Paper, that our food import bill might go up £255 million or it might go down £85 million. The cost to the balance of payments might be as little as £100 million or might be as much as £1,000 million.

  2127
  Now, Professor Kaldor, the well known adviser to the Labour Party has said that the cost to the balance of payments might be as much as £880 million. If there is one piece of advice I would give any politician it is to disregard the advice of Professor Kaldor. He advised the Ceylon Government, and that advice was followed by riots. He advised Guyana, and the Brigade of Guards had to be sent for. He advised Nkrumah and there was a general strike. He advised the last Government and did the maximum possible damage.
  The Federal Trust Publication, "The Economics of Europe", which will be published next month, is worth studying. I accept that in any group of economists there will be great variations of view, but I believe that the estimate given in this publication that there will be per cent. gain in the gross national product, a gain of £750 million by 1978 and a budgetary cost of ½ per cent. on our gross national product, is getting fairly near to the equation. I believe that these economists are right in saying that import levies will be lower than predicted.
  Doctor Josling of the L.S.E. has expressed the opinion, which he has cogently argued, that there could be an actual balance of payments gain—not loss—of about £150 million. Can it really be said that we shall be worse off going into a community which spends, per head of the population, more on social security than we do in this country? Are we to disregard the view of the O.E.C.D. that in 1980 growth will be up by 67 per cent. in the Community, as opposed to 37 per cent. in this country?
  We on this bench are and have been as a party totally consistent in the concept of Europe from its inception at the time of the Schuman Plan in 1950. I do not have the same concept of Europe as the Prime Minister has. The Prime Minister's approach is the Gaullist approach. I believe in a federal Europe, and I want to see far greater political co-operation.
  Whether we are for or against Europe, we should not under-estimate what has happened. The main product of Europe in this century has been two world wars. That has been Europe's major political contribution. The Second World War
  2128
  cost more than all the wars since the Middle Ages. That war left practically the whole of Central Europe economically and politically shattered. Whether one is in favour of joining the Community or against, it is a staggering achievement that the Six came together, determined that this shall never happen again and that they should unite, not merely to preserve the peace of Western Europe, but collectively to build a better world.
  Can anyone who sits on the Labour benches say that he does not have some feeling of pride for the Nobel Prize being awarded to Chancellor Brandt for his Ostpolitik, just as I take pride in the fact that his Foreign Secretary is the leader of the German Liberal Party? These people want us in Europe, and these are the people with whom we should be prepared to work.
  I want to close with one quotation which goes very much further than many right hon. and hon. Members on either side would be prepared to accept. It comes from a great statesman—a man who I believe to have been a great Prime Minister. He was a man of great integrity and vision. I refer, of course, to the late Clement Attlee. On 8th November, 1939 he said:
  "There must be acceptance of the principle that international anarchy is incompatible with peace, and that in the common interest there must be recognition of an international authority superior to individual States and endowed not only with the rights over them, but with the power to make them effective operating not only in the political, but in the economic sphere. Europe must federate or perish."
  Mr. Michael Foot: Having quoted that speech, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Mr. Attlee was strongly opposed to British entry into the Common Market? Is it not misrepresentation to quote Mr. Attlee in this context, without quoting him in that other context too?
  Mr. Thorpe: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. The late Clement Attlee was initially opposed to the Schuman Plan. Stafford Cripps moved an Amendment in the House, and he refused to go into the Schuman Plan. The late Clement Attlee was opposed to the idea of the E.E.C., as was the late Hugh Gaitskell, and as have been most other Labour leaders, except for a transitory transitional period, the present

  2129
  Leader of the Opposition. But Attlee believed that Europe should federate.
  I, too, believe that. I have heard of no suggestion how that can be brought about, economically or politically, other than by expanding the E.E.C. What I want to make plain is that the concept of Clem Attlee, of a federation of Europe—because that is what he was advocating, whatever he may have said about the Community—can be achieved only through the Community. Clem Attlee was talking not only international Socialism but common sense.
  I hope, with great humility, that tonight every right hon. and hon. Member will vote according to his conviction, wherever he sits in the House. I believe that a large majority will cast their votes to unite and expand an outward-looking, free democratic Europe, because by doing so they will cast their votes for a better world.
  5.53 p.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is a privilege to follow the sparkling contribution of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He has a long and honourable record in this matter. His view and mine have never coincided on this issue but I have always respected his view and the sincerity and candour with which he holds and expresses it.
  A little later I should like to refer to the question of federalism, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke at the end of his speech. First, however, I should like sincerely to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about minorities in this House on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with authority on this matter. If I may echo Disraeli, but with more sincerity, "The speaker, the theme, the occasion—what a felicitous combiation". This is not only because the right hon. Gentleman is a great ornament of the House but also because, as Leader of the Liberal Party, he has a particular, and perhaps permanent, expertise in the matter of minorities.
  I belong, and have done for a long time, to a minority on this issue on this side of the House, but it has not, I am glad to say, interrupted pleasant personal relationships with those holding the
  2130
  majority view. It is now rather more than ten years since I rose from this bench to express my dissent to the proposition of entering the Common Market on the terms of the Treaty of Rome, and I have been consistent in that. Consistency may, perhaps, from time to time, have brought me certain attendant inconvenience, but at least it has saved me the agonising contortions and calculations of timing the transition from fence to bandwagon.
  My consistency has not been due to obstinacy. In the quarter century, and more, that I have sat in this House I have always sought to have regard to the Cromwellian injunction, "Conceive it possible ye may be wrong". But I do not think that I am wrong on this matter. The Times compared my speech at the Conservative Party Conference a fortnight ago to that of an Old Testament prophet; but the main characteristic of the Old Testament prophets was that they were always proved right in the end, and sometimes with not very pleasant consequences for those who refused to heed their warnings.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford) rose—
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am sorry, but we are getting near to the end of the debate. My hon. Friend knows that I always like to give way, but I think that I should meet the wishes of the House better if I were to deny myself the exquisite pleasure of replying to my hon. Friend.
  May I, therefore, say this to any latter-day Balshazars and Nebuchadnezzars of the Treasury Bench. First, to thank them for having, even if belatedly, accepted my Motion calling for a free vote, tabled in July. Second, respectfully to ask them to heed my advice on this great issue and go along with it perhaps a little more quickly in future.
  My judgment on this matter has been based on the evidence, and that, over the years, I have studied, as I have been trained to do, closely, diligently, analytically and objectively. And, having studied the evidence, my judgment is clear, that entry would not be in the interests of the British people. I believe that to be so on both economic and political grounds. There is, of course, the paradox that the presentation of the case for entry has

  2131
  varied. Sometimes we have been asked to believe that the economic advantages are so great that we must put up with the political detriment. At other times the argument has been propounded in exactly the opposite sense.
  But that is not the only paradox in this matter. One would expect, if a case is a good one, that its presentation would become increasingly factual over the years, but it is still blurred and imprecise. The White Paper, I regret to say, was in the context of a great issue, a slight unmeritable thing. Too many questions were left unanswered, and too many doubts were left unresolved. If, after ten years, a case cannot be made with precision, and be factually supported, then, at best, we must conclude that it is a weak case.
  On the economic aspect, it is a matter of balance. But it is a balance which should be struck on the facts and not on hopes, claims, aspirations and remote possibilities. The facts show that, except for the tariff, which is of dwindling importance, the gains are mainly in the realm of surmise and speculation, whereas the penalties are certain, substantial and inescapable.
  The economic aspects are not just a matter of and arithmetic. They are not just a matter of the economics of the counting house. There is a strong social and political element in the economic aspect. If there is any appreciable risk, let alone any probability, that entry would result in industry and employment being diverted from Britain to the golden triangle of the Rhine, that would be a serious matter for the lives and future of the British people. Therefore, my right hon. Friends must ponder the political consequences—not merely in electoral terms but in the wider context of Parliamentary democracy—of any attempt, without the full-hearted consent of the people, to insist on entry on a speculative economic assessment at the risk of grave social injury.
  I come, then, to the question of sovereignty. In my judgment, we will pay a heavy price in the loss of sovereignty and Parliamentary democracy. To me, that is the decisive consideration. The argument in regard to sovereignty is often blurred, because sovereignty has two meanings, both relevant in this context.
  2132
  First, there is the ordinary concept of sovereignty in international law, which we share with other nations. But second, there is the distinctively British concept of the sovereignty of Parliament, which Dicey identified, together with the rule of law, as the twin pillars of our Constitution. They are the pillars on which the vast and varied superstructure of our national arrangements stand solid and secure.
  First, the international law concept of sovereignty. Of course it is true that, normally in international law, signing a treaty is an exercise of sovereignty. It could even be semantically argued that to sign a treaty to surrender all one's sovereignty could be construed as such an exercise—semantically, but not realistically. The realities of this matter are clear. The Treaty of Rome is not a normal treaty, either in scope or in duration. Normally, treaties are restricted in scope and limited in duration. Exceptionally, the Treaty of Rome covers an enormous range of our domestic life; exceptionally, it is forever—no limit of time and no right of withdrawal.
  There would be two possible ways of withdrawal and two only once entry has been made. The first would be to secure a voluntary release, freely and unanimously given by every member State. But how could we hope for that, when the Community's budget would be geared to our very substantial contribution? Could we even ask for it in practice, when by that time all our economic and social arrangements would be inextricably intertwined with those of the Community?
  The second and only other possible method would be by unilateral repudiation, of the "scrap of paper" variety, which Britain has traditionally rejected for herself and opposed in others to the point of war.
  So I say that signing the treaty would be, in law, in practice and in honour, forever. But—and here is the rub—Parliament cannot constitutionally bind its successors. That is the central and inescapable dilemma which entry would bring—to escape by unilateral action would be a breach of international obligation, but to deny to successor Parliaments the right of escape would be a breach of Constitutional principle.

  2133
  I come then to the other aspect—the sovereignty of Parliament. Here, the case is even clearer and the consequences even more injurious. In Britain, Parliament is sovereign. That is the basis of our Constitution and of our democratic way of life. The sovereignty of Parliament is subject to no written constitution, let alone a written constitution devised by other countries to suit their needs.
  Constitutional experts have identified two basic ingredients in our system of Parliamentary sovereignty—that the exercise of Parliament's will must be unfettered, and that it must be the exclusive law-making agency. Both those characteristics would be fatally eroded by entry.
  In time, the edifice of our Parliamentary system, built by the resolution of our forefathers and sustained by the sacrifice of successive generations, would crumble at last in the dust—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Parliament would no longer be sovereign. Over a wide range of our economic and social life—taxation and tariffs, transport and agriculture, employment and planning and much else besides—the law and practice of Britain would be subordinate to the law and practice of Brussels.
  In many vital matters, Parliament could discuss but could not decide. We would have to accept the treaty in toto which we have had no share in making and would have no power to alter. We should have to accept all the regulations flowing from Brussels, past, present and forever. These regulations, in the terms of the treaty, are binding in every respect. They would govern us here in Britain even if every Member of Parliament would wish to vote against them if he had the chance. Even our control of taxation would be impaired—the genesis of our parliamentary system and its indispensable ingredient.
  We would suffer this surrender of sovereignty, unique and irrevocable. But, heavy as it is, it could be but the first instalment. At present, the Community is an economic community, not concerned with defence and foreign policy. But if there is to be any question of increased power—that is the bait dangled before us to make the loss of sovereignty less clearly
  2134
  unacceptable—the Community would have to proceed to a political unity capable of unified decision on defence and foreign policy.
  So we must consider the conditions attaching to such political unity, the conditions attaching to having a collective voice in defence and foreign policy, the conditions attaching to the effort to rank with the super-Powers. The condition, of course, would be a final and total surrender of our sovereignty to a central authority with a central power of decision on such matters as the allocation of resources to defence, conscription and a single finger on a single nuclear button.
  For these things, there would have to be a central, single European Government, with Britain always only a minority voice. Is this what is wanted? It may be the logical consequence of entry—the right hon. Member for Devon, North accepted that in a candid way—but most advocates of entry are curiously coy and unhelpful on this matter. The reason, of course, is clear. They are in this dilemma—either the Community stays an economic Community and does not affect defence, or power and influence; or we put the whole of our defence and political arrangements in pawn with a total loss of sovereignty and national identity.
  We want to know how the Government see the matter in the long run as well as in the short. That is what the British people are entitled to know. But even if the Community were to stay as it is, as an economic entity, I believe that the very fact of entry would diminish British influence, because it would be taken in the world, where our influence lies, as sign and symbol of Britain's intention to be absorbed into Europe and to turn her back on the open seas.
  We are asked by the White Paper to say that entry will involve no sacrifice of essential sovereignty. Of course it depends on what is meant by "essential"—not essential, perhaps, if only the Executive matters, if Members of Parliament are to be seen and not heard, to acquiesce and not decide; not essential, perhaps, if one believes in élitism, to use the new fashionable expression.
  I am indebted to the Financial Times of 9th July, in a discussion of this very

  2135
  subject, the Common Market, for this illuminating definition:
  "Elitism' means decisions being taken by an extremely small section of people at the top of the pyramid."
  If this is the product of élitism—government by Community decree, with Parliament a rubber stamp—new élitism is old autocracy writ French. If this is élitism, then give me democracy.
  For those who believe that Parliament still has a function as the elected representatives of a free people, who believe in the ancient processes cradled here in Westminster and going from hence to the uttermost ends of the earth, to the envy of the bond and the glory of the free—for those who believe these things in their hearts and not only with their lips, the sacrifice is essential indeed.
  Are we to view with equanimity this paring down of Parliament, reducing it to an assembly having—to paraphrase a famous saying, titular responsibility without real power—the prerogative of the eunuch through the ages? I hope there are none such in this mother of Parliaments. But if there are, then let those Parliamentary geldings seek out some shadowy assembly where they can graze impotently—
  Mr. St. John-Stevas Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
  Sir D. Walker-Smith:—awaiting the feedbags of the Executive.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. and learned Friend explain how one can be a eunuch and titular at the same time?
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: If my hon Friend can spare time from his studies of the Common Market, absorbing as they are, he will be able to pursue his researches into these other questions, when I am sure he will find the answer.
  For the rest, let us recognise the thing for what it is—the forced abandonment of our constitutional principles and the sovereignty of Parliament in favour of a system fashioned for countries in which, whatever their virtues and qualities, and they are many, Parliamentary democracy has neither the deep roots nor long familiarity obtaining here.
  2136
  I end by asking this question. Do these things matter? In the early days of this dialogue I said this:
  "When I first raised the issue of sovereignty, I used a phrase which I knew was not part of the everyday idiom of the British people, but was, nevertheless, deeply felt and instinctively understood."
  I went on to say:
  "It is like the air we breathe—little noticed in its presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation".
  Time has not changed this, nor ever will. We are asked to part with that which we have no right to give. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members, wherever in this House they sit, exorcising all personal and partial considerations, to rise to the level of the opportunity and respond to the challenge of the occasion. I ask them so to cast their votes that history will record their names in the roll of those who said: "What we hold in trust, we will not surrender."
  6.14 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I begin by addressing myself to some of the remarks made earlier in the debate on the general question of what does not appear in the treaty but may be expected to flow from the consequences of our joining the E.E.C.
  In referring not to what is laid down in black and white but to what the whole thrust of the Community is about, and the implications of that for our economic life, I come first to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
  I was impressed with their disclosure that if they could be persuaded that there was anything in the treaty or what might flow from it for this country that would inhibit us in our ability to exercise complete fiscal freedom, they would reconsider their position. It is probably beyond my powers to influence them wholly in a short speech, but there are certain points which are fundamental to this problem and which I think they may accept.
  When one examines what necessarily follows from our signature of the Treaty of Rome in the fiscal sphere, one finds, first, that over tariffs we shall have no freedom whatever. As a function of our

  2137
  signing that treaty we must adopt the common external tariff. Secondly, we must adopt V.A.T. That is not in the treaty but it has been made clear subsequently.
  There are great pressures, which will persist, for this tax to be harmonised right across the Community. There are now great disparities between the classifications of this tax and the rates that are obtainable in different countries. However, it is the inevitable intention of the Community that V.A.T. shall be harmonised right across the E.E.C. both as to rates and classes of goods.
  There is also considerable pressure coming—it has not yet been made fully effective—for the harmonisation of corporation tax within the Community. It is hoped by Community officials that this harmonisation will cover both the type of tax and the basis of assessment—and will eventually cover the rates at which it is levied. We have not reached that stage but that is the whole intention of the Community and the Commission. There is also pressure for the harmonising of social security taxes and benefits.
  What are we left with? We are left with only income tax out of the major taxing systems, and over that we will have complete fiscal independence. It is the intention, as expressed by the Community, that individual countries shall express their fiscal personalities through their income tax. I accept that none of this has yet arrived, but it is the whole purpose and thrust within the Community.
  It is beyond me to see how on earth, if one's tariff, corporation tax, V.A.T.—which will be the primary source of indirect taxation—and social security benefits and taxes are fixed centrally, one can have much room for manoeuvre, left with only one's income tax system, particularly with the free movement of capital. That is not laid down in black and white but it is clear that we shall find ourselves absolutely hogtied from the point of view of fiscal independence.
  It is clear that it will be beyond the power of this Parliament substantially to alter either the balance between direct and indirect taxation in this country or the degree of progressiveness within the income tax system. If one tried to do that—if one sought to get out of line with the countries of the Community—
  2138
  then, with the free movement of portfolio capital, capital would go out of the country.
  Although in theory the power to do so is there we will not in fact be able to maintain an independent fiscal policy. That is the whole purpose of the Community. If it is going to waste time, as it does, trying to harmonise the way in which ice cream is made, in what sort of containers soft drinks are to be sold, and whether beer shall be made from male hops or seedless hops, it is clear that they will not let us mess about with our own fiscal system to suit our own purposes.
  I address myself briefly to one of the other economic arguments. It is a very simplistic argument and we have heard it so often, but it could still stand further refutation. The argument is that the Community has had a higher rate of growth and that we have had a lower rate of growth because we have not been a member. It is argued that if we join them we may not get as high a rate of growth as they have had but we must inevitably have a higher rate of growth than we have had in the past. I have heard that stated so many times in the last five days that I have lost count. I have not heard a single shred of evidence to establish a casual connection between those two postulates.
  I confess I am an agnostic about the economic effects. It is possible that the dynamic effects on Britain could be negative. It is just as possible as that they will be positive. We have never heard an admission from the Government Front Bench that that is even a possibility.
  There is no reason why the construction of any free trade area or customs union will necessarily mean enhanced prosperity for this country or any other. History is replete with examples. One looks at the state of Italy. Before unification the Kingdom of the Two Sicilys was a most prosperous part of Italy. Its gradual degradation followed almost inevitably and immediately upon the elimination of customs barriers between the different parts of Italy.
  I have always been very surprised at the diffidence shown by some hon. Members on the question of investment flowing to the North of France and the South of Belgium. It has been beyond me why

  2139
  they should be so reluctant to accept this, because I have always thought that one of the strongest arguments in favour of our entry into the Community was that it should, through the market system, lead to the optimum allocation of economic resources. That is what it is all about. If hon. Members say that even though we enter the Community, British capitalists will not start to invest more and more funds near the economic centre of gravity of that Community, what benefits are we supposed to get? Why on earth are these firms investing there now?
  The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), whom I am glad to see present, said yesterday very thoughtfully—and I agree with him—that the thrust now was not to larger firms but to larger plants. That is absolutely right. There are larger and larger plants serving one market. The larger the plant and the bigger the concentration on one plant operation the more likely it is that that plant is put at the economic centre of gravity of the Community. That is the whole purpose of the arrangement. I am surprised that hon. Members are so diffident about that.
  Regarding the higher rate of economic growth in the Community because it is a community, I have heard very little evidence of any casual connection between those two facts. Certainly the Community has had a higher growth rate than we have, but it is just a series of post hoc propter hoc assertions that have been made. No mention has been made of the fact that the Community has spent less on defence, or that it has had a pool of cheap labour coming in from the periphery. There has been no mention of the movement of labour off the land, or that the Community has been in a catch-up position which made a faster rate of growth easier than in countries which were originally more industrialised than it was. Above all, and most crucial, there has been no mention that the Community has not had the burden of carrying an overvalued exchange rate over the last 20 years. That alone should have been in the thoughts of my hon. Friends.
  We should attempt to get a reasonable and appropriate exchange rate and a proper system for changing that exchange rate should circumstances demand it. In those two endeavours lie the best
  2140
  hope for economic prosperity for this country. We have already seen what has happened since we have moved to a more realistic exchange rate. We have had a balance of payments surplus. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten it. They ask about alternatives to going into Europe. But we no longer need an alternative. We have the balance of payments surplus which entry into Europe was supposed to produce. The excuse for going in was that we were economically destitute, that we had a series of balance of payments deficits and we could not survive without a larger market. But now, for month in and month out, we have had a balance of payments surplus. We are being asked to throw that away. But for what purpose? It can be only because hon. Gentlemen want to see a federal solution. It makes no sense otherwise. I respect them for it and there are very good arguments in favour of setting up a federal state in Western Europe. I happen not to share their views but I appreciate them. They talk about power and influence, and we have heard a great deal about that from the benches opposite in the last few days.
  I ask hon. Members to consider very carefully the distinction between power and influence. They are two very different matters indeed. Power is a question of nuclear weapons, of ballistic missiles and rockets and of armaments in general. Influence has very little to do with any of those things. Influence has a great deal to do with the quality of life in one's own country, and it has everything to do with the quality of political leadership obtained in one's country.
  I am not satisfied with the quality of life in Britain and, Heaven knows, I am not satisfied with the quality of our political leadership. But one can see how easy it is for Britain to exercise influence if the conditions are right. We have heard stories that have wrung our hearts, stories of Chancellors of the Exchequer being made to wait in ante-rooms while the Americans decide one thing and the Europeans decide another.
  It was said that we had to get into Europe to exercise any influence in economic affairs. Yet a couple of weeks ago the Chancellor picked up a bright idea from one of his civil servants. He trotted it out in Washington and, because it was the first intelligent idea that he

  2141
  had had since he took office, they called it the Barber Plan and everyone said that it was marvellous. We did not have to go into Europe for that. That was the power of a good idea.
  It is those who insist that we must go into Europe because there is no alternative are the defeatists. Those who are confident that we can, with initiative, improve the quality of life in Britain, and the leadership and influence that we offer to the rest of the world, are those who have faith in the future of this country.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a queue of people waiting to hear this debate. It is called "The Great Debate". The first person in that queue this morning has been there for 12½ hours and is still not in the debate. I suspect, as the debate continues, that they will be invited in at 10.30 p.m. after the Division. I consider this to be disgraceful. I hope that the first few people in the queue, who will have been waiting for 15 or 16 hours, will be allowed to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It would be a sad comment on the great debate if they are still in the queue at 10.30 tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Is he referring to hon. Members who are not getting into the debate or to the public outside?
  Mr. Archer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a queue of 300 to 400 people waiting to get into the Public Gallery. A person who was in the queue first at 6.30 a.m. is still there now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I will make some inquiries.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: I believe that it was Lord Mancroft in another place who first described cricket as a game which the British, not being a naturally religious people, had to invent to give them some idea of eternity. In his report in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph of the debates on the Common Market which had taken place so far, the Lobby
  2142
  Correspondent adapted that story to this debate. There have been occasions when I understood what he meant.
  Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—it was not possible for me to attend the first few days of the debate, because I was attacked by certain bugs which did not realise the importance of the occasion. I was able to take the advantage of an enforced rest to skim though HANSARD and read what had been said. I say "skim through" because to read HANSARD in its entirety is much more likely to retard one's recovery than to hasten it.
  When reading the debates I was impressed, in particular, by the extreme confidence of so many of my parliamentary colleagues on both sides, whether advancing the case for or against entry, that what they forecast would come to pass. I find it a little difficult to be at all positive about what is likely to happen, whether we go into or stay out of the Common Market.
  My heart rather warmed to the man who wrote to the Daily Telegraph last week following the letters which had been written by distinguished economists supporting and opposing entry. This person said, "I am a full-time working nonacademic economist. I am willing to admit that I do not know whether there are advantages or disadvantages in entering the Common Market".
  That person was probably more correct than many of us who try to express very clearly and positively our view of the advantages of entry or, on the contrary, the disadvantages of doing so. We must all make informed guesses. The more information we get and the more we study the question, the more informed the guess will be and the more confidence or the less confidence we shall have.
  In these respects we can do no better than the directors of any company who are asked to prepare budgets for five to ten years ahead. They must examine all the information known to them, weigh up the possibilities, make certain assumptions, try to arrive at conclusions, and in the end their decision must be basically an act of faith.
  Every hon. Member who will vote tonight will be voting on the basis of an act of faith; because we do not know,

  2143
  and we cannot know, what is likely to happen as a result of entry into, or refusal to enter, the Common Market.
  It is not my purpose in my short speech to question anybody's now declared faith. On an issue which is so vital to Britain, to the European countries and to the Community, and in the long run to the world as a whole, I must assume that every hon. Member will vote tonight having in mind only the long-term interests of Britain and without regard to any personal or party interest. I must assume that, however much the evidence may lead me to believe otherwise.
  Further, if hon. Members vote to enter then, if they will the end they must be prepared to will the means. I believe it to be the height of hypocrisy to assuage one's conscience by voting for a principle in which one believes and then refusing to give power to the legislative arm to give effect to the very principle which one has supported.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), I have long-held convictions on this subject. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, I have for many years been in favour. My right hon. and learned Friend said that his speech at the Conservative Party Conference was likened to that of an Old Testament prophet. He suggested that Old Testament prophets were notable for the accuracy of their prophecies.
  If my right hon. and learned Friend had read his Bible more closely he would have remembered warning after warning against the false prophets. Indeed, the ears of heaven were assailed by the cries of false prophets and the Lord was sore displeased. One can read whatever part of the Old Testament one likes and take one's pick.
  For many years I have been in favour of entering the Common Market, not on economic grounds, although it is an economic treaty that we are to sign, but because I am attracted by the political implications, the very implications which many people may dislike even though they may like the proposal to enter on economic grounds. My views have been known in my constituency for many years. It was perhaps for that reason that I was returned at the last election with a record majority.
  2144
  I shall talk of the economic issues first, although I think that the arguments have been exhausted and that they are of less importance. My view is that in the long run Britain and Europe must benefit by the increased prosperity, which will be of benefit not only to the peoples of Europe but will be shared by the peoples of the less fortunate countries.
  From listening to the debate, and even from reading the reports of it, I have sometimes got the impression that we look upon the question of going into the Community rather as if it were us against the rest, as if we had been invited by the spider to enter the parlour and that the Community was waiting for us prepared to do us down, to drive the hardest bargains against us, and determined to do all the things which would drive our economy into ruin and bring us to a state of chaos.
  That is not true. We shall be part of the Community, taking part in the decisions. I have sufficient confidence in the quality of our statesmen, even on both sides—that takes a lot of saying—to believe that they will be able to hold their own in the councils of Europe and ensure that our influence permeates through the discussions and debates in the councils of the Economic Community. So I am not particularly impressed by that fear.
  Much the same fear is expressed on the other side. At the recent Inter-parliamentary Union Conference at Paris I discussed this issue with one or two Gaullist M.P.s. One Gaullist said to me, "You may like us. You may like to come into the Market. You may like the French. But you like us as you like the beefsteak. You want to gobble us up". That is the reaction which is heard on the other side. There is as much fear among them that they will suffer from our dominance as some hon. Members fear that we shall be dominated by them.
  One of the interesting things about this debate which has beeng going on for years, not just for days, is that many of our major industries, after a careful and searching examination and a hard-headed study of all the facts, have concluded that it is to their advantage that Britain joins the Common Market.
  I would be the last to say that, because it is to the advantage of the chemical industry, the car industry or any other

  2145
  industry it is necessarily to the advantage of the nation. But when so many industries say that they believe that it is to their advantage that Britain enters one can legitimately conclude that economically and industrially there should be a long-term advantage to the nation as a whole.
  Most companies have carried out some exercise on this. Here I declare an interest. One hon. Member opposite said that all hon. Members should declare an interest in taking part in this debate. We ought to do that, for every one of us has some interest, direct or indirect, in the results of the debate.
  Following an exercise on behalf of some of my companies, we came to the conclusion that in some respects we would be challenged and might be marginally at a disadvantage whereas in other respects we would be at a considerable advantage. Taking a long-term view, we believed that, overall, entry would be to our benefit in our industry. We are one of many, but I have no doubt that companies are to be found which have arrived at a different conclusion. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of those engaged in industry come down in favour of entry.
  Everybody knows that in the short term there will have to be painful adjustments. There are certain problems in connection with the effects of the rising cost of living on some sections of the community whom it is not easy to protect. We know that there are certain short-term disadvantages, but no Government, and no House of Parliament worth its name, takes a decision based only on the short-term effects. Measures of this kind must be thought of not in terms of 10, 20 or 30 years but the next half-century and longer. It is not only the economic development but the steps which will follow—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will forgive me, I will not interrupt his seated intervention.
  If I were concerned about the long-term economic effects only, this would not be enough by itself to persuade me to vote for entry of this country into the Common Market. My own feeling about the future of Europe is summed up in an extract from a report to the British Council of Churches, and I should like to quote it. It says:
  "We are encouraged to believe that, if we join the E.E.C., we shall never have had it so
  2146
  good, or alternatively, that if we stay out we shall never have had it so bad; which again may be true; but it is an appeal to greed, or again, to fear. What we need is a vigorous campaign based on the positive aproach that Europe is our homeland, the origin of so much that is of lasting value in our culture, that after the family quarrels of the last four or five centuries, it is time we made it up and tried to present to the world an ideal of civilised living, based on a genuine conception of common ideals, clearly seen and honestly practised. If we come to think of Europe simply as a large factory, a more productive economic unit, a more powerful military arsenal—if we think exclusively in these terms, we are betraying the cultural and religious tradition for which in the past Europe has stood. That is not Europe except in the superficial geographical sense. It might prove a new sort of Assyrian Empire—powerful, wealthy and dead."
  Basically, that sums up my own approach to the proposals to join the Community. There is so much that we could do in conjunction with the European countries that we should find difficult to do by ourselves. There is so much that the European countries themselves cannot do without Britain, because Europe cannot be European unless Britain is part of it.
  A movement towards lasting peace must be given greater emphasis and force. With a united Europe, united in the sense that the economic and social systems are developed together, there will be a possibility of success. Such problems as world pollution, environmental control and population expansion are difficult for one nation to tackle on its own. They can only be tackled successfully as part of a much larger grouping. There is not too much time to deal with some of these problems. The effective use of resources designed in part to help the underdeveloped countries can be done more efficiently together than separately. If we are really sincere in our desire to help these under-developed countries, to give more and more of the resources from the increasingly rich countries to those which are poor and becoming poorer, we should wish to co-operate to the full with all nations, pooling our resources in order to do so. It can he done much more effectively together, rather than merely by Government co-operation.
  Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose—
  Mr. Hall: I do not wish to give way. I am trying to keep my speech as short as possible in order to allow as many

  2147
  other Members as possible to speak. I know how terrible it is to sit on these benches waiting hour after hour, trying to get into the debate.
  I can visualise a Europe which might come about in the lifetime of some of us here, which, under a federal, confederal of whatever system one calls it or under whatever form of loose association which is inspired by the economic union which we are now seeking, will increasingly turn its face away from the idea that we are all members of individual and warring tribes to the idea that we are all part of the same human race; a Europe trying to develop its resources not just to increase its own prosperity and leisure and improve the standard of life of its own people, but to improve the standard of life for others in the world as well.
  Such a Europe by itself may not be able entirely to arrest a third world war, but it will go a long way towards doing so. This is the first major step for centuries towards achieving that aim which all of us must have—of one day having a human race that regards itself as such, every one of us being members of that same human race, not divided by nationalistic or party prejudices and misconceptions.
  "Young men see visions and old men dream dreams." I am perhaps midway between the two. Many people regard these aspirations as being dreamlike, and they dismiss them out of hand. We are said to be looking for Utopia. But today we have a chance at least of taking the first step. Surely it cannot be said that we lack courage to take a leap into what some would call the unknown. Surely we do not lack courage to seek a complete and radical change in things to which we are accustomed. Surely we do not lack courage to do something which must help the human race. It is for these reasons that I shall vote in the Lobby tonight for entry.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I agree with one thing, if northing else, that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, namely, that there is a certain air of unreality about this debate, because although it is taking place in form as a debate on the terms negotiated by the present Government we all know
  2148
  that in reality it is not about the terms. It is, in fact, about the principle.
  The great divide which exists in the House at the moment is between those of us, like myself and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall)—who made a very sincere and compassionate speech—who feel that entry into the Community is a first step towards a very worth while goal and those who feel that they cannot support entry into the Community.
  Having listened to a large part of the debate, I have been somewhat depressed by the way in which it became bogged down, on both sides, into semantics, self-justification and textual nit-picking across the Chamber. I hope that at least in this debate those of us who are called in the time that remains—certainly I propose doing so—will say exactly and precisely what we mean and that we shall all mean exactly and precisely what we say.
  If one assumes an excess of malice on the part of the Community, and a succession of incredibly supine British Governments, one can produce a recipe for economic and political disaster. But one always could. That is not a realistic assessment of the present position in Europe; it is an argument proceeding from a set of false assumptions. The Community having negotiated entry with us so that we can become a member of an enlarged Community, the idea that it will almost immediately adopt policies the effect and design of which is make it more difficult for Britain to live in such a community is a nonsense.
  This is an important debate, and it is an important vote tonight. Since being a Member of Parliament I have not voted against my party on a three-line Whip. I hope that some of my hon. Friends will forgive me if I observe that a large section of those now advocating that I should stand on my head and vote against my principles and, instead, vote with my party, have far greater experience of the way in which one votes against a three-line Whip than I have. So if I need lectures on party loyalty I do not think, with respect, that I would first turn to them.
  I must also tell some of them that I do not think that this is an issue upon

  2149
  which one can abstain from voting, if one believes, as I do, that this is possibly the greatest single issue which the House of Commons has had to decide, certainly since May, 1940, and arguably since the beginning of the century. I cannot accept the idea that a Member of Parliament sent here to take part in the great decisions and debates of the nation should, faced with that sort of issue, abstain—that when asked, as it were, "What did you do in the Great War daddy?" he should reply: "Well, I abstained. I did not abstain because I did not have any views on the issue, or because I had not come to what I believed to be sensible and rational conclusions but, quite frankly, because it was said that I must do so in the interests of party unity."
  Whether there should be another way for the British people to take a decision is an entirely different argument. I have some sympathy with the views expressed last evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). It may well be that the British people should have been consulted in a different way or perhaps at a different time but, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, that is not the issue. The fact is that there is not to be a referendum on the issue. The fact is that there is not to be a General Election on the issue. The fact is that come 10 o'clock tonight ail of us as Members of Parliament have to take a decision which is within our own competence as to where we propose to stand—
  Mr. Molloy: And the other fact is that the Prime Minister promised the people that there would be a General Election. That is another fact to add to my hon. and learned Friend's list.
  Mr. Richard: That may be, but if the Prime Minister has broken what my hon. Friend tells us is his word to the British people, that, with respect to my hon. Friend, does not absolve me and other hon. Members tonight from deciding which way they will vote on this issue.
  Let us therefore look at the realities of the existing political situation. Of course there are pressures being exerted both ways. Of course to go into the Division Lobby against one's own party is not something that one would do lightly. Of course I feel a loyalty to the Labour Party; I have been brought up
  2150
  with it and have worked for it all my political life. But, knowing the views, sincerely held, of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I say that had the argument gone the other way I would not have expected him suddenly to turn his back on all that he has said about the Common Market for more than a decade and walk into the other Division Lobby on the greatest issue that we have had to decide for at least a quarter of a century.
  To pose the question in that form demonstrates the idiocy of some of the attempts made to persuade us to vote against our principles. But if we feel as strongly as this on the issue, it is important that those of us who will vote for entry should justify our view, and should do so publicly. It is not enough for us just to say that we feel strongly about it: we are under an obligation to say why.
  I am voting for entry into the Communities for the one very simple reason that I believe that our entry is a small but very necessary step towards an eventual European political unity. I do not burke the issue; I welcome it. We who believe in the cause of Europe do ourselves and the cause of Europe itself a grave disservice if we pretend that entry into the Communities does not involve some loss of autonomy. Of course it involves some loss of autonomy—and of course it should, because it is in the nature of the organisation that we are entering, and in the nature of the organisation which, hopefully, will emerge in Europe, that out of it we will get a European political entity rather than a set of individual national units.
  It is not the common agricultural policy itself which attracts many people on both sides but the vision underlying it. It is the fact that even in the common agricultural policy there is an attempt to look at agriculture on a European and not a purely national scale. I ask my hon. Friends, "What in Heaven's name is wrong with that?" Centralisation of economic and agricultural planning is a principle that we in the Labour Party have sought for years. It has been carried on in Europe to a far greater extent than in any other continent, and I wish us to play a part in it.
  If I believe, as I do, in European political unity, why do I think it important? It is because I think that we are likely

  2151
  to be more secure and more prosperous, and less vulnerable, inside Europe than outside. I believe that our influence inside the Communities and within an eventual political unity will be greater, particularly over those events which, if they do go wrong, are no longer under our direct control and will obviously affect our standard of living, whether one expresses that in terms of trade, national interest or security.
  There are other possibilities. First, the European Economic Community exists, and that in itself is an obvious attraction. It is an organisation that is there and active, and with which we have negotiated entry. Secondly, it is an organisation which has the pragmatism and the flexibility which I should have thought would commend itself particularly to British politicians. One of the striking features of the way in which the E.E.C. has developed is its lack of ideology. It is not a dogmatic, inflexible type of organisation. It has adapted itself to face different political situations.
  My next reason for wanting us to join the Communities is that they are there, and that the movement towards political unity will take place whether we are inside or outside them. If I have a nightmare of our position towards the end of this century it is that we shall then be a nation of some 75 million people, 22 miles from the coast of Europe—a Europe which is by then a united and integrated political and economic unit of between 200 million and 250 million people. Events taking place within that unit will have a direct effect upon our standard of living, and if we are outside that unit we shall not be in a position to influence those events. A basic political consideration with me is that the world, and particularly Europe, may go in a certain direction, and unless we are part of the Community we shall not be able to influence it effectively. Individually, we have little influence. Collectively Europe is as yet unorganised.
  Here I recall what was said by Lord George-Brown—as he now is, and then Foreign Secretary—in our emergency debate on Czechoslovakia on 26th August, 1968. He said:
  "One of the tragedies of this affair is not that each of us is impotent in the face of a Russian move but that the whole of Western
  2152
  Europe is impotent. We have no European influence to bring to bear because there is not such a place to have its influence. Each of us individually will always be impotent. We need greater developments in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th August, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1303.]
  Believing that, as I do profoundly and deeply, and holding to it with a conviction which is as deep and sincere as that, for example, of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), to vote against the accession of Great Britain to the European Economic Community would in my judgment be wrong. I may be wrong about it, but that is my judgment, and in this situation I must stand by my judgment, just as my hon. Friends must stand by theirs. Believing that to vote against entry would be to deny Great Britain the opportunity to increase her influence and eventually to safeguard more effectively the people's living standards in the future, I must vote for the Motion tonight.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am glad to be called at this late stage of the debate, not least because, unlike some hon. Members, I have had time to prepare a short speech—a task made all the easier by the fact that virtually everything has now been said, and I agree with more than half of it. I do not, however, agree with anything that was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). For some strange reason, his speech, with which I am becoming increasingly familiar, also becomes increasingly unconvincing each time I hear it.
  I shall make one assertion to the House, I shall put one suggestion, and add just a brief comment or two. My assertion is that the interests of the British aviation industry and its prospects in the future would be most gravely damaged if we were to fail to gain access to the European Economic Community. Our aircraft manufacturers and manufacturers of aeroengines and avionics must have a European base if they are to prosper. I assert that without fear of contradiction.
  Now, my suggestion, which I put to those right hon. and hon. Members who are worried about regional policy. As a Member from the South-East Region, I am not the greatest believer in the I.D.C. system as a benefit to British industry. There are firms in my constituency which

  2153
  are operating at 75 per cent. of their potential simply because they do not wish to move to another region. Moreover, I believe that it is high time we stopped thinking in terms only of moving blue-collar jobs to the remoter parts of the country; we should seriously consider office redeployment—a matter on which some of the nationalised corporations could show a lead—as likely to be a great deal more beneficial as well as a great deal more logical economically.
  I come now to my comments, which I address to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel that their correct course at the end of the debate will be to go into the "No" Lobby. I respect their integrity, but I do question their judgment. Let them rationalise as they may, but in that Lobby they will find what can only be described as the Left rump of the Labour Party and its theoretical leader, who has proved once again, as though it needed proof, that there is no principle that he will not abandon in the search for short-term political advantage.
  Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends can rationalise that way. What they ought to take into account as well as the evidence which all hon. Members must have found coming through their letterboxes since the very day on which this great debate began. If my hon. Friends feel that they must go into the "No" Lobby they will be allying themselves with some very unsavoury forces. I am not talking about the cranks—though goodness knows, this has been a wonderful autumn for nuts. I am not talking about the British Israelites or the Flat-Earthers. They do no great harm. I am talking about the sinister conjunction, which most of us must have seen, between the Communists and the Fascists—or the National Front, as they now like to be called: a conjunction which, I believe, we have not witnessed in this country since the black days in 1939 when the Communists and the Fascists were cutting up the carcase of Poland. Anyone who cares about the future of this country should think most seriously before identifying himself in any way with that sort of alliance.
  However high their motives may be, and however sincere their convictions—I do not question either—let my right hon.
  2154
  and hon. Friends consider the company that they will be keeping. In going into the "No" Lobby tonight they will be aligning themselves with the forces of political opportunism, religious bigotry, racial prejudice and false national pride. If they feel that they can stomach that, that is their decision. For my part, I could not. I am sorry to see them go, but I shall be proud to vote against them.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I shall not take up the rather sewerish remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Onslow). It seems that, to him, whenever anyone disagrees with him that person lacks intelligence, they have no brains, and they cannot comprehend the great issues of the day. One is tempted to say to him, "There but for the grace of God goes God".
  I have listened to practically every speech in the debate. The House will probably agree that, irrespective of party, one of the most brilliant expositions of the entire situation and of the factual issue facing the country was given to us today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] The proof of that is shown at once by the jealousy and anguish of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side. That always happens. Whenever some great truth irritates and annoys them we find that the gentlemen of England make all sorts of squawking noises to try to drown that truth. But it will he read and understood by the British people.
  I have something to say to the Prime Minister, too. Many of us have argued that we thought that he was right when, speaking in Paris on 5th May, he said:
  "Nor would it 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."
  What opportunity has he given the people of this country to express their view? Parliament will express its view tonight, but what about the people who have been given that promise? Among all the dishonoured promises in the right hon. Gentleman's list this will be regarded as the most savage, and it will be the one that the British people remember most.

  2155
  I have endeavoured to gain information on the economic questions to help me make a correct assessment, lest I may have made a wrong assessment in 1967. In 1967, I was not prepared to support my party in its argument that we should even make an application, and I went into the Lobby against it. I wish to make my position clear. In view of the way in which the Tories have behaved towards the nation since they cheated and won power I would not go with them into Shepherds Bush Market, let alone the Common Market. Their whole behaviour has been appalling.
  We are told that the Government have given us information. I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he told me in answer to a Question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman—I thought it a fair Question—whether he would
  "make available in the form of addenda to Cmnd. 4715 the detailed calculations upon which he has based his judgment that neither the United Kingdom contributions to, nor the receipts from, the Community budget are susceptible to valid estimation at this stage."
  This was the Answer:
  "The White Paper contained estimates for our budget contribution and receipts in the transitional period. The reasons why similar estimates cannot be made for the 1980s were explained in paragraph 95 of the White Paper …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 52.]
  After all the talk about this great event—the greatest event this country has ever faced—the Government have not taken the trouble to see what the situation will be even before the end of the decade. In my view that alone should disqualify them from office.
  I am sure that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be going into the Prime Minister's Lobby tonight are sincere in their belief that by so doing they will be making a move towards the creation of democratic Socialism within a part of Europe. Let them look about them in that Lobby and consider the divisions there and, perhaps, have second thoughts before they give their names and come back out. Do they really believe that the members and supporters of this, the most reactionary Conservative Government we have had in decades, are such as would be likely to do anything which carried with it the risk of establishing democratic Socialism in any part of Europe?
  2156
  When it suited their purpose, in order to win an election, and without any thought of going into the Common Market, under Harold Macmillan they told the British people that they had "never had it so good". Now that it suits them to go into the Common Market they tell us that things are very grim.
  I am also concerned about the way in which entry will affect the British Commonwealth of Nations, in which I have great faith. I concede that at present it has not got the great economic strength of the E.E.C., but within a decade or two it could well achieve that sort of growth if modern science and technology are made available to it. It has made a great contribution in the past. It is remarkable that it was born out of the British Empire. There has been no other case, in history of a voluntary commonwealth, of nations being created from a great empire. That organisation should not be put at risk by the mother country's joining the E.E.C.
  I agreed very much with what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said about the constitution of our land. Britain's constitution, as we politicians understand and know it, is one of the greatest things that we can take into Europe or any other continent. The terrible paradox is that by going into the E.E.C. we shall destroy it for ourselves, never mind taking it anywhere else. Within a year or two there will be Questions on the Order Paper from hon. Members on both sides, in reply to which we shall be told by the Minister concerned, "I am very sorry. This is a matter for the Common Market Commission, the Council of Ministers, or the E.C.S.C. High Authority."
  Mr. James Dempsey: A letter has just been issued by the Scottish legal profession to the effect that in future the courts will require to determine whether legal issues come under our law or Community law. If they are under Community law the case will require to be disposed of in Brussels, and the decision there will be binding.
  Mr. Molloy: I agree. I was also going to say that on other issues concerning us generally the Solicitor-General or another Law Officer will tell us, "I am very sorry.

  2157
  This is a matter for the European Court of Justice."
  One of the fascinating things in our history—and this affects both our parties—is that the magnificent story of the rise of the Labour Party reflects a great deal of credit on the Tory Party, because in the rise of our great radical movement, to which many men gave their lives, no one was destroyed by violence. Hardly any other country can make such a claim about the rise of a great political party. It reflects credit on both sides of the House and nation, and it is something of which we should be proud.
  I very much regret that neither of our great parties has thought about producing a real alternative. If we are not satisfied with the Treaty of Rome, neither party is capable of thinking about creating the Treaty of London.
  This country still has much to offer the world, not only in science and technology but on the more important questions of the way in which society should organise itself, and how people should be treated. Our great traditions of liberty and freedom of speech are very dear to me, as I hope they are to many other hon. Members. Because we can offer those things, we should be very careful about what we do tonight. By joining the Community, as I fear we shall, we might very well drown the great contributions that we have to make.
  Let right hon. and hon. Members opposite realise that the end of the Division tonight will be only the beginning of a very big battle.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Buck: As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said that he would not follow the Tories even to Shepherds Bush market, I trust that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument.
  With a few gaps, this has been a great debate. The first reason for that was the outstanding nature of the contributions from the Government Front Bench and the second was that from Labour backbenchers. It was a privilege to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), which was succinct, sincere and totally convincing. Later we had similar speeches from
  2158
  other Labour hon. Members speaking from the back benches, including a colourful and convincing contribution from the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the speeches of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and Heywood and Roy-ton (Mr. Barnett).
  But in the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench we have not had credible answers to two questions. Despite the inordinate length of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he has not shown in a credible way what terms the Labour Government would have accepted. He attacked the terms obtained, but right hon. Members who had been appointed by him to negotiate his terms were sitting beside him, and the expression on their faces made it pretty clear whether or not they agreed with what he was saying.
  The Opposition have not answered the question of how, if they had won the last General Election and had then succeeded in negotiating terms satisfactory to themselves, they would have presented the issue to the country. Is there any suggestion that they would have done so any differently from the way in which the Government are now presenting their terms to the country? Those are two major gaps in the great debate.
  I have long been a supporter of joining the E.E.C. Its very existence is hardly short of miraculous. Just after the war I served on the Continent as a National Serviceman, and there I saw the fantastic destruction wrought by the war. We had suffered, but the suffering and destruction on the Continent was gargantuan in scale. It was not only a case of lives lost and material damage done. Much harm had been inflicted on the national pride of continental nations by continental nations. From all that death and destruction there might well have resulted a deepening bitterness in ancient enmities, a growing dislike between the countries of Europe. It is miraculous that there was a determination that that should not happen, and it did not happen. There was the determination to work together, and the countries of the E.E.C. have done this.
  The inspiration for that unity came in no inconsiderable measure from statesmen in this country, though we did not join then for understandable reasons,

  2159
  particularly our preoccupation with the end of Empire.
  Now the time has come for us to participate, the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they were in Government still hold good. They make a convincing case, which has not altered over the few months in which they seem to have changed their minds; the arguments remain convincing.
  We must face the fact that there is not so much positive support in the country as we should like. Why is there not a wider measure of support? Perhaps it is for two reasons. The first is the volte-face of Labour leaders. They still maintain a certain tiny shred of respect among some sections of the community, and people are puzzled by their volte-face.
  Another reason is the way in which the public opinion polls are presenting the issue. The pollsters are asking, "Do you want to go into the Common Market?" If they had asked, "Do you think it right to go into the Market?", the result might have been different. Many people I have talked to, after the many meetings I have held on this matter, have said, "We do not really want to go in, but we have got to, have we not?". They are the sort of people who say to the pollsters, "I do not want to go in", but who feel it is right to go in. Had the question been put by pollsters in the form, "Is it right to go in", I think there would be a considerably added measure of support for entry.
  We can take note of the fact that some people have been confused by some of the propaganda which has been put out—not by hon. Members in this House but, for example, in the sort of pamphlet put out in East Anglia and elsewhere entitled, "The Queen and the Common Market". It suggests at the end that our common law and our jury system, indeed our whole legal system, will be put in peril if we enter the Common Market. I was glad to see that suggestion discounted in the July debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I wish that we could have had a contribution from a Government legal officer so that we could be told the precise position on the legal side.
  2160
  I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the court does not sit in Brussels; it sits in Luxembourg and the matters the court can deal with are very limited and there is, as I understand it, no power, even, for the court to impose a fine or to send anybody, to prison. Yet we have had so much scurrilous comment about the possible impact of this court on our affairs. This is the sort of propaganda that has been going the rounds.
  There is a suggestion in this pamphlet that the institution of monarchy might in some way be destroyed. Undoubtedly people's minds are affected by this sort of literature. These factors should cause us to take less heed of public opinion polls. Those of us who think it right to go into the Common Market can take great comfort from the fact that we are undoubtedly supported by the majority of the young.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I hope in the course of my few remarks to refer to one or two points made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I say at the outset that my speech will be short in statistics but fairly long in conviction, assertion, accusation and puzzlement.
  I cannot understand, nor can others, why all the alleged horrors of going into the Common Market, now apparently so glaringly obvious, were not so equally glaring between 1967 and 1970. With the loss of sovereignty, the deserts that will be created in Scotland and Wales, and the floods of Italian blacklegs we are now going to get, I fail to comprehend that some people have now discovered, quite suddently, that the common agricultural policy, the value-added tax, the regional policies and other things should now be regarded as among the most objectionable features of the Community.
  I understand and respect the fundamentalists, those who want to go in under any terms, like the Liberal Party. I also respect and understand the anti-Common Marketeers who do not want to go in under any circumstances. So far as concerns the dedicated Europeans versus the international chauvinists, it would appear that their internationalism stops at Dover. I can even respect those who have changed their minds and admit

  2161
  it. Those I find very difficult to respect are the people who have changed their minds and pretend they have not—in particular, all those ex-Ministers who have had access to all the brief papers circulated between 1967 and 1970 on every conceivable aspect of this problem. They knew we were negotiating in good faith and knew the maximum and minimum terms we hoped for or expected to get. None of the fundamentalists resigned from that Cabinet—or even, so far as I know, threatened to do so.
  Some of the others who wanted to be in now say we must stay out. They have been engaged in what I would call some kind of political coitus interruptus. Such an exercise might have some short-term advantages but can lead to long-term misery—and I do not speak from any personal experience.
  There has been much talk about sovereignty in this debate and, frankly, this is my worry, too. Therefore, I intend to abstain tonight, and I hope no one will accuse me of being a coward in this or any other matter. I simply do not know whether it will be good or bad for us. I think that on balance it will be good, and that we have nowhere else to go. It is a rather negative position, and that is why I shall sit on the bench when the convicted people, if I may so call them, go in one Lobby or the other. I might be convicted for not going into the Lobby at all.
  I believe the question of sovereignty has been deliberately under-played by the Government, both in their White Paper and in this debate. The effect of the reduction of the rôle of this House has been very much under-estimated, and that again is a considerable worry to many people. This House will not be the same when we get into the Community.
  I very much valued the article on this topic by Donald Chapman, a very respected former Member of the House, in The Guardian on 20th October. One can see from the article that the power of this House will certainly be reduced when we get into the Market. Indeed, a great deal goes on even now under our own eyes that we do not know about. Donald Chapman quoted in his article facts and figures showing that some 2,000
  2162
  Statutory Instruments, which have legislative effect, go through this House every year and only a handful of them are debated. This is already government by default. In that sense this House, voluntarily and negligently, has surrendered a large part of its sovereignty to the Executive. Mr. Chapman thinks we ought to think carefully about setting up a Select Committee on European affairs and introducing new machinery to take care of the reduction of power in this House as a direct consequence of entry into Europe. We should think carefully about this.
  One of the reasons the European Socialists and trade unions want us in is precisely that we are more conscious of these problems than they are and have more experience of tackling them. This is no reason for us to stay out and to say, "We are international Socialists, but are not accepting the French or the Germans." We cannot say that and be true to ourselves.
  Much play has been made of the decision-making by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Things are not as simple as that. What about our own faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall? What part does this House play now in making policy decisions and in framing legislation? We have none at all. Everybody is consulted except us. Therefore, let us not pretend there will be any serious derogation there when we get into Europe. Furthermore, our independent rôle in world affairs, and even in our domestic policies, has become a myth. When I hear people in party conferences and parliamentary party meetings talk about an independent Socialist foreign policy, or an independent this, or an independent that, I think to myself, "We cannot really be independent on anything".
  I remember my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party until tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members opposite obviously do not know that it automatically comes to an end tonight—in 1965 talking about increasing old-age pensions and damn the international bankers. He was told to watch his step because the international bankers were already knocking at the door and saying, "Watch it, boys. You can't do that there 'ere!" This is the kind of limitation which we have now on our sovereignty.

  2163
  The British people are fearful of the change now being suggested. They have a terrifying conservatism. They shrank from the possibility of the disappearance of the 10s. note. When decimalisation came, all kinds of things were forecast as happening to us, and now we have enormous pressure against metrication. We are carrying on the revolution much too fast! To take the step which we are now being asked to take is the last thing the British people want, not because they are suspicious of change as such, but because it is being done by the present Government.
  That is why the public opinion polls are what they are. People are not saying only that they are against entry into the European Economic Community; they are saying that they do not want to be taken in by a Tory Government which took them in so easily on 18th June, 1970. They do not trust the Government. They do not trust anything they have said. The Prime Minister has deceived them about the three-line Whip, which he said there would be, just as he deceived the housewives with his prices policy. If he has deceived every woman in the way that he deceived housewives on 18th June, it is no wonder that he is a male virgin.
  That is the kind of attitude which I find in my constituency. My people say to me, "Willie, we do not trust the Conservative Government to take us into Europe to enable you to build Socialism." And I think they have a point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon dazzled us with science and statistics. He reminds me of watching an acrobatic performance of Olympic standards on television, when I say, "I wish that I could do that"; I cannot do it, but I admire the fellow who can, who can jump from one place to another and always manage to keep his balance—more or less.
  I cannot do it in the Lobby tonight. I cannot simply say that because pressure groups outside have taken decisions, I must follow them. It is no part of the Labour Party constitution that we in Parliament must behave according to the dictate of an outside pressure group, be is National Executive, the party conference, the T.U.C., or anybody else. This is an issue which may come once in a
  2164
  lifetime. It is certainly the only occasion in my life when I have to take these decisions on my own judgment regardless of what anybody has said to me.
  I have piles of documents—we all have—hundredweights of them, pro- and anti-from all the so-called experts: 50 per cent. of the economists say that it would be a damned good thing if we went in and 50 per cent. say that it would be a damned good thing if we stayed out; it would be a damned good thing if 100 per cent. of them kept their mouths shut. Over all the years since 1945 Governments of all persuasions have had the expert advice of the economists and one has only to look at the record of the country's economic performance to see the mess they got us into, Tory Governments and Labour Governments—we have all gone to the polls at elections promising, "Give us another chance and we will sort everything out." That is what the Tories said and that is what we shall say at the next election.
  That is why people are cynical about politicians and they would be more cynical if they felt that we were being whipped into the Lobbies not because of our convictions, but because some big cheese on the Front Bench said, "You get in there and never mind what your opinions are". Those days in the House are gone. [Interruption.] That was the voice of one of the experts who does not think we should go in, but at least that one will not be abstaining later.
  The Conservative Party has taken pride in having a free vote and chastises us for having a three-line Whip. The Prime Minister himself, however, was admitting defeat. He wanted a three-line Whip, but he could do simple arithmetic—perhaps he got the Foreign Secretary with his matches to help him do his sums—and he made his calculations. It is not a free vote. There are 100 on the payroll vote. We had the same problem when we were in Government.
  Mr. William Price: We still have.
  Mr. Hamilton: They have 100 on the payroll and they have 100 who want to be on the payroll. They have 100 of what I would call the clotted cream—at least the clotted 100—who have no chance of being in the Government, and it says a lot that 100 do not stand a

  2165
  chance of Ministerial appointment, in view of some on the Front Bench. Just 100 hope for knighthoods and life peerages and perhaps a governorship of one of the little islands which we still have left from the Empire in the Pacific or in the Indian Ocean. The remaining 35 already have their knighthoods, or their futures behind them, like some of the ex-Ministers or those who retire at the next election. They are the 35 who will oppose, but the rest will go into the Government Lobby for one reason or another. There is no such patronage on the Labour side, and, therefore, a free vote is more genuine on this than on that side. Therefore, too much should not be made of this point.
  I have been in very little trouble in my constituency. At the last meeting we had a fairly short discussion and at the end of it an old loyal supporter said, "Willie, we have had some debates on this subject and we are now so thoroughly confused that we had better leave it to your judgment." I think that that is the sort of thing that many people have done. It is said that there has been no debate, but there may have been too much debate, too many statistics and too many experts. In the end, we are saying in effect, "Are you Catholic or Protestant?" One may argue about that, but one will never convince anybody that he is wrong and one is right.
  We once had—I will not disclose the name—a former senior Minister in my party who attended a party meeting upstairs. No doubt someone will recollect this. She sought to prove that the majority of the bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere were Roman Catholics, that the trade unions were run by Roman Catholics and that it was a Catholic conspiracy. It may well be. If it is, I am an atheist.
  To debase this kind of problem in that kind of way is not worthy of the occasion. All of us in the House have to uphold the prestige of the House, and we can do it tonight by exercising our own right and our own judgment to say frankly, "I may be wrong in what I am doing, but at the moment I believe that I am right". There are many of my hon. Friends who will support the Government. They are among the most sincere, the most able, the most conscientious, the
  2166
  most loyal and the most dedicated members of my party. We cannot afford to be without them. I do not believe that Parliament can afford to be without them. Parliament will be a better place to live in if we tolerate them and, when it comes to the legislation afterwards, we treat it with meticulous care, as all parliamentary experts can. I say to the Prime Minister that we shall do as he did on Rhodesia and House of Lords reform. The Prime Minister accepted that there had been created in Rhodesia a police state. He accepted five principles—not one—and ratted on them, and he will do it again. On House of Lords Reform, the two Front Benches got together; we were not consulted about it, and they came to some agreement and again the Prime Minister ratted on that.
  Let him not preach to any of us. Whatever we do tonight we give no guarantee that we will ensure that the Government get their ensuing legislation in this matter. Indeed, we shall come together and see that they do not get that legislation nor the other legislation that we might get cut out of the timetable as a result of our minute examination of their legislation.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) clearly needs a lot of advice on a number of problems. His sex life and gymnastic difficulties are nothing to do with me, but he has made out a good case for entry. He has also said that there is nowhere else to go. If I may give him some advice, I would ask him to go into the "Aye" Lobby tonight and to remember that we too have consciences.
  Briefly and quickly I would deal with two main strands of the argument. If there is repetition in what I say there is no harm in that because we have had six days of debate and I, with a brief interlude, have sat here since the early hours of the morning. I want to knock on the head the myth of the continuing costs of Common Market membership, the widely held belief that there will be a perpetual net drain on our balance of payments. Secondly, we should look full in the face the political implications of joining.

  2167
  Most of my first theme has been dealt with at length by the Leader of the Opposition, with the excellent reply by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The figures which are suggested for costs of entry have been widely exaggerated. It is one of the weaknesses of the case for the anti-Marketeers that they find it necessary to exaggerate the case. Let us look at the three points where the costs would be incurred: normal trading conditions. Here we might suffer a short-term loss, but would enjoy long-term benefits. I personally have always seen fit to accept the views of the industrialists and not of the economists. Before it is thrust in my face that the trade unions do not see the benefits of entry, let me say that one of the principal trade unions in my constituency, the hosiery workers' union, is in favour of entry. I believe that my hosiery workers will not have automatic benefit from entry, but they will face the competition here because they are fit to do so and will benefit from being able to compete in Europe.
  The other industry in my constiuency is coal. One or two nights ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), when talking in dismal tones about the future for South Wales, would not be drawn on the position of the coal industry. Quite rightly too, because, among other people, his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said that coal mining has nothing to fear by going into Europe and indeed the prospects are great. I subscribe to this as does the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. Derek Ezra. There are imports going into the Six at the moment, some 30 million tons a year, which are there for the taking by our coal mining industry.
  The second point where an adverse balance of payments is feared is in regard to capital movement. There is no evidence to suggest so far as I can see that there will be a net outflow of capital investment. The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) suggested that capital would flow to what he called the "economic centre". He is not, unfortunately, in his place but what would be the effects of our not going in? Even more of our capital would flow into Europe as it has been doing over the past few years, because we have not already gone into the Market. If we did not go in, more
  2168
  American investment would go to the Common Market countries instead of into this country. Because of the greater growth potential of this country, as a result of entry, it must automatically attract more capital investment. We have the evidence of the Germans wanting to invest in Scotland. I do not doubt that there are other Common Market countries so inclined.
  The final point at which there is a potential and indeed actual drain, in the short term, in the balance of payments is our contribution to the budget, largely as a result of the common agricultural policy. This is a vast subject. I believe that the common agricultural policy will probably continue but, as soon as the enlarged Community becomes less than self-sufficient, the common agricultural policy will not continue to be the monster which it now is.
  The second point in this context is that the trends towards greater efficiency and higher productivity in continental farming are clear to every one of us. The Mansholt Plan will not be implemented in the original time scale—I think that Professor Mansholt calculated that fulfilment would be achieved by 1980. It will be implemented in its modified form within a few years after that. The population is leaving the land at a rapid rate; inducements have been agreed on to encourage this, inducements towards farm amalgamations. There are massive increases in productivity in cereals and milk. These are visible and actual trends which suggest that the costs of producing food on the continent will, by the middle of the 1980's be comparable to what ours are now. The result is clearly that if costs are comparable so are prices.
  Looking forward, this reason for the short-term drain on our balance of payments disappears and the relatively high cost of food which we have to accept also disappears in that time scale.
  To turn to the political argument, although the debate has been highly varied and wide ranging it is the majority view and mine also that the crucial question is the political one. The House must be fully aware of the implications of membership. So also those other countries in making present and future applications. I am personally satisfied, if not totally without reservation, with the political consequences. I am also satisfied

  2169
  that our vital sovereignty will be safeguarded by the Luxembourg agreement reinforced by the understanding between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou. I am well aware, and I accept this fact, that if it proves to be in the best interests, and if it is the common consent of the other Governments concerned, the countries of Europe will, in the lifetimes of future generations of our people, move closer together in political unity.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) seemed yesterday to find an obstacle to Europe in the fact that government there could never be democratically representative. If the political unity of which I have spoken comes about, then we shall have played a part in achieving it, we shall have willed it and, if that is the case, we shall have insisted upon democratic representation.
  No doubt we could continue on our own for some while but the tendency is for countries to form blocs to protect their own interests with external tariffs. Here I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) in whose constituency I live. He sees a reduction of tariffs throughout the world, I see the contrary. In the United States of America tariffs are already high and the developing countries are rightly protecting their own emerging industries. On our own, we risk being cut of while our industrial competitors forge ahead.
  This is a judgment on balance and, as I assess the arguments, I find that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and I am fervently and firmly in favour of entry. If we stay outside, we face the risk of political and economic isolation. Within Europe there are better prospects for our country and our people and a greater likelihood of political influence and security.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Leonard: It is not my ambition to make the most eloquent or the weightiest speech in the debate; I want to make the shortest speech. For that reason I shall not comment on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler).
  When I appeared before the electors of Romford in June, 1970, it was as a
  2170
  long-term supporter of British membership of the Common Market. I successfully fought that General Election—as did the great majority of my fellow Labour candidates—on the platform of support for membership providing that reasonable terms were negotiated. Since July of this year we have known what the terms are, and in my judgment, for what it is worth, these are reasonable terms. I, for one, would have been happy to support a Labour Government in recommending them to the House and the country.
  That being the case, can I honestly refuse to support these same terms when they are proposed from the other side of the House? The only argument that I have heard advanced which might justify me in this course is that the Government are untrustworthy, that they broke their election promises at a stroke and, therefore, cannot be trusted to take the necessary action to protect the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens in the difficulties that are likely to arise during the transitional period. It is unfortunately the case that that distrust exists and is widespread.
  It was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) when he said:
  "There is a great obligation on the Government of the day to show a humanity and care which have been noticeably lacking in the last eighteen months. I wish a Tory Government were not presiding over this great change. I am satisfied that, whatever happens, they will not be doing so for long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 949.]
  In those words my hon. Friend effectively refuted that argument. This Tory Government will be with us for a very few years at the most. We are building for generations and we should be betraying our constituents rather than serving them if we allowed short-terms fears, however well-justified, to prevail over the long-term opportunities which will far outweigh the initial difficulties.
  Another objection advanced to those hon. Members contemplating voting in favour of British entry is that it is against the wishes of our constituents. The secretary of the local anti-Common Market committee in my constituency, a Mr. J. C. Collins, said in a letter to the Havering and Romford Recorder:
  "It is unquestionable that the opposition to entry is overwhelming."

  2171
  I cannot speak for other constituencies, but it is clear to me that that statement is quite untrue as far as Romford is concerned. I can offer a great deal of evidence to support that argument. A so-called mass anti-Common Market rally organised by this same organisation in Romford attracted under 40 people, whereas over 100 attended a meeting of mine at which I argued the case for membership. I have over 80,000 electors in Romford, yet I have received only 40 letters from constituents in opposition to membership of the Market.
  Another local paper, the Havering Express, ran a poll which showed a majority of six to one against. That is not surprising, in view of the anti-Market wording on the newspaper coupon. But only a tiny proportion of the electorate took part in the poll—precisely 74 people out of an electorate of over 80,000, or less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. The truth is that in Romford a number of people are strongly and sincerely opposed to British membership. I respect their view, but it is evident that they form only a tiny proportion of the total electorate. Those who are strongly in favour are equally a small minority. It is clear that the great majority of my electors have no strong views on the subject, and I strongly suspect that that is true of the country as a whole.
  The widely varying fluctuations in opinion polls, not only over the last few weeks but the last several years, show that relatively few voters have strong and stable views on the subject. I am not a 100 per cent. adherent of a Burkeian view of representation, although I never thought that Members of Parliament should be mere bellwethers of their electorates. Nevertheless, I should be deeply unhappy if I thought that I was about to cast a vote against the strongly-held views of the great majority of my electors.
  There is no question of that. If I were to represent most accurately the views of my electors I have no doubt that I should abstain tonight. I have no intention of doing so. In my view that would be an abdication of responsibility, and would go flatly against the repeated pledges which I have given to my electors to exercise a considered judgment of what is in the best interests of the people I represent. For the same reason, on this issue, I am
  2172
  not prepared to hide behind the protection of my Party Whips.
  If ever there was an issue on which Opposition Members, at least, should be prepared to exercise their own judgment in a free vote and consequently justify themselves to their electors, it is this. I greatly regret the decision of my Party not to allow a free vote and, with full knowledge of the likely consequences to myself, I shall not be voting with the majority of my fellow Party members tonight. I shall be casting a vote for Europe. This will be a vote for wider opportunities and a higher standard of living for the people of Britain. It will be a vote in favour of closer international co-operation and a vote for peace. It will be a vote for the future.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: My first comment will command universal assent. This is not a moment for orations of Gladstonian length and complexity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] A short speech, as our national poet might have put it, shines like a good deed in a naughty world.
  I want to make three points. The first is that this is not an occasion for the Government, the Opposition, or any single political party in this House; this is an occasion for Parliament. It is Parliament which will decide the issue of this debate.
  The Government conceded the right to a free vote and were correct in doing so. The motives which inspired the Government are of little importance; the fact of the free vote is. It is not our job to look into the conscience of "Free-Vote Francis", as he has been called by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), or into the conscience of "Flagellation Foot", if I may be permitted so to describe him. Our late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I said that it was not her business to make windows into men's souls. The Prime Minister took the initiative here, and I only wish that the Leader of the Opposition had been able to follow that example, because that would have been not only constitutionally correct but an act of enlightened self-interest.
  In this debate what is decreed by those in authority matters not, because Members of Parliament will vote according to their consciences and according to what they believe to be right for Britain. The

  2173
  Whips on either side of the House can huff and puff as long as they wish, but this is one House which they will not bring down. How important a free vote can be is shown by the interest which this debate has aroused throughout the country, for the simple reason that the result is not pre-ordained in advance. This is the way in which to restore the prestige of Parliament.
  I want to say one word to those Members of the Opposition who will be voting for British membership of the Community tonight, and in particular to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard), who made an extremely well-argued speech. It is not an easy step for members of the Opposition to support this Motion. I fully accept that, and I think that hon. Members on the Government side of the House have throughout the debate been conscious of the difficulties in which Members of the Opposition have found themselves. Nearly everyone on this side of the House has imposed on himself or herself a self-denying ordinance not to make that task more difficult. It is a courageous act, because no hon. Member, however independent he may be, likes to be out of step with his own party and separated from a majority decision. It is extremely disagreeable, but in certain circumstances it has to be done.
  I am speaking not from theory but, alas, from experience. I have been unpopular with my party in the past. I am thinking particularly of the occasion when I voted against the Bill dealing with the immigration of Kenya Asians. This was received with less than rapture by many of my colleagues, and was not exactly an occasion for rejoicing in my constituency. Those of us who voted against the Bill did so simply because we believed it right to do so. That same belief animates those on the other side of the House, whichever way they will be voting—those on this side too, but we take that for granted. Mercifully, we in this country do not suffer from the elephantiasis of the memory which afflicts those on our sister island across the Irish Sea. However strongly people feel about these things, they are fairly soon forgotten.
  Those Members of the Opposition who are voting for the Motion tonight are voting for Britain and for Europe. They
  2174
  are not keeping the Tory Government in power. Even if the Government were to be defeated tonight, there would not be a constitutional occasion for resignation because this is a free vote and not a vote of confidence. If hon. Gentlemen opposite find themselves in the same Lobby as Tory Members, that can be regarded as a beneficial or malevolent side effect, according to one's point of view.
  Opposition Members are making a contribution to restoring faith in public life and in the integrity of those in public life. It is extremely important that that should be done. What would the people outside the House think if the life-long Europeans—those who were totally convinced of the need for Britain to take this step—were to go into the Lobby and vote against their most cherished convictions, or take the pusillanimous course of merely abstaining?
  My second point is that this is truly an historic moment; it is a parting of the ways for the country. This is the moment of effective recognition that our imperial past lies behind us—that it is over, and that this is the start of a new era. The limbo of being suspended between two worlds that has lasted for nearly 20 years is about to come to an end. The British Empire, with all its shortcomings—and there were shortcomings—was one of the greatest civilising forces that the world has seen since the time of the Roman Empire. It carried fair adminstration, liberty and the rule of law to the furthest parts of the earth. That is something of which we can be proud. The transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth was not a tragedy, as Senator Kennedy so foolishly said in the unfortunate speech he made last week in the Senate; it was much more a triumph.
  Today, the country is being given a chance to return to an older tradition. The imperial tradition, although a great one, was a comparatively late tradition in Britain. For the greater part of our history the rôle that we have played has been that of a country which is an integral part of Europe, and it is to that more ancient rôle that we are returning.
  No easy options are opening up. No guarantees can be given by entering into the Community—only opportunities. We should remember that if the prizes for

  2175
  success are glittering, the penalties for failure will be equally severe.
  My third point is that Parliament must decide the issue—but once Parliament has decided the issue it is our duty to make the best of it.
  Although this is the fundamental decision on which everything else depends, other decisions have to be taken outside the House. Investment decisions have to be made. Decisions have to be made throughout British industry so that we make the best of the opportunities and are ready for instant action. We cannot afford to push open the door and fall flat on our faces. That would be to get the worst of every possible world. Once this decision has been taken, let us seize the opportunities that are opening out for us, not for any party in this House but for the country as a whole.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. James Lomond: Possibly, the best known remark of Henry Ford is, "History is bunk". As a new Member who arrived in June, 1970, I am not interested, and I am sure the electorate are not, in the battle of quotations that has been waged in the debate on this important matter.
  It is difficult to come to an accurate assessment of the best course for this country, because so many of the assurances that have been made have not been quantified. I am quite certain that the majority of people in this country are not in favour of joining the Common Market. I know that some hon. Members have twisted and turned in an attempt to discredit people who have told us either through the post or personally that they are opposed to entry, but these people, bigoted though they may be and basing their decision on religious or other grounds, are as entitled to their opinion as any of us here tonight.
  A large number of people have based their decision not to support entry on an instinct, and that instinct is that prices will rise more sharply if we enter the Common Market than they will if we do not. We should not be surprised if people do not believe what is said in this Chamber when they are told that prices will rise by only 2½ per cent. per annum
  2176
  because—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—in the recent past they have been misled on this very question of price increases, and they arc determined not to be fooled again by anyone in this House.
  The second, and more important, point is that of regional development. I have had a little experience, from 12 years of membership of a development authority and a local authority, of trying to attract private industry into an area which, geographically, is not attractive. It was a tremendous task, and even with the many advantages provided by the previous Labour Government it was exceedingly difficult to attract even one or two firms into the area. How much more difficult it will be, even if we are allowed to have a development area programme, to attract firms, not from the South-East of England, but possibly from the Continent of Europe. I believe that there is no incentive which could be conceived, even if we were free to try to provide it, which would make these firms go to the areas in which we would like to see them develop.
  Entering the Common Market will be disastrous for people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, and for lower paid workers. We are told that trade unionists should not be afraid of entry because, if they examine the facts, they will find that their wage levels are about £7 a week below those of their fellow workers in Europe. That contrasts strangely with the assertions during the last few years that we have been paying ourselves too much, that we have been asking for far too many increases in wages, and that we have been pricing ourselves out of jobs.
  Do hon. Members really feel that entry into the Common Market will transform the employers of this country into kindhearted people who will go to their workers, especially the lower paid, and offer them increases of £5, £6 or £7 a week? I prefer to take the more realistic view that in the years to come it will be even more difficult to get employers to pay increases of any kind.
  I do not think that we need to go far among pensioners to find that they, too, have a feeling of insecurity about the future because they do not trust us in this House to give them a square deal.

  2177
  Having had to wait so long for a miserable £1 increase in their pension, they found that it had been eaten up by rising costs even before they got it.
  I am not prepared to vote for entry, in the hope of benefits to come, and sacrifice these people who depend upon us to protect them. For that reason, and very shortly, I shall vote against the Motion.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys: This is one of the biggest decisions that Parliament has ever had to take. But it is a decision which only Parliament can take. A great deal has been said about public opinion and sovereignty. Sovereignty resides in Parliament, and not in the Gallop polls. Despite changes in its party political complexion, for more than 10 years there has been a substantial majority in the House of Commons in favour of the principle of joining the European Economic Community, and that notwithstanding very clear evidence of public doubts and opposition.
  Public opinion is not invariably right, particularly on broad international issues. If a referendum had been held in September, 1938, there is little doubt that it would have shown massive support for the policy of appeasement and a general belief that the Munich settlement had removed the danger of war.
  If the people of Western Europe had been asked to vote for or against the creation of the European Economic Community, again there is little doubt that there would have been adverse majorities in at least four of the six countries. Yet, if a referendum were held today, after a decade of successful experience, it would certainly show overwhelming approval. There is a natural tendency for individuals to take a short-term view. Parliament has the duty to look further ahead.
  The large number of votes that will be cast tonight against this Motion will be a disappointment to our friends on the Continent, but I hope they will understand that the disagreement between the Government and the official Opposition is over the terms, and not over the objective.
  Mr. George Thomas Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West) indicated assent.
  Mr. Sandys: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.
  This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted from his speeches at the General Election in order to confirm that the official policy of the Labour Party has not changed and that it still favours joining the Common Market provided that the terms are right.
  Those who say that they are, in principle, in favour of joining the Common Market, but that the terms are not good enough, must know that they are being quite unrealistic. Having, as Commonwealth Secretary, been involved in the further round of negotiations, I am convinced that the terms which have been secured are as good as anyone could reasonably have hoped for.
  It has been said repeatedly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said so again this evening, that the vote tonight is an historic event. It is an historic event not only for us, but also for Europe. The entry of Britain and her E.F.T.A. partners will immeasurably increase the stature and influence of the Community which henceforth will be able to speak on behalf of all the free peoples of Europe.
  The Economic Community, as its name implies, is concerned only with economic affairs. Its sphere of responsibility cannot be extended except with the unanimous consent of its members. But I am sure that, before long, we shall all see the advantage of working together not only in the economic sphere but also over the whole range of foreign relations and defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]
  It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Ah". I have made it perfectly clear that the sphere of responsibility of the Community cannot be extended beyond the economic field without the consent of all the members, including, of course, Britain. What I am adding is that, in my opinion, we shall find that the experience of working together in the economic field will lead us to want to extend co-operation to wider areas. But that will happen only with our consent. I believe we shall wish to do so, for that is the only way in which we and the other great nations of Western Europe, who have so long led the world, will secure our rightful say in the big international decisions.

  2179
  If we have had a long wait, the fault is ours. We were invited to join the European Coal and Steel Community and later the E.E.C. as founder members; but we declined. If we were now to allow this third and probably last chance to slip away, we would be committing one of the most monumental follies of all time.
  But of course that will not happen. In an hour or so, we will assuredly decide to accept the challenge and the opportunity which Europe offers us. The Leader of the Opposition said today that this is not the end but the beginning. I believe that it is both the end and the beginning. Our vote tonight will mark the end of a period of growing isolation and weakness and the beginning of a new period of partnership and growing strength. Having worked and campaigned for 25 years for European unity, I am indeed happy and proud to be able, as a Member of the House of Commons, to take part in this great decision.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Michael Barnes: On a point of order. In view of the great public interest in this debate and the fact that the Serjcant at Arms does not appear to have made adequate arrangements to ensure that late admissions, firmly booked months ago, can now be honoured, and since there are many seats not normally allowed to the public empty in the Gallery, could consideration be given to them being made available to members of the public who have had firmly booked admissions made on their behalf by hon. Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have myself been carefully into this matter during the past hour. I am obliged to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing that can be done more than is being done. This is an extraordinary day and I am afraid that he will have to accept it as such.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said that this decision is of historic importance. I believe that it is and that being the case I can see no way of reaching a conclusion on this issue other than by considering the merits of
  2180
  this case—the merits of the particular issue of entry of the E.E.C. as I see them after consultation with my constituents. I believe that the people of this country are entitled to Parliament's honest view on the principle of entry and on the terms negotiated.
  I want to say something about the nature of the Community—a matter which is greatly questioned on this side—and then something briefly about the terms.
  Many of my hon. Friends do not believe that this is the sort of community that we should join. They regard it as a club of rich countries, and compare it unfavourably with the Commonwealth, which is multi-racial and contains rich and poor nations who can help each other in a variety of ways. Before coming into the House my own experience involved my working in and with under-developed countries, particularly in Latin America, India and Pakistan. I feel a deep commitment to the developing countries.
  I believe that we can maintain and improve our Commonwealth relationship if we join the Community. I do not believe that membership will be inconsistent with our Commonwealth relationship. The real danger is different—that, because of our slow growth rate, we will do less and less to help developing members of the Commonwealth with trade and aid.
  We can see what has happened to our aid over recent years. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who made a brilliant speech against entry the other day, re-slimed from the Labour Government because he was dissatisfied with what we were doing. Note today the increased pressure for greater protection for textiles. We exaggerate even now our ability, and sometimes our inclination, as a people to help the developing Commonwealth countries in their trading requirements as much as they need to be helped.
  We are confronted by difficulty in doing all that is necessary, for two reasons. The first is the vast size of the problem; within the Commonwealth live virtually half the population of the developing world. The second is our slow rate of growth. It reminds me, in a way, of the east of Suez problem, on which I

  2181
  also used to have certain points of difference with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I was not so much against the principle of those commitments; I believed that, for economic reasons, we would default on them.
  Similarly, in our relations with the developing Commonwealth, I fear that with our slow growth and our growing introspection we will see growing protectionism in this country—a growing rejection of the Commonwealth and of responsibility. I believe that we will default on our commitments unless we can speed our rate of growth.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North said that neither we nor the Community are doing enough in this matter. I entirely agree, but at any rate what they are doing is expanding more rapidly than what we are doing. I believe that in the European Community there is a growing sense of responsibility about this problem, particularly on its trading aspects. But more yet needs to be done by the E.E.C. and by the United Kingdom, in or out. For example, it is necessary to develop and improve the system of generalised preferences. If we are members of the Community, or if we intend to join, we in the Labour Party should be pressing for more to be done within the Community and in this country.
  But here there is a question. Some of my hon. Friends may think that this question is not yet relevant, but I believe that it is. During the next 18 months the policies and nature of the European Community will be changing, as they have been changing throughout its history. New policies will be decided. This issue, in particular, will be a matter for discussion within the Community.
  We should be influencing those decisions. We should, to use a piece of complacent terminology that is sometimes used in this connection, be influencing the Community to make it more outward-looking. If we in the Labour Party are to spend the next 16 months simply fighting entry, how do we also do the job of pressing the Government to do all that is necessary to improve the policies of the Community in this and other respects?
  Another objection to our entry is that the Community is protectionist. It is no more protectionist than the United States,
  2182
  with its higher tariff, the American selling price, and the "Buy-American" Act. It is certainly no more protectionist than Japan, with its policy of an undervalued currency, its virtually unique tariff on ships, and control on imports. Nor is it more protectionist than the United Kingdom, with her higher level of tariffs. If the measure of protectionism is the increase in trade the Community is among the least protectionist units in the world.
  It is no use pretending that the world of international trade is all sweet, light and laissez faire except for the E.E.C., which is protectionist. The real question is whether we will be able to do more for freer international trade if we are in than if we are out. At any rate, in the Community our tariffs will be lower. Some of my hon. Friends would object to that, but it would be one contribution to freer trade.
  People who believe that this country can do more out rather than in exaggerate the influence we have, standing alone, on international affairs. That is probably the main reason why the Labour Government applied for entry. We found that we had insufficient influence over matters that greatly affected the destiny of this country, and employment opportunities in this country.
  A word about the terms: are they good, bad or indifferent? Perhaps I might offer a word of caution to my right hon. and hon. Friends. They have made their calculations as to the cost of entry, and have spoken of renegotiation with, I sometimes think, the object of fundamentally changing in short order the whole nature of the Community.
  I will simply say that if they pitch their arguments about the terms too high it will be difficult to understand—if it is all that ruinous, bad or unfair—why there is no categorical pledge to take us out of the Community if renegotiation fails to produce substantial results. I do not believe that we have had such a categorical pledge today, or that one would be sensible, or even that my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that it would be sensible. After all, entry into the Community may work. All the scares may prove false. It might be silly to be hoist on that sort of pledge at the next election. I suggest that the question of terms should be handled with greater care.

  2183
  Will entry benefit our growth rate? That is a question on which we have had plenty of advice. Many books and articles have been written about it. One eminent economist has already adopted three different opinions. In The Times letter pages we have had 12½ column inches of economists who are unfavourable towards entry and 11 inches of economists who are favourable. I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's principles of scepticism. The first was that when the experts are agreed the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain. The second, which is more relevant, was that when the experts are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert.
  This suggests two alternative conclusions. Either, first, we should not exaggerate the fatal or favourable consequences of entry—though that is too much to expect in a debate such as this—or, secondly, this is not a subject on which economists are expert, rather like the rest of us. We are thrown back on our honest judgment. My judgment is that entry will have a beneficial effect on this country and on our rate of growth.
  That leaves me in a difficult position. My party says "Not on these terms" and has issued a three-line Whip—which, as we all know, is on this side of the House more liberal than a free vote on the benches opposite. My party says "No" and my judgment says "Yes". Can I vote "No" tonight, against my judgment on this great issue? I have no alternative but to vote in accordance with my judgment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Enoch Powell.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat up until very early this morning and I do not recall the presence of that particular gentleman in the Chamber. I do not recall his presence until 2 o'clock the night before.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Faulds: May I finish, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am afraid not. It is clearly not a point of order. There is no question of the Chair's being concerned with who is or is not present. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Mr. Faulds: May I come to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I was told last night by one of the right hon. Member's acolytes that he was going to speak tonight, by special arrangement, late in the debate. How do such special arrangements come to be made, and made with the most pernicious and poisonous political personality of the day?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those remarks are quite out of order and that they should not be made.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Powell.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House is approaching with relief, and with some impatience, the conclusion of these protracted but preliminary proceedings. I refer to them advisedly as preliminary not from any desire to discount the quality of this debate, to the vast majority of which I have listened with great enjoyment and admiration of what has been spoken here. It has been a debate which has confounded the detractors of the House of Commons, both in its seriousness and in its quality.
  I call it preliminary because this House does not come to its great decisions by voting once-for-all upon an abstract principle. This House is at its best and is best performing its duty when it applies itself persistently to the detail and to the practicality and consequences of what is put before it. It is for that reason that we are coming to the end of only the first preliminary stage in this matter.
  One of the more repetitive characteristics of the debate has been the absolute hail of ridicule and taunts which has descended upon the heads of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench. The quotations of speeches made by themselves a year, two years and three years ago, which they were now verbally and textually contradicting; the exposure of

  2185
  argument after argument, which, if it was valid at all, must not just be valid against one set or another of transitional terms but must go to the heart of the matter—day after day there has been a fusilade of jeers and taunts pointing all this out. Yet those jeers and taunts recoil upon those who utter them.
  The question has been repeatedly addressed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, "What has changed? What has changed in the last year since you said that, or the last two or three years, since 1968 or 1967?" I will tell the House what has changed. What has changed is that for the first time a proposition has been put to the people of this country. For the first time the people of this country have addressed themselves to the question of membership of the Community not just as something which might happen somehow sometime but as something on which a decision has to be taken whether it shall or shall not happen now and in these circumstances. It has been the response of the people of this country to that sudden real proposition put before them which is the change that explains all that has happened.
  It has imposed the most severe gymnastic contortions upon many hon. Members opposite—
  An Hon. Member: Not only opposite
  Mr. Powell:—upon many hon. Members opposite, that this has come about.
  Nevertheless, it has the fortunate result that the majority in the country are represented and have a voice in this House as well as the minority. It would have been tragic if that were not so.
  Repeatedly in this debate words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been quoted—his words about the necessity for the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people; his statement—his repeated statement—that this country could not be taken into the Common Market against the majority of the people or against the wishes of the people.
  These words have not been quoted textually and repeated just to pinpoint a phrase or two which the Prime Minister used. They have been quoted because they are manifestly true. They are not true because my right hon. Friend said them. Rather my right hon. Friend said them because they are true; and all honour to him for having said them and
  2186
  all honour to him for the clarity with which he expressed them.
  The reason they are true—they are not true of every question which falls to be decided by the House—is the unique character of the decision proposed to the House, which involves a cession by the House—initially perhaps minor, but destined to grow—of its present sovereignty, of its present ultimate sovereignty, and requires from the people a commitment to merge themselves and their destinies with those of the countries of the adjacent Continent.
  I do not think the fact that this involves a cession—and a growing cession—of Parliament's sovereignty can be disputed. Indeed, I notice that those who are the keenest proposers of British entry are the most ready to confess—not to confess, but to assert—that of course this involves by its very nature a reduction of the sovereignty of the House. Nevertheless, it is worth while reminding the House that the advice which it was given by the Lord Chancellor in Cmnd. 3301—the highest source of legal advice which the House can receive—put the nature of that transfer of sovereignty very succinctly in paragraph 22:
  "The constitutional innovation would lie in the acceptance in advance as part of the law of the United Kingdom of provisions to be made in the future by instruments issued by the Community institutions"—
  then follow these words—
  "a situation for which there is no precedent in this country."
  It is an unprecedented act of renunciation which this House is called upon to make. No wonder, then, that it should be a condition for that that it should have our full-hearted consent.
  The development of the Community which is envisaged by those who support it on the narrowest, as by those who support it on the broadest, grounds can, in the nature of things, be only a progressive one. My right hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, are right to assert that its ambit could be extended stage by stage only with the unanimous agreement of all the parties to the Community and that, at each point in that extension we would have a veto.
  But the fact of the veto does not alter the nature of the commitment which we are asked to make. First, a veto is not

  2187
  only a defence: it is also a weapon. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made this point very effectively. As we can protect ourselves by our veto, so every other member can protect itself; and its very ability to do so imposes the like duress upon us as upon all the rest.
  That leads to the second aspect of the veto, which is the real one. It is that we do not enter, if we enter at all, into such an undertaking as this in order to veto whatever we do not agree with. Of course not. We enter it with the object of only dissenting where we cannot avoid dissenting, and with the intention that unanimity shall prevail more and more and in the spirit that we in this House and in this country will accept the overriding voice of something larger than ourselves.
  My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not sought to burke this issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon repeatedly said that what he looked for in the Community in the future was political unity. Political unity is meaningless if it does not mean that normally one accepts here, as others accept elsewhere, not what we ourselves might have chosen for ourselves but what is decided and decreed by the whole.
  It is in this fact that the irrevocability of the decision consists. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) demonstrated, I thought irrefutably, that for legal purposes we ought to regard this as an irrevocable commitment. But leaving that on one side, this is a step which by its very nature makes no sense unless it is intended to be irrevocable or irreversible. This is not the kind of community, nor are these the kind of grounds, of which one can say that we will enter into it but that if we do not like it we shall be off like a shot. What we are asked for in this House and in this country is an intention, an irrevocable decision, gradually to part with the sovereignty of this House and to commit ourselves to the merger of this nation and its destinies with the rest of the Community. It is there that the validity rests of the conditions which my right hon. Friend imposed upon the achievement of that aim.
  2188
  Of course, one could imagine perhaps some emergency, some sudden deterioration of our position and prospects in this country, which would justify us in brushing those conditions aside, when we might say that there may or may not be full-hearted consent for this indoors or out of doors, but that the urgency is such, the manifest unacceptability of any alternative is such, that needs must, however we do it. But although I have heard that proposition at various times during this debate, that is not—
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: I am sorry. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. We are speaking under a constraint of time. I am very sorry.
  This is not an argument which the Government and, indeed, which hon. Members in most quarters of the House have sought to put. On the contrary, immediately before the General Election my right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister assured the country and the world that we could live and thrive outside the Community with equal success in the future to that which this country has enjoyed in the past.
  Mr. Crouch Mr. Crouch indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend said it. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but in the manifesto on which he and I both fought at the election we told the country that if we did not like the terms which were offered we could perfectly well stand and thrive on our own. So there can be no urgent, evident, irresistible necessity, and we come back to the fact that this act which is proposed to us is an act which by its very character must require from this House and from the country manifest, full-hearted consent, active and overwhelming commitment.
  The Division which takes place tonight at 10 o'clock is being awaited not only inside the Chamber but far and wide outside. The emissaries of radio, television and the Press are all waiting like harpies to pounce upon us as soon as we emerge from the Lobbies, and to write their deductions, their dispatches upon the outcome. And yet, Mr. Speaker,

  2189
  that which we require to know, that which it most concerns us to know, we know already before the Queston is put.
  We know before the Question is put that this House is deeply and, indeed, passionately divided. We know, and this has come from speech after speech of the most fervent supporters of the proposal that we should enter, as well as from other quarters, that full-hearted consent to this step does not exist out of doors. We know, in short, before we vote that the two conditions precedent to the decision to enter do not exist: they are not available.
  In the course of these discussions, there has been repeated reference to the name of perhaps the greatest of all the sons of this House. We have been reminded repeatedly of Edmund Burke's Letter to the Electors of Bristol; of how in 1774 he warned them that he was a free man, that he would not consider it necessary unless his judgment approved it to be the mere mouthpiece in Parliament of their interests. But we would be mistaken, and we would mistake the nature of this House, if we thought that what Edmund Burke was saying was that this House could legislate without regard to the sentiments and opinions of the people.
  It so happens that in the heart of the debates over the American colonies Edmund Burke wrote another letter to Bristol—his Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, in 1777, and he there defined what he believed was the function of this House. He wrote:
  "To follow, not to force, the public inclination, to give a direction, a form, a technical dress and a specific sanction to the general sense of the community is the true end of legislature."
  Anyone who tonight, knowing that the necessary conditions to approval of these proposals have been withheld, that they do not command the full-hearted consent either of the House or of the country, nevertheless votes for them, casts his vote against the vital principle by which this House exists.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: It is a privilege to speak last for the Opposition in this six-day debate, and immediately before the Prime Minister. The House is, perhaps, never at its best when it is self-congratulatory, but I
  2190
  believe that all of us who have listened during these six days will feel that democracy has triumphed on this occasion. It has been an exhibition of argument and passionate conviction—of argument about principle, in which deep feelings have been expressed and yet good humour and tolerance have been shown. If we have to go into Europe I shall be delighted to see that we can carry those qualities there, at any rate.
  I give one promise to the House. I do not think that I have a single quotation from anybody, so all the counter-quotations can be put away.
  If the Government's Motion is carried tonight, as I am told by all the psephologists it will be, there is no doubt that Parliament will be making history, whether or not the Government get their later legislation. The occasion is historic because, whether one believes it to be a good thing or a bad, by registering an affirmative decision—if so it does—Parliament will take the first step in the long centuries of our history in stripping itself of its power of independent decision over a large sector of our national life.
  Whether good or bad, that will be the consequence over such humdrum but important matters as, for example, the prices of foods in the family larder and the amount and nature of the tax which is deducted from the weekly pay packet to much more majestic considerations, such as the kind of countries with which we trade, the basis on which we trade with them, and our political connection with the 200 million people who live in Europe and with whom we are so closely associated.
  So it is a historic decision. I rejoice in the fact that the crowds are gathered at the entrances to Parliament today. It shows that the people recognise the occasion for what it is. Not only do they recognise it; they know something else. We are all brought up in the tradition and the belief that we want to have a say in our own affairs. It was our predecessors who won that for us. We intend to exercise that power of decision and control over the levers of power in so far as we can. So, although the ordinary men and women gathered at the entrances to this building tonight, or attending to the debate far more widely, may not have gone into the complexities of the C.A.P.

  2191
  and the V.A.T., the balance of payments, what the difference is between the balance of payments and the G.N.P., and the rest, they do not need a great deal of subtlety to recognise that, whether it be a good thing or a bad, joining the E.E.C. will reduce their say in the way their affairs are conducted.
  I believe that it is partly because the ordinary man recognises that, and partly because they have failed to get across their own case, that the Government have failed to secure the support which, in my view, they need for this unprecedented venture. I believe, also, that the feeling of the ordinary man that he is in some way losing control and that the case has not been made out fully has been strengthened by the circumstances in which the veto on negotiations, which had been banged down so often against us, was suddenly withdrawn.
  It happened after the fateful meeting between M. Pompidou and the Prime Minister, as recently as 20th and 21st May last. It is generally recognised that it was the French who had it within their powers to enforce or lift the embargo and veto. They decided to lift it. So it was a crucial meeting.
  We have had the Prime Minister's version—not in detail—of what took place at that meeting. We have had a much more extensive version of what took place from M. Pompidou. He said that he regarded it as necessary to put certain test questions to the Prime Minister. First, "Do you accept the basis of the agricultural Common Market, that is to say, preference for Community produce as against produce from other parts of the world?" Second, "Do you accept the unanimity rule in the functioning of the institutions of the E.E.C.?", a matter to which France is fundamentally attached.
  Third, "Will Britain play her part in the creation of a European monetary union?"
  The fourth is in M. Pompidou's view the most important question of all, so I quote the words he used in reporting on his conversations:
  "I asked the British Prime Minister what he thought about Europe, that is to say, whether Britain was determined to become European: whether this Britain, which is an island, was determined to make herself fast to the continent: whether she was ready consequently
  2192
  to draw away from the open seas to which she had always turned."
  M. Pompidou said that the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister in reply were in agreement with the French conception of the future of Europe. Nowhere in that report is there any account of what counter-questions, if any, the Prime Minister put to M. Pompidou, or whether he explained to him how the British Government saw the future conception of Europe. I want to press the Prime Minister on that aspect a little later. Before it votes tonight the House is entitled to know which way the British Government want Europe to go.
  But let us first take M. Pompidou's questions about the common agricultural policy. In 1967, it has been said, but it is important to rehearse it again, the E.E.C. was working on the basis of a temporary policy due to expire in 1969. It was unfortunate that after our original application went in, and before the French would allow effective negotiations to start, the nature of the common agricultural policy was decided by the Six, in the full knowledge that if Britain became a member of the Community we would be the largest food importer of all, and therefore that the impact on us would be greater than on any other single member of the Community. It was a slap in the face for Britain. What we could only guess at the time, but what M. Pompidou has subsequently revealed to be the truth of the matter, was that slap was deliberate, and was taken at his insistence. Let me quote from the same interview that I have already quoted. It says:
  "… he had struck a clear deal with France's partners in the Common Market. He, M. Pompidou, had ensured that the Agricultural Common Market should be finalised in exchange for the opening of negotiations with Britain."
  According to the Fourth Annual Report of the Communities, the cost of that policy, which was finalised at the beginning of 1970, for the current year is 3,484 million units of account, which at an exchange rate of $2·40 to the £ is equivalent to £1,450 million. There is a substantial discrepancy between that figure and the figure of £1,096 million given in the White Paper. I believe that that is in part explicable by the fact that there is a carry-over of funds and expenditures not expended in earlier years. But,

  2193
  from the time we join, a substantial proportion of that staggering figure, whether the net figure of £1,096 million or the gross figure of £1,450 million, will be borne by the British consumer in the form of higher food prices than he would have to pay if we were outside the Market.
  When the gibe is thrown at us on this side, "Why on earth did you apply?", I should like to give at least a partial answer. I do not think that the House has realised what the figures were at the time of the application. We had before us the figures for 1964–65 and 1965–66. I do not know whether the House will be surprised to learn that compared with the figures of £1,096 million and £1,450 million, the directly comparable figure in the budget for 1964–65 was £77 million and for 1965–66 it was £107 million.
  Surely even the most ardent pro-Marketeer would be justified in having second thoughts when he recognised that the price of subscription to the club that he had applied to join four years before had gone up thirteenfold in the last four years. Is the difference between £107 million and £1,450 million to be swept aside as being of no account?
  It is the view of the Labour Party that against this background the terms which have been negotiated by the Government are unfair to Britain and involve many people in too heavy a sacrifice. For the reasons that have been fully developed in this debate, the Labour Party believes that the price of our domestic foodstuffs will rise faster and higher than the Government's own estimates in the White Paper.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has reminded us that the criteria on which he based his figures are the same as the criteria on which we based ours. But it is not the criteria which are of ultimate importance, it is the base year chosen by the Government. Those who will vote for entry tonight must take this into account, because they will certainly have to account for this themselves later. The base year chosen by the Government, as is well known to the Minister of Agriculture, is an abnormal year for the price of world foodstuffs. If the Minister of Agriculture does not believe this, perhaps
  2194
  he would care to tell us for what he sold a ton of barley last year, and how much he has been offered for it today. Can he give me those figures?
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior)The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior) rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman before he gets up. I can save him the trouble of an intervention, and he can correct me if I am wrong. Is that not fair? [HON. MEMBERS "You asked him to tell yow"] A year ago he would have been offered £31 a ton for his barley. This year he will be lucky to get £21 or £23. Is that not correct?
  Mr. Prior: I accept those figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell me the price of butter, sugar and all the other commodities?
  Mr. Callaghan: I have prepared two speeches, the serious one that I hoped to give, and the swapping of insults, if that is what the other side wants—[An HON. MEMBER: "You started it."] I am saying that cereal prices, which enter into the price of so many foodstuffs, in the past year chosen by the Government were unduly high and have already fallen back. I can only put my judgment on this by saying that it is clear that what the Government have done in selecting that abnormal base year is to create a situation in which they will find that the price of foodstuffs for the consumer will rise faster and higher than they have calculated. Nobody can prove the position either way. Only history will tell what is the difference.
  That is my view, and it is my conviction that the Government will find themselves in a very serious situation. They will find that they have misled our people on this matter. In the interests of French agriculture, M. Pompidou has successfully denied us access to food that is cheaply and efficiently produced by New Zealand, Australia, the United States and other countries.
  There will be heavy increases in food prices. Such increases will hit everybody, but they will hit the less well-off hardest, for more of their incomes is spent on food than is that of those who have higher incomes. I listened to the demands from both sides of the House for the Government to give the most explicit guarantees to the pensioners, to

  2195
  the elderly, to the sick, and to those on fixed incomes. The House expects those guarantees to be given and to be honoured. But even if they are given and honoured, the Government cannot remove the bias that results from going from a cheap food policy to a dear food policy, and the bias is that it will result in the redistribution of income away from the poorer families to the better-off.
  When this transfer takes place and the poorer families in our midst have to pay out much more on their domestic food bills do the Government expect the workers in the factories and their trade union representatives to sit back and passively watch these increases without taking any steps to correct the position? Should they put in wage claims in compensation? What will be the Government's attitude to such wage claims? I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House tonight whether it is the Government's view that wage claims based on the increased cost of food arising directly or indirectly out of the E.E.C. will be justifiable.
  In addition to the domestic effects we shall be giving up our long-standing trading preferences with the Commonwealth and our preferential position with the E.F.T.A. countries. What do we get in exchange? We get a reduction from 7½ per cent. to nil in the tariff barriers between us and the E.E.C. countries for a range of manufactures which are equivalent to about 20 per cent. of our total world trade. It is not a great advantage in itself as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, and as has been said earlier. The reduction of the tariff from 7½ per cent. to nothing can be offset, and is being offset at the moment by changes in exchange rates which are taking place during this period of floating.
  Of course, some parts of industry will secure an advantage. I hope that Lord Stokes' optimism will be justified. But it is also clear that other parts of British industry will not profit to anything like the same extent, and that some parts will suffer very seriously.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone) rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I prefer not to give way; there are many matters to cover.
  2196
  I have listened to all the arguments over six days and I could easily get sidetracked into a dozen different byways.
  Is it any wonder, in the light of this, that the claims made some years ago that our entry into the Community was the way to economic salvation are now being dropped? The advocates of entry are now much more muted and cautious. The new in-word is "dynamism". There is also the phrase, "larger home market". These are now supposed to bring us the benefits, but at this point there are precious few hard facts. Here we pass out of the realm of fact into the realm of opinion and even mysticism.
  Apart from "dynamism" the words "belief", "hope", "faith" and "conviction" have been overworked in the debate. That has been the coinage, and in the face of the Government's record that kind of language has cut little ice in Wales, or Scotland, or the North-East. Faith without works is dead. The people of these areas have no intention of waiting for the Community dynamism and the enlarged market to put men and women back into jobs.
  The Prime Minister aroused a good deal of anger when, on television, he argued that we needed to enter the E.E.C. in order to ensure full employment. The people of Wales, Scotland and the North deny it. Nor do we accept it from the right hon. Gentleman. In these areas we know that the Government's economic and monetary policies have led to a record number of men and women being out of their jobs; it is not the fact that we are excluded from the E.E.C. By the off-hand manner in which the Government have dealt with these areas, which few Conservative Members represent, they have done damage to the social cohesion of these islands.
  I turn to M. Pompidou's next question, which was answered in the affirmative by the Prime Minister, about the creation of a European monetary union. Apparently we are willing to join such a union. This involves much more, as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer will recognise, than the partnership that he was talking about this afternoon. In a partnership the partners retain their independence but in an economic monetary union it is meaningless unless we lock our exchange rates into those

  2197
  of the other European countries and unless they are locked against each other and all move against the dollar in unison. That is the purpose of it. There is less emotion today than there was even as recently as four years ago about an alteration in the exchange rates and the par value of sterling. I welcome that although it is not a prescription to be taken too frequently.
  Is it not ironic if, having escaped from the shackles of regarding the fixed exchange rate of sterling as unalterable, the Prime Minister is now ready to hug the same chains to himself in an enlarged European Community, to retain the rigidities we had before 1967? I do not intend to go into detail on this technical matter now, but in the circumstances of 1971 a union of European exchange rates moving against the dollar and other currencies could have the most serious repercussions on world trade and the developing countries. I say in the circumstances of today advisedly. The actions of the United States on 15th August uncovered the latent crisis that has been developing in our post-war trading and monetary arrangements, that has persisted since 1945 and since the birth of the E.E.C.
  The E.E.C. was created at a time when the I.M.F., G.A.T.T. and other institutions were young and seemed to be providing the impetus for new world arrangements. All of them are now under challenge, not only the I.M.F. and G.A.T.T. but the E.E.C. itself. The greatest danger to Europe is not the danger foreseen when the founders of Europe set it up—noble ambitions they were—to prevent war between France and Germany on the political side. That is not the danger today. The danger today is of commercial hostilities between an enlarged E.E.C. and the United States and Japan.
  It is to this aspect of the matter that we ought to be directing our attention and it is far more important than securing a reduction of 7½ per cent. in our tariffs inside the E.E.C. These problems will be solved not in the forum of the E.E.C. but only in a world forum, and that is why I have come to see more and more that abortive attempts to work out solutions inside the E.E.C. do no more than delay those solutions. They are an obstacle towards getting world discussions going. The E.E.C.—and I take no fort in this because we are concerned
  2198
  with the prosperity of the whole world—is now in complete disarray on monetary and economic matters.
  It is absurd to suggest that our influence in settling these matters is any the less because we are not part of the Community. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the I.M.F. It was a good speech and it was well received because Britain has got influence and he knows it. I did not hear the views of the E.E.C.—what I heard were speeches from the French, Italian and German Finance Ministers, and two of those three were diametrically opposed. It is because the E.E.C. is in such disarray that it is doubtful whether, despite the affirmative answer given by the Prime Minister to M. Pompidou about an economic and monetary union, such a thing can get off the ground.
  We ought to consider, and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) what would happen if it did. There would be a substantial political fallout, quite apart from the economic consequences. When the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Werner, put forward his plan for a monetary and economic union two years ago it would have required the surrender of independent decision in fiscal and monetary matters as well as in others—such important matters as determining the level of demand in each country deciding whether to accelerate growth or slow it down with the resulting effect on the level of unemployment in individual countries. That plan, which was quickly buried, at least had the advantage of bringing into the open for the first time the inherent conflict between what is called European-ism and national sovereignty. That is why it was buried so quickly by the Council of Ministers. Public opinion would not have stood for it.
  The question has been asked, and it must be answered. Such a union—and I think that the Government Front Bench will agree with me on this the Prime Minister said "Yes" to it, if M. Pompidou is to be believed—would require a large measure of sovereignty to be forfeited. The question arises, who is to control it? It is unthinkable, except in the closed world of Brussels or a group of central bankers, that such vital decisions should be left to a group of civil servants. The inevitable logic is that we

  2199
  must be driven to set up a federal Parliament. I can understand Ministers shying away from this. Public opinion in their countries would not tolerate it.
  Opinion in this House ranges from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—who is ready to see a federal Europe—and the Leader of the Liberal Party—who is ready to see a full monetary union by 1980—to the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House who would not accept such a concept, whatever their views about entering Europe.
  The pro-Marketeers justify their general position by saying that no more loss of sovereignty would be involved when we enter than when we sign any other international agreement—[An HON. MEMBER: "S.E.T."]—It is not so but, if it were, I simply do not understand how one builds a Community on the basis of individual vetoes.
  As the question of S.E.T. has been raised, let me say that through the regional employment premium the product of S.E.T. was used to support the regions of this country and to bring industry to them. The product of the value-added tax will be used to support French agriculture.
  Where does the Prime Minister stand on this matter? As he is asking us to agree to an economic and monetary union we ought to know where he is going, and where he wants us to go. What kind of Europe is he aiming at? There is a credibility gap between the vision and the reality. There is in this matter, as in some others, an unwillingness to face the realities of the situation and a determination to underrate the practical difficulties that would be involved in the generalised exchange that has been taking place between M. Pompidou and the Prime Minister.
  That brings us automatically to the question that M. Pompidou thought was the most important, namely, the open sea argument. Let me repeat it. Are we determined to make ourselves fast to the Continent? Are we ready to draw away from the open sea to which we have always returned? The Prime Minister is enthusiastic for the E.E.C. I respect that point of view, and I know that it is a strong conviction that he has held ever since he has been in the House, but it
  2200
  has taken him down the wrong road. He has permitted M. Pompidou to put him in a position where he is required to make a choice between Europe and the open sea. Despite what he said in the last debate on this matter, I do not know of any people in this country who believe that Britain's place lies elsewhere and that our destiny lies outside Europe.
  The Prime Minister is wrong to put the issue in this way. He got himself into a bad negotiating position when he found himself compelled to agree that, as the price of entering the Community, he must forfeit our long-standing trading and political links with the Commonwealth and our monetary and other links with the United States.
  The British people have a strong dislike of being told that they must cut off one set of relationships to embrace another. The truth is that our history is different—there is no need for pride in the fact—from that of the countries of the E.E.C. The Prime Minister should have told M. Pompidou that geographically and historically we are bound to Europe, and that nothing can or will disturb that, but if the price of the Treaty of Rome is as high as M. Pompidou demands, although we shall still seek the closest relationship with the countries of the E.E.C. we have for centuries looked towards the open sea and the world beyond, and we shall continue to do so.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Prime Minister knows more about the open sea than does the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Callaghan: I did not have the pleasure of sitting in the admiral's cabin. I slung a hammock on the mess deck.
  If the Prime Minister had replied in the terms to which I have just referred it is probable that the negotiations would not have got very far, but he would have been reflecting truly the thinking of the people of this country, and in my view it is because he has failed to do that that the British people are not giving him their support or their encouragement in this venture.
  Our conclusion in the Labour Party, having taken into account the costly nature of the terms of entry, is that we do not believe that the economic benefits of entry are sufficiently clear to justify the price that is asked. Nor have we been given any clear concept of the

  2201
  political future of Europe, and in the present circumstances, in view of the disruption that is taking place in world trading and monetary arrangements, it is our view that discussions on these matters should be conducted against a world canvas. I simply do not accept that we cannot exert our influence unless we join the E.E.C. There is no united E.E.C. view on any of the major questions affecting the world at present.
  We are about to reach the moment of decision, but this vote tonight, even if the Government are successful—as I am told they will be—will be only the first of many along the road to entry. It ought to be a matter of great concern to the Prime Minister that whatever Parliament decides the Government have failed to convince public opinion on the desirability of entry. Despite the massive publicity campaign that the Government have mounted, the people of this country continue to say "No". It not infrequently happens that on domestic matters the Government go against—and perhaps have to go against—the majority of pubic opinion. They may have to go against it on international affairs, too, from time to time. But surely it is dangerous in the extreme for a British Government to reverse our traditional overseas policies and embark on an entirely new foreign venture, knowing that the sentiment of the people of this country is ranged against them.
  How ought Parliament to resolve this difference between what the Government think Britain should do and what the British people would prefer? Parliament is the forum of the nation. I do not deny Parliament's right to decide. If the majority of Members tonight vote in favour of entry there is only one thing that can gainsay them—a General Election.
  A General Election would be highly inconvenient for the Government, but it will come. We do not know how soon, but the issue is so profound, and cuts so deeply into the roots of our system of Parliamentary control and our national life, that this issue will remain alive whether the majority in this Parliament desires it or not. It will remain alive until the Parliament Act, under which the Government and the Opposition are bound, requires a General Election to be held. That is when the voice of the
  2202
  people will be heard. So, if this Motion is carried tonight, we are not at the end of the debate but at the beginning of it.
  Tonight is no more than the first skirmish in the struggle, in the course of which we shall, I hope, by debate and discussion between ourselves, establish what is Britain's correct relationship with Europe and what is our rôle in the world in the years ahead. That debate will go on until the next election takes place. However near or however distant it may be, this issue will be settled only when the British people themselves are given the opportunity to express their view and to decide for themselves by those whom they elect to this House
  9.31 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I do not think that any Prime Minister has stood at this Box in time of peace and asked the House to take a positive decision of such importance as I am asking it to take tonight. I am well aware of the responsibility which rests on my shoulders for so doing. After 10 years of negotiation, after many years of discussion in this House and after 10 years of debate, the moment of decision for Parliament has come. The other House has already taken its vote and expressed its view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Backwoodsmen!"]; 451 frontwoodsmen have voted in favour of the Motion and, for the rest, 58.
  I cannot over-emphasise tonight the importance of the vote which is being taken, the importance of the issue, the scale and quality of the decision arid the impact that it will have equally inside and outside Britain. On one thing I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He finished by saying that he wished to set this against a world canvas. It has been said that this is a historic decision; it is being taken in what many would describe as a historic week.
  Earlier, the world was watching New York. They were waiting to see whether China was going to become a member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. Tonight, the world is similarly watching Westminster, waiting to see whether we are going to decide that Western Europe should now move along the path to real unity—or whether the British Parliament, now given the choice,

  2203
  not for the first time but probably for the last time for many years to come, will reject the chance of creating a united Europe.
  There can be absolutely no doubt of the world interest in this matter—of those physically watching and those waiting for the outcome. Nor can there be any doubt of the reasons why. It is natural that we in this House, in this long debate, have been largely concerned with the impact on our own country, but our decision tonight will vitally affect the balance of forces in the modern world for many years to come.
  It will affect the sort of world in which we British people and many generations to come will live their lives. Even since we last debated this in the House in July, the situation has been transformed by China showing that, certainly within this century, it will be the third super Power. We could not tell, when this decision was taken in the United Nations, what the consequences of it would be, either for China or for the rest of us in the western world. But we thought that decision right: it is one that British Governments have worked for since 1961.
  There are and have been growing, even since our last debate, pressures for changes in the American forces in Europe. These pressures are growing apace, and with them, the renewed demand for Europe to do more in the cause of its own defence. We would maintain that an Atlantic alliance is still vital for the defence of Western Europe, but there can be no doubt of the growing pressures for Europe to consolidate its own defence position.
  The system of international trade and finance is disintegrating, and unsatisfied demands are there for a new system somehow to replace it. So much has been taken for granted over the last 25 years and so much of that no longer exists.
  This is the position facing the western world today, and if many of us have pursued the course of European unity for so many years with some persistence—and, I suspect the right hon. Gentleman thinks, with some boredom—then the reason is perhaps that we have foreseen in part that some of these changes were bound to come about; and, by some strange permutation of history, in
  2204
  this very short span all these changes have come together.
  I therefore agree with the right hon. Gentleman that on the world scene, against which we must set this debate and decision tonight, where I am afraid we differ is on how best this can be handled and what the solutions to these problems are.
  The right hon. Gentleman described the pursuit of a united Europe as an ideal which he respected. It inspired the founders of the European Communities after the war. At that time we in Britain held back, conscious of our ties with the Commonwealth and of our relationship with the United States, both of which had been so strongly reinforced in war. We did not then see how we could fit that into the framework of European unity.
  The Commonwealth has, since then, developed into an association of independent countries with now only a few island dependencies remaining. It is a unique association which we value, but the idea that it would become an effective economic or political, let alone military, bloc has never materialised. It has never become a reality. [Interruption.]
  Our relationship with the United States is close, friendly and natural, but it is not unique. It is not fundamentally different from that of many other countries of Western Europe, except, again, for our natural ties of language and common law, tradition and history. The United States is now inevitably and increasingly concerned with its relationships with the other super Powers. This applies also in the economic field, because in the situation which I have described the United States is bound to find itself involved more and more with the large economic powers, Japan and the European Community.
  This is a time of profound change. It is a time in which United States policy towards Soviet Russia and Soviet China, and in the trade and monetary field, is changing. It is a time when we must see how these problems can best be handled by Britain.
  The post-war international monetary system, after which I think the right hon. Gentleman hankers, and its trading system is no longer the basis for international relations and, as a consequence, the risks to liberal trading policies on

  2205
  which we ourselves so much depend are now immense.
  I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the attitude of the Community in the past, which took a lead in the Kennedy Round, in achieving a solution there, and which has shown such an outward-looking aspect towards the developing world through aid and grants. They do more than we can do, not confining themselves only to Africa but concerned with the Indian sub-Continent and the West Indies as well.
  When it comes to dealing with the major economic Powers in creating what has now to be a changed, if not a new, trading and financial policy, the strength of this country alone, or of any individual member of the Community, were it to act alone, is not enough to ensure a sensible or satisfactory outcome to the current monetary and trading discussions which, I believe, are bound to go on for some time.
  We as a country are dangerously vulnerable to protectionist pressure if such a satisfactory outcome of a new financial and trading system is not achieved. But in Europe we can share and reinforce the strength and experience of the Community. We can work with partners whose interests are the same as ours.
  In this time of change the Community, too, has developed. It has been not only working in the constitutional framework of the Treaty of Rome; it has been acting pragmatically and ancient and historic States have developed the habit of working more and more closely together.
  Neither do I accept the strictures of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East about the situation in the Community at present. May I suggest that if he looks back over the history of the past 12 years he will find that there have been occasions when there have been differences between the members of the Community, but on each occasion this has led to a solution which has then reinforced the Community in its strength and in its purpose. So in the Community, old institutions have been adapted and new ones have been invented to meet the realities of the new situation.
  Mr. Skinner: What about European Socialism?
  The Prime Minister: In the debates of the last six days, the economic arguments have figured very prominently. They are important. Again, I do not accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that merely to have a reduction of a 7½ per cent. average tariff is not of great consequence. We know that it is not entirely the average tariff which matters; it is the very high level of some individual tariffs which are important to us and to our industries.
  The questions of larger firms, technology, capital investment and rate of growth are of immense importance. I agree with those who say that there can be no final proof of this. It must be a matter of qualitative judgment. I accept that, and we have offered our judgment to the House. If one needed any indication of the difficulties, it has already been said that the economists have lined up in two columns in The Times I notice that one was one-quarter of an inch shorter than the other. On what basis can one make an economic judgment of one-quarter of an inch of a column in The Times?
  But what is important is the question of being in the best possible position to influence economic decisions which are determining our future. That seems to be the real crux of the economic argument. Over these next few years, in which new patterns will be formed and new decisions will be taken, they will affect the livelihood of everyone in this country and they will be taken in practice by those who have the greatest economic power. We may not like it, and we may wish it otherwise, but we have to recognise these facts as they exist.
  But this is coming about just at the moment when we have the opportunity of joining the Community and of influencing one of the major economic Powers. In those circumstances, I believe that a Prime Minister who came to this Box and recommended that we should reject the opportunity now before us of taking an active part, a share in these decisions, would be taking a terrible gamble with the livelihood of the British people for many years to come. That Prime Minister would be saying to the House, in effect, that he was prepared to accept the situation in which vital decisions affecting all of us were taken in circumstances over which we had no control and little

  2207
  influence. This is a gamble which I, as Prime Minister, am not prepared to advise this House to take. Nor can these matters of trade and finance ever be separated entirely—as we are seeing today in the news which comes from the United States—from the security of our country or of the Community.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised some matters about the terms. The Government have made their recommendation on this. They have been discussed in great detail in the House. I was not proposing at this stage of the debate to go over them again. They are better than anyone thought possible when the negotiations began. This is widely recognised in Europe by the friends of this country. It is widely recognised by the friends of the Labour Party who had great influence in securing those terms. It has been widely recognised right across the Commonwealth and the world.
  I want to make some very brief comments on the questions that the right hon. Gentleman put. First, Community preference was accepted as far back as 1962. It was known in 1967. It was accepted in 1970. There is nothing whatever new about the conception of Community preference inside an enlarged Community or its acceptance. Most of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues know that this is not a question of M. Pompidou or France. No one in the Community is prepared to abandon the present common agricultural policy. This was very forcibly and clearly stated by members of the Government to whom the right hon. Gentleman belonged. The last three British Governments have fully recognised this, as indeed did the present Leader of the Opposition.
  Unanimity was the result of the Luxembourg agreement which the Community accepted, which we accepted, and which I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition during his tour of the capitals accepted also.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Administration himself set out the position on monetary union. I am told that, if the right hon. Gentleman likes to look up the article which he himself signed in Le Monde in 1967, he will find there his own aspirations in that direction set out very clearly.
  As to whether Britain is European, I fail entirely to understand the argument
  2208
  which the right hon. Gentleman was trying to advance about cutting off our links with the outside world, when the members of the Community itself are the great trading countries of the world; when the Community itself is the greatest trading bloc in the world; when, as the Leader of the Liberal Party pointed out this evening, when the enlarged Community is created, it will have arrangements with 80 countries. Twenty-nine of the Commonwealth countries and 19 dependencies will be associated with the Community. What on earth does the right hon. Gentleman mean by our cutting off our links with the outside world?
  To sum up, the outcome of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis was, quite simply, that he wished to stipulate terms on which we would enter the Community which everybody who has observed events for the last 12 years knows from the beginning would not even have allowed negotiations to start and which, if the Community had been prepared to accept them, would have meant the break-up of the Community. That is the plain fact about the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made about the terms for going into negotiations.
  I have sometimes felt that among those who have been in this debate seeking to balance up the advantages and disadvantages there was a desire for a degree of certainty which is never obtainable in human affairs. Hon. Members will not ask for it in their lives, in their own businesses. As a nation we have never hitherto asked for it in a trading agreement or in international affairs, either economic or political. Anyone who studies the length of our trading agreements outside will accept that that is the case.
  It may be that it is showing a lack of confidence in ourselves, but I suggest that, whatever the explanation, we are worrying about the wrong question. Surely the right question to ask ourselves is this: has the Community the necessary and appropriate means for dealing with the problems of its members, whether they arise out of these present negotiations in which we have taken part or whether they arise from any other cause in the life of the Community? That surely is the question one has to put about a living, changing, developing organisation

  2209
  such as the Community. That is what matters.
  The answer to that question is undeniably—yes, it has got those means and, what is more they have been and are being used successfully. They are proven means for dealing with the problems inside the Community—through the Treaty, through the Commission, through the Council of Ministers these matters are being handled the whole time.
  Perhaps, therefore, the final statement of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was not quite so bloodcurdling as he meant it to be. I must say to him that the position in Europe today is that no one is sitting there waiting to have an amicable cup of tea with him. Nevertheless, should any of the apprehensions expressed by himself or by his right hon. Friends materialise, then the machinery exists and is functioning to deal with them.
  This leads me to a kindred and allied point. It is understandable after 10 years of negotiation and frustration that many in debate and many in the country outside have fought and talked in terms of "we" and "they". Some, I think, have been overwhelmed by a fear that this country in an organisation such as the Community must always be dominated by "they". That is certainly not how the rest of the Community sees it. But we are approaching the point where, if this House so decides tonight, it will become just as much our Community as their Community. We shall be partners, we shall be cooperating, and we shall be trying to find common solutions to common problems of all the members of an enlarged Community.
  We have confidence that we can benefit as well as contribute, that we can further our own interests and the interests of the Community at one and the same time. After all, the leaders of all three parties in this House accept the principle of entry into the European Community, as the right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed this afternoon. The Community is not governed by any particular party ideology. How can it be, with a Socialist Government in the Federal Republic, with a Right-wing Government in France, with a coalition in Italy con-
  2210
  taining Socialists? Of course not. What is more, all the opposition parties in the member countries of the Community support membership of the Community just as much as the governing parties.
  It is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty. I would put it very simply. If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most advantageous way of using our country's sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to all of us, and to make that judgment we must look at the way in which the Community has actually worked during these last 12 years. In joining we are making a commitment which involves our sovereignty, but we are also gaining an opportunity. We are making a commitment to the Community as it exists tonight, if the House so decides. We are gaining an opportunity to influence its decisions in the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me questions as to how we saw this. The Community in future months will be discussing future policy in an enlarged community. No one is committed to this at the moment—no member country, nor we as a country, nor this House. What we shall have is an opportunity, which we do not possess and will not possess unless we join, of working out schemes for the future of the major part of Europe. I put this point in a practical form to the House. It is well known that the President of France, supported by the Chancellor of Germany, has proposed a summit meeting of heads of Government in the course of next year and probably in the spring. This meeting, will, I believe, settle the European approach to the problems that we have been discussing of monetary arrangements, trading arrangements, and future political development.
  If by any chance the House rejected this Motion tonight, that meeting would still go on and it would still take its decisions which will affect the greater part of Western Europe and affect us in our daily lives. But we would not be there to take a share in those decisions. That really would not be a sensible way to go about protecting our interests or our influence in Europe and the world. But to be there as a member of the Community, in my view, would be an

  2211
  effective use of our contribution of sovereignty.
  Surely we must consider the consequences of staying out. We cannot delude ourselves that an early chance would be given us to take the decision again. We should be denying ourselves and succeeding generations the opportunities which are available to us in so many spheres; opportunities which we ourselves in this country have to seize. We should be leaving so many aspects of matters affecting our daily lives to be settled outside our own influence. That surely cannot be acceptable to us. We should be denying to Europe, also—let us look outside these shores for a moment—its full potential, its opportunities of developing economically and politically, maintaining its security, and securing for all its people a higher standard of prosperity.
  All the consequences of that for many millions of people in Europe must be recognised tonight in the decision the House is taking. In addition, many projects for the future of Europe have been long delayed. There has been great uncertainty, and tonight all that can be removed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East was very kind in the personal remarks he made about myself. Throughout my political career, if I may add one personal remark, it is well known that I have had the vision of a Britain in a united Europe; a Britain which would be united economically to Europe and which would be able to influence decisions affecting our own future,
  and which would enjoy a better standard of life and a fuller life. I have worked for a Europe which will play an increasing part in meeting the needs of those parts of the world which still lie in the shadow of want. I always understood that the right hon. Gentleman wanted that. I want Britain as a member of a Europe which is united politically, and which will enjoy lasting peace and the greater security which would ensue.
  Nor do I believe that the vision of Europe—and the right hon. Gentleman raised this specific point—is an unworthy vision, or an ignoble vision or an unworthy cause for which to have worked—[Interruption.] I have always made it absolutely plain to the British people that consent to this course would be given by Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Parliament is the Parliament of all the people.
  When we came to the end of the negotiations in 1963, after the veto had been imposed, the negotiator on behalf of India said:
  "When you left India some people wept. And when you leave Europe tonight some will weep. And there is no other people in the world of whom these things could be said."
  That was a tribute from the Indian to the British. But tonight when this House endorses this Motion many millions of people right across the world will rejoice that we have taken our rightful place in a truly United Europe.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 244.

  Division No. 480.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Benyon, W.

  Buck, Antony

  Adley, Robert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Albu, Austen

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Blaker, Peter

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carlisle, Mark

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Channon, Paul

  Astor, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bradley, Tom

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Braine, Bernard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bray, Ronald

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Balniel, Lord

  Brewis, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cockeram, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cooke, Robert

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Coombs, Derek

  Batsford, Brian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bryan, Paul

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Cordle, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  2213

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Costain, A. P.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Murton, Oscar

  Critchley, Julian

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Cronin, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Crouch, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Normanton, Tom

  Crowder, F. P.

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Onslow, Cranley

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hordern, Peter

  Oram, Bert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hornby, Richard

  Osborn, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj. -Gen. James

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Dean, Paul

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hunt, John

  Pardoe, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Dixon, Piers

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  James, David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn John

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Jenkins Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Drayson, G. B.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnston Russell (Inverness)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfreo

  Eden, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Raison, Timothy

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rankin, John

  Ellis, Tom

  King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redmond, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fidler, Michael

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Knor, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lambton, Antony

  Richard, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lane, David

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Foley, Maurice

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawson, George

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Ford, Ben

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Foster, Sir John

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fowler, Norman

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fox, Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roper, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

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

  Rose, Paul B.

  Gardner, Edward

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rost Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Royle, Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Luce, R. N.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Gorst, John

  Mackie, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gray, Hamish

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Simeons, Charles

  Green, Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Grieve, Percy

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sproat, Iain

  Gurden, Harold

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stainton, Keith

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Marquand, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Steel, David

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maudling Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taverne, Dick

  Havers, Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hay, John

  Monro, Hector

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple, John M.

  2214

  2215

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tilney, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tomney, Frank

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wells, John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Trew, Peter

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  White, Roger (Gravesend

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whilehead, Phillip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Whitlaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. John E. B. Hill and

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. John Peel.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fry, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Baxter, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Beaney, Alan

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bell, Ronald

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marsden, F.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marten, Neil

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mather, Carol

  Biffen, John

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Maude, Angus

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Meacher, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Booth, Albert

  Hamling, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hardy, Peter

  Millan, Bruce

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward

  Buchan, Norman

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Moate, Roger

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Molloy, William

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Horam, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  More, Jasper

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Mudd, David

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jessel, Toby

  Ogden, Eric

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Judd, Frank

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Padley, Walter

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Paget, R. T.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kelley, Richard

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dempsey, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Kinnock, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthur

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pounder, Rafton

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  English Michael

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Prescott, John

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ewing, Harry

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Farr, John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Fell, Anthony

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McBride, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

  McCann, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Forrester, John

  McManus Frank

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  2216

  2217

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wallace, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Watkins, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Weitzman, David

  Sillars, James

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Small, William

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Soref, Harold

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Woof, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Strang, Gavin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Resolved,
  That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated.
  Sitting suspended till 10.25 p.m.
  Sitting resumed—

ROYAL ASSENT
10.31 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went:—and, having returned:
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Immigration Act, 1971.

2. Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

PROROGATION

  HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Commands, as follows:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  My Husband and I and the Prince of Wales and The Princess Anne recall with pleasure our visits to Canada. We also had the pleasure of visiting Turkey this month and of welcoming to this country Their Imperial Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan.
  My Government have virtually completed negotiations for British membership of the European Communities and are confident that the outstanding issues can he satisfactorily settled in the near future.
  My Government welcome as Commonwealth partners Tonga, Western Samoa and Fiji.
  My Ministers have contributed fully to the work of the North Atlantic Alliance, and have sought to improve relations between East and West. They welcome the progress which has been made towards more normal relations with the People's Republic of China.
  The decision has been taken to retain certain British forces in South-East Asia as part of Five-Power Defence arrangements relating to Malaysia and Singapore.
  My Government welcome the establishment of a new relationship with

  2219
  the States of Bahrain and Qatar and the progress made towards establishing the United Arab Emirates.
  My Government played an active part in cyclone relief work in East Pakistan. They have since contributed generously to international relief measures for refugees in India and to the United Nations' relief efforts in East Pakistan.
  My Government have played an active role in the international disarmament negotiations. They have signed the Seabed Arms Control Treaty and welcome the agreement reached in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on a draft convention banning biological weapons.
  My Ministers have been actively seeking to find an acceptable basis for the negotiation of a just settlement of the Rhodesian problem in accordance with the Five Principles.
  Measures have been announced to encourage British private investment in developing countries and the necessary steps taken to enable My Government to continue to play their full part in the work of the International Development Association.
  My Ministers have begun discussions with representative groups in Northern Ireland to seek agreed ways and means within the constitutional and democratic framework of giving the minority as well as the majority community an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the life and public affairs of the Province. They have endeavoured through meetings with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to create an atmosphere of greater understanding so that the process of political reconciliation may go forward to a successful outcome. I take a special pride in the skill, perseverance and restraint with which my Armed Forces are carrying out their onerous tasks in Northern Ireland.
  Members of the House of Commons:
  I thank you for the provision which you have made for the public services.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  A substantial surplus has been maintained on the current account of the
  2220
  balance of payments; confidence in sterling has remained high; there have been substantial increases in the official reserves since June 1970 and over one thousand million pounds of official overseas debt has been repaid.
  My Government have taken an active part in discussions to resolve problems of the international monetary system.
  The burden of taxation has been significantly reduced, and provision has been made for a major reform of the structure of personal direct taxation. A simplified and improved system of tax allowances has been introduced for capital expenditure on plant and machinery with special treatment for the development areas. These are the first stages of a far-reaching programme to reform the tax system.
  A major reorganisation of the structure of Central Government has been carried through. Special attention has been paid to improving the effectiveness of Departments and other public bodies. A Defence Procurement Executive has been established to unify defence research, development and procurement activities. Acts have been passed to establish a Civil Aviation Authority and a British Airways Board and to transfer the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's nuclear fuel and radio-chemical production business to companies set up under the Companies Acts.
  Provision has been made for further assistance to the coal industry and for a fresh look at the National Coal Board's non-colliery activities.
  Steps have been taken to encourage effective competition in the interests of the consumer and of industrial efficiency. A far-reaching reform of credit control techniques has been introduced.
  My Government have established Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to continue essential activities of Rolls-Royce Limited and, with the United States Government's support for the Lockheed TriStar aircraft, are assisting the new company to produce the RB.211 engine for that aircraft.
  Legislation has been passed to raise the limit on guarantees under the Ship-building Credit Scheme. Special attention has been given to helping the

  2221
  development and intermediate areas. Further expenditure has been authorised to improve economic and social opportunities in these areas and provision has been made for higher grants to be paid to assist the improvement during the next two years of older houses and their surroundings.
  Action has been taken to encourage the expansion of agriculture and changes have been made in support arrangements to strengthen the market for agricultural products and to limit the commitment of public funds.
  An Act has been passed to reform and modernise the system of industrial relations. Urgent steps have been taken to improve facilities for industrial retraining and to increase the number under training.
  My Government have taken active steps to improve the quality of the environment in our towns and countryside and on the coast.
  Acts have been passed to protect our shores from oil pollution and to make it easier for victims of pollution to claim compensation.
  Plans have been announced for a primary trunk road network built to high standards and achieving substantial environmental improvements.
  The decision has been taken to build a third London Airport at Foulness.
  An Act has been passed to strengthen the law relating to fire precautions in residential establishments and places of amusement and public resort.
  Legislation has been passed to abolish State management for the sale and supply of intoxicating liquir in Carlisle and certain districts of Scotland.
  The law on the misuse of drugs has been strengthened.
  My Ministers have made important improvements in the system of social security, giving priority to those most in need. They have provided pensions for those over 80 who were not previously entitled to them and for younger widows. They have introduced a new attendance allowance for the very severely disabled and better benefits for the chronically sick and
  2222
  their families. Legislation has been passed to introduce family income supplements for poor families with children and to remove obsolete provisions from the social security system and prevent its exploitation.
  Substantial increases in national insurance retirement pensions and related benefits took effect in September, 1971. At the same time the occupational pensions of retired members of the public services and armed forces and their dependants were increased under new arrangements designed to maintain purchasing power.
  A very substantial primary school improvement programme has been launched. Acts have been passed concerning school milk and the education of mentally handicapped children previously considered unsuitable for education in school.
  The recommendations for redistribution of seats made by the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in their reports in 1969 have been implemented without modification.
  An Act has been passed to extend the field from which candidates for election to local authorities may be chosen.
  Legislation has been passed providing for a unified system of immigration control.
  Acts have been passed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions and to improve the organisation of the sheriff court system in Scotland.
  Further progress has been made in the systematic reform of the law and in the consolidation of enactments and repeal of obsolete statutes.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read; after which the Lord Chancellor said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords

  2223
  directed, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the second day of November next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to the second day of November, next.
  End of First Session (opened on 29th June, 1970) of the Forty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Twentieth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Power Boats (Control)
  Power Boats (Control)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Underground Press (Police Surveillance)
  Underground Press (Police Surveillance)
  Search (Police Powers)
  Search (Police Powers)
  Firearms Act, 1968
  Firearms Act, 1968
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Vehicle Owners (Computerised Records)
  Vehicle Owners (Computerised Records)
  Police Vehicles (Purchase)
  Police Vehicles (Purchase)
  Convictions (Bankruptcy Procedures)
  Convictions (Bankruptcy Procedures)
  Arthur Skingle
  Arthur Skingle
  Police Advisory Board Working Party (Report)
  Police Advisory Board Working Party (Report)
  Unlicensed Aerodromes (Illicit Use)
  Unlicensed Aerodromes (Illicit Use)
  Official Secrets Act (Franks Committee)
  Official Secrets Act (Franks Committee)
  Crossing Patrol (School)
  Crossing Patrol (School)
  Remand Accommodation (Midlands)
  Remand Accommodation (Midlands)
  Residence Qualification (Overseas Students)
  Residence Qualification (Overseas Students)
  South African Bureau of State Security
  South African Bureau of State Security
  Police Training (Reciprocal Facilities)
  Police Training (Reciprocal Facilities)
  Immigration Procedure (M.V."Achille Lauro")
  Immigration Procedure (M.V."Achille Lauro")
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Prisons (Disposal)
  Prisons (Disposal)
  Superintendent Gerald Richardson
  Superintendent Gerald Richardson
  Mr. Daniel Burns
  Mr. Daniel Burns
  Prisoners (Place of Birth)
  Prisoners (Place of Birth)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  London Stores (Robberies)
  London Stores (Robberies)
  Security Firms
  Security Firms
  Metropolitan Police (Enforcement of Rates)
  Metropolitan Police (Enforcement of Rates)
  Lord Wigg (Salary)
  Lord Wigg (Salary)
  Automatic Prison Sentences
  Automatic Prison Sentences
  Holloway Prison (Costs)
  Holloway Prison (Costs)
  Deportation Order (Mr. Mohammudally)
  Deportation Order (Mr. Mohammudally)
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
  Local Government and Police Reorganisation
  Local Government and Police Reorganisation
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Exchange (Bloxwich)
  Employment Exchange (Bloxwich)
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Foreign Workers
  Foreign Workers
  Unemployment Benefits
  Unemployment Benefits
  Wearside
  Wearside
  Newspaper Dispute
  Newspaper Dispute
  Older Men
  Older Men
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  School Meal Staffs
  School Meal Staffs
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Wales
  Wales
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Scottish Cities
  Scottish Cities
  Women
  Women
  Total Work Force
  Total Work Force
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Older Persons
  Older Persons
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Training
  Training
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
  Young Persons (Scotland)
  Young Persons (Scotland)
  Charrington Gardner Locket (London) Ltd. (Tanker Drivers)
  Charrington Gardner Locket (London) Ltd. (Tanker Drivers)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Reading Ability (Survey)
  Reading Ability (Survey)
  Teacher Training (James Committee)
  Teacher Training (James Committee)
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Works of Art (Export)
  Works of Art (Export)
  School Buildings (Replacement)
  School Buildings (Replacement)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Museums and Galleries (Admission)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income and Capital Distribution
  Income and Capital Distribution
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Souvenir Sterling Coins
  Souvenir Sterling Coins
  Overseas Dependants (Tax Allowance)
  Overseas Dependants (Tax Allowance)
  Estate Duty (Valuation of Foreign Real Estate)
  Estate Duty (Valuation of Foreign Real Estate)
  Estate Duty (Rate of Interest)
  Estate Duty (Rate of Interest)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  British Rail (Leasing Scheme)
  British Rail (Leasing Scheme)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Third Countries (Nuclear Physics Information)
  Third Countries (Nuclear Physics Information)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  West European Summit Meeting
  West European Summit Meeting
  Non-diplomatic Activities
  Non-diplomatic Activities
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  N.A.T.O. Political Committee (Defence Statements)
  N.A.T.O. Political Committee (Defence Statements)
  Developing Countries
  Developing Countries
ENVIRONMENT
  Buckoke v. G.L.C.
  Buckoke v. G.L.C.
  Goole (Level Crossing Traffic)
  Goole (Level Crossing Traffic)
  Public Buildings (Radio and Television)
  Public Buildings (Radio and Television)
  Birmingham (National Exhibition Centre)
  Birmingham (National Exhibition Centre)
  Andover Bypass (M3 Link)
  Andover Bypass (M3 Link)
  Local Authority Representatives (Payment)
  Local Authority Representatives (Payment)
  M62 (Land Acquisition)
  M62 (Land Acquisition)
  Shady Lane, Wythenshawe (Evictions)
  Shady Lane, Wythenshawe (Evictions)
  Marine Pollution (Ottawa Conference)
  Marine Pollution (Ottawa Conference)
  Cardiff Rugby Football Club (Visit)
  Cardiff Rugby Football Club (Visit)
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Agrément Board (Certificates)
  Agrément Board (Certificates)
  M6-M1 (Link)
  M6-M1 (Link)
  Bridgewater Canal
  Bridgewater Canal
  Untreated Effluent
  Untreated Effluent
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ex-Psychiatric Patients (Residential Accommodation)
  Ex-Psychiatric Patients (Residential Accommodation)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  National Health Service (Agency Fees for Doctors)
  National Health Service (Agency Fees for Doctors)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  National Health Service (Price Increases)
  National Health Service (Price Increases)
  Disabled Persons (National Register)
  Disabled Persons (National Register)
  Invalid Vehicle Service (Review)
  Invalid Vehicle Service (Review)
  Upper Clyde Workers (Benefits)
  Upper Clyde Workers (Benefits)
  Unemployed Men (Four-Week Rule)
  Unemployed Men (Four-Week Rule)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Pensioners (Heating Allowance)
  Supplementary Pensioners (Heating Allowance)
  Casualty Units (Closure)
  Casualty Units (Closure)
  New Hospital (Skelmersdale)
  New Hospital (Skelmersdale)
  Day Re-establishment Centres
  Day Re-establishment Centres
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Hostels)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Hostels)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Nuclear Power Stations (Policy)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Policy)
  Metrication (White Paper)
  Metrication (White Paper)
  Lost Aircraft (Inquiries)
  Lost Aircraft (Inquiries)
  Aircraft (Approach Angles)
  Aircraft (Approach Angles)
  Committee on the Project, City 2000
  Committee on the Project, City 2000
  San Francisco British Week (Exhibit Indemnities)
  San Francisco British Week (Exhibit Indemnities)
  Lubricating Oils (Competition)
  Lubricating Oils (Competition)
  Pianos
  Pianos
  Airline Schedules
  Airline Schedules
  GOVERNMENT RESEARCH LABORATORIES
  GOVERNMENT RESEARCH LABORATORIES
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  U.S.S.R.
  U.S.S.R.
  DISABLED DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION
  DISABLED DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
AGRICULTURE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  MR. OLEG LYALIN
  MR. OLEG LYALIN
  PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS (FOREIGN FUNDS)
  PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS (FOREIGN FUNDS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Apprentice Training (Portsmouth Dockyard)
  Apprentice Training (Portsmouth Dockyard)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Exchange Equipment (Delays in Supply)
  Exchange Equipment (Delays in Supply)
  Telephone Service
  Telephone Service
  Post Office (Investment Programme)
  Post Office (Investment Programme)
  Telecommunications (Service Standards)
  Telecommunications (Service Standards)
  Post Office Board (Pensions)
  Post Office Board (Pensions)
  Members Mail
  Members Mail
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
SCOTLAND
  Assaults on Police Officers
  Assaults on Police Officers
WALES
  Newport (Dock Access Road)
  Newport (Dock Access Road)

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Marquess of Linlithgow—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Stair—Took the Oath.
The Lord Beaumont—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his mother.

E. E. C. AND THE BAILIWICK OF GUERNSEY
LORD PARG1TER: 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 steps they propose to take to protect the constitution of the Bailiwick of Guernsey in the event of this country's adherence to the Treaty of Rome.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the arangements that we are seeking with the Community on behalf of the Bailiwick of Guernsey have been formulated after close consultation with the Bailiwick's representatives. They do not carry significant implications for the constitution of the Bailiwick. The Island authorities have been given an assurance that if, when the terms are known, they do not wish to accept them, Her Majesty's Government will not seek to impose accession on them.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer from the noble Lord, although it does not appear to carry us very far. Having regard to the Islands almost complete dependence on horticulture, may I ask the noble Lord, whether the Government have in mind to take any special steps to protect them,
844
in the same way as they are endeavour-ing to protect, say, New Zealand?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the negotiations in Brussels, are not yet complete, but the Government are hope-ful that terms will be negotiated which will be acceptable to the Islands.

E. E. C. AND POSTAL CHARGES
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether existing postal charges to West European countries are likely to be still further increased as a result of this country's joining the Common Market.]
LORD DENHAM: No my Lords.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is not a probability that postal charges from this country to other Common Market countries may eventually become lower than our own inland postal charges?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; there is that possibility. But the question whether the charges should be raised or lowered is a matter for the Post Office in this country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, was"No."How does he know? Who told him?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the question was "Is it likely? "My answer was: "No; it is not likely. "And I was informed by the Ministry for which I speak.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, although I am determined to vote later on this evening for entry into the Common Market, may I ask whether there is not a risk that British firms may find it cheaper to circularise their customers by posting their circulars in the post offices of Common Market countries, which would have the effect of an appreciable loss to our own Post Office revenue?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think the firms concerned would find it cheaper, because under Section 12(3) of the Post Office Overseas Letter Post

845
Scheme 1971 incoming postal packets addressed to people in this country which were posted abroad by or on behalf of people resident or with firms in this country can either be returned to the source whence they come, or can have a surcharge imposed on them, which can be up to the full first-class letter rate.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this practice has not already been followed to a considerable extent by American firms with offices in this country, who circularise their customers on a very large scale from post offices in Holland?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, where this is discovered the surcharge is imposed.

SOUTH WEST AFRICA: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 how their representative voted on the resolution adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations by 13 votes to none on October 20 agreeing that the World Court finding that South Africa's presence in South West Africa (Namibia) is illegal and calling on South Africa to withdraw from the territory immediately.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's representative to the United Nations abstained on this resolution. The reasons were stated by Sir Colin Crowe in the Security Council on October 6 and were referred to in his explanation of vote on October 20. Copies of these statements are available in the Library of the House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that this resolution was nevertheless carried by 13 votes to nil, with only two abstensions, the United Kingdom and France? While something can be said for British
846
abstention earlier, when impracticable proposals were made for taking over South West Africa, was not this only a resolution agreeing with the World Court's finding? Why did Sir Colin Crowe say that the British Government did not agree with that World Court's finding?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the resolution was of course only a recommendation and was not binding on any of the Governments. The reason why it was not agreed to by Her Majesty's Government was that it was an advisory opinion given by the Court and, as such, is not binding. While the greatest respect is given to such an advisory opinion, it is up to the Government to come to their own conclusions. It was the belief of Her Majesty's Government that the premises on which that finding was made were not acceptable.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, what is the reason for all this appeasement of the South African Government? Is it British financial interests that are in Namibia?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not clear from the statement by Sir Colin Crowe on October 6, which is in the Library, that the British Government had substantial legal grounds for the line which they took? May one humble lawyer say that he believes—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD CONESFORD:—that the legal grounds given by Her Majesty's Government certainly had substance?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with all deference to my noble friend, I think he was not in the interrogative sense.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is a very complicated matter. It goes back to the granting of the Mandate to South Africa, and, as the Court recognised, any power of the United Nations to terminate the Mandate could only have been inherited from the League of Nations. That is the beginning of the problem, and it is one of some considerable legal complexity.

PAKISTAN/INDIA RELATIONS
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what discussions are taking place with the Governments of the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and France with a view to ending the dispute between Pakistan and India relative to the situation in East Pakistan.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have been in touch with a number of Governments, including the United States, on the problems arising from the situation in East Pakistan. These discussions are still continuing.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the terribly grave situation is not that reply a little inadequate? Can we not have more information about what the British Government are doing and about these discussions? Could there not be a joint appeal by these Governments to both sides in this issue, followed by action in the Security Council of the United Nations?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think the Answer was inadequate because Her Majesty's Government are particularly anxious that this problem should be solved. But it is one thing to be anxious and another thing to be able constructively to solve it. The noble Lord has asked whether we should not have four-Power consultations. The answer is that anv such consultations would require the agreement of Pakistan and India; and at the moment this does not seem to be possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that Mrs. Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, is coming here within a few hours? Have not both sides suggested mediation? Has not President Yahya Khan suggested that the mediator should be U Thant? And has not Mrs. Gandhi suggested President Sadat of the U. A. R., because he is a Muslim and so might appeal to Pakistan? Cannot the Government explore those possibilities
848
before this terrible event may bring disaster not only to India and Pakistan but, by extension, to a large part of the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the United Nations is to involve itself at all it must be with the acquiescence of the two countries involved, and until now neither country has expressed a wish for Security Council involvement in this matter. But I can give the noble Lord an assurance that, as he said, Mrs. Gandhi is coming to this country and that the Prime Minister is going to have discussions with her on this matter.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many people share the concern of my noble friend about this situation? Is he aware that 9 million refugees have moved from East Pakistan into India and that Mrs. Gandhi has said that the Government of India have no intention of absorbing these refugees no matter what? Is he aware that many of us feel this is no longer a question that can be left entirely to the Governments in India and Pakistan, but is an international and human problem of enormous magniture; and that it is for the British Government and for other Governments in the United Nations which have influence over these things to act as positively as they can?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the British Government are acting as positively as they can and that they are just as con-cerned as the noble Lord to see that this problem is resolved. The way in which the Government consider it should be resolved is by trying to have such consultations as they can with the appropriate people concerned.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that one country which may be very concerned now is the People's Republic of China; that this may be a pristine opportunity for the Government to exercise their common sense and to draw into the world's diplomatic discussions this great nation of China, in regard to this area in which she is very much concerned in the Far East, and that it may be worth while for our diplomatic aides to see what attitude this great people take towards this mighty problem?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in the last resort this problem can only be cured internally by the people of Pakistan and externally by the peoples of Pakistan and India. It is towards this end that Her Majesty's Government are trying to make their representations.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House about the arrangements later this evening for Prorogation. At the conclusion of our debate to-day on the Common Market the House will adjourn during pleasure until about 10.25 p.m., when it will resume for the purpose of hearing the Royal Assent to Bills and the Queen's Speech of Prorogation.

UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
2.49 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by the Lord Chancellor; namely. That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE): My Lords, on this last day of our historic debate one is acutely aware that all that can be said has been said, and so it seems to me that I must try to do two things: first, to recount events since our last debate in July which bear on matters of concern to us all, such as regional policy, to which several noble Lords have referred, and also the negotiations still not yet complete on fisheries; and secondly, to try to gather together the main themes of the speeches that we have heard over the past three days. This will be hard, because all your Lordships will agree that we have heard an extraordinary variety drawn from considerable experience.
First, of all, I should like to add my congratulations to the many on the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, both so different, both delivered with such wonderful assurance
850
and with great distinction. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we look forward very much to hearing them again, and some of us not least because both noble Lords are in favour of our entry into the Communities.
One of the most compelling reasons for joining Europe must surely be the chance it gives us to achieve and keep a high level of employment. As we know to our bitter cost, however great our skills they are useless unless we have a market suited to the type and volume of goods that we can produce. This is one of the main economic reasons why I believe that Scotland, Wales and other regions of the United Kingdom have much to gain from entry into a market which at the end of the day will be of nearly 300 million people. This is supported by the C. B. I., the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers' Union and, I am glad to say, the Commission of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
I was sorry that yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, expressed doubts about regional policy. I can understand very well the struggle that he seemed to go through as to which way he should vote to-night. I am going to try to reassure him on the points that he raised, in the hope that even at this late hour he may reconsider his position. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, recognised that we shall be able to keep the regional inducements, including tax allowances. The noble Lord, however, cast doubt on whether the I. D. C. control would work if we enter the Community. I can assure him that we will and can apply the control as firmly as did the Administration of which he was a member. But the source of the noble Lord's doubt is that he feels that even the gradual removal of controls on the movements of capital will lead to British firms avoiding the I. D. C. control by going to the Continent. Many firms have already done so, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, explained, they have done so to secure the benefit of a larger market. But when there is freedom of capital movement firms will also have to take into account the difficulties of coping with other langguages, laws and customs in other countries far from their base. Furthermore, they will have had to move into

851
areas where there is a much heavier pressure on labour resources than in our assisted areas. It is therefore for these reasons that the Government are confident that the I. D. C. control will remain effective and that the removal of capital controls is more likely to bring investment into Britain than to attract it from Britain to the Continent.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask a question, as the noble Baroness has not answered the doubts that we expressed? The position now is that it is impossible for a firm to evade the I. D. C. control if it needs the exportation of capital, because the Bank of England can veto that export. When we are in the Community it will no longer be possible for the Bank of England to have this power.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, this is very unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, but I explained exactly that point a minute ago. I said that when capital movements were freed, and while it is perfectly true that firms would be able to go to the Continent—and they can now do so if they are multi-national com-panies—they would have to take into account other factors relating to operation on the Continent: first of all, shortage of labour, and different languages, different customs and local planning controls. That is why we feel that if a firm remains in this country we should be able to operate the I. D. C. controls within Great Britain.
It is therefore, with much respect to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I find myself on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who has made a careful study of this problem of regional policies. He is leading the campaign of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to attract European investment to Scotland, and I should like to wish him well. He told your Lordships that he was sure that his task would be easier inside than outside the Market. I am glad to have this chance of thanking him publicly for the energy and imagination with which he is leading the campaign, which, of course, is receiving substantial financial support from the Government.
852
Since our last debate in July, the Council of Ministers met on October 20 to discuss four matters of importance to regional policy, for, as the House knows, there is not as yet a common policy within the Six. They discussed, first, general regional policy, including the Regional Development Committee; secondly, a regional policy interest rebate fund; thirdly, aid for agricultural priority regions and, lastly, a level of up to 20 per cent. maximum for aid, and what they term the"transparency"of aids in central areas. The Council did not agree on the first three matters. They adopted, however, the guidelines for the level and transparency of aids. It was said at the time by the chairman, Signor Giolitti, that the application of these guidelines and the idea of a central area would have to be discussed with all the members of an enlarged Community, and particular reference was made to the United Kingdom and the importance which we attach to regional policy.
We believe that the 20 per cent. ceiling for aid in central areas is in our own interests. The object behind this policy is to keep the differential between the prosperous areas and those suffering from unemployment. We also fully support the guidelines for investment aid proposed by the Commission, which are designed to ensure that regional aid is "transparent", or, in other words, is not a hidden subsidy.
So far as regional policy is concerned, the attitude of the Community to the United Kingdom was shown by Signor Spinelli, the E. E. C. Industrial Commissioner, when he said this year in Dublin:
"We should not think that only the countries or regions with specific problems of underdevelopment, such as Italy or Ireland, will have a vital interest in having a regional policy. Regional disequililbia affect not only under-developed areas, but also those areas which suffer from too much concentration of investments, from excessive urbanisation and from the deterioration of the environment."
We realise there is a long way to go to secure an agreed solution on regional policy within an enlarged Community, but we shall have the chance if we enter the Community to shape the policy to ensure not only greater employment but a more even distribution, which is one of the main objects of the Treaty of Rome. For, of course, it is true that neither Scotland, Wales nor any of the English regions can

853
flourish unless the country as a whole can flourish.
Many of your Lordships in these debates have called in aid, vast, practical experience to prove the economic case for British entry into the Communities. Those who doubt the case for entry are, I think, much fewer in this House at any rate, and it is not for me to argue the merits all over again. But the Government are backing the judgment of those who suport entry by a variety of measures designed to encourage investment and to ensure that industry can make the best of the opportunities that will be offered. I do not, for some reason, like the word"growth"—I think it is because I have heard it so often—although it is what I mean; and 1 have myself been convinced that we can achieve it if we will, and so give ourselves the means as well as the will to ease the burdens of those whose earning days are over.
I hope the House will forgive me if I say a little on the problems of fisheries, because I know there are not many of your Lordships who are intimately concerned, but it is a matter of great concern to our economy and for nearly twenty years I had the honour to represent in another place the largest fishing port in Scotland. Therefore, I see the problems, and also that the interests of the deep sea fishermen and those of the inshore fishermen do not, alas! always coincide. As the House knows, the last meeting on this subject took place in September. No decision was reached. The six member-countries of the Common Market have recognised that their present fisheries policy would have to be modified to take account of an enlarged Community. We cannot accept opening all waters from our shores to 12 miles, as has been suggested.
Our present position is that we have a 12-mile limit under the 1964 International Convention. We have exclusive rights to fish ourselves up to 6 miles. Between 6 and 12 miles certain countries, including the Common Market countries, Eire and Norway, have historic rights to fish in certain areas. Our suggestion to the Six was that these historic rights between 6 and 12 miles should extend to the whole of the enlarged Community. The 6 miles would be measured from existing baselines, which would in effect reserve for United Kingdom fishermen the whole
854
of the Minch and the Firth of Clyde which lie inside these lines. The Community did not accept our proposal. As it seemed unlikely that quick agreement could be reached on specific changes in the Common Fisheries Policy, we suggested as an interim solution a maintenance of the status quo. If we cannot reach such an agreement before signature of the Treaty of Accession, that will mean that we shall keep our status quo until a final agreement can be attained.
We also made it clear that if other applicants secure different arrangements—for example, a 12-mile limit off parts of their coast—we should wish to be free to claim the retention of a 12-mile limit for certain areas, of which Shetland is the most notable. The next meeting in Brussels will be on November 9 and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will accompany Mr. Rippon as he has done on the last two occasions. If the House could bear with me just briefly, I would add that in any event the United Kingdom will continue to be responsible for making and enforcing conservation measures in all waters within the 12-mile limit. This is the present position, even where certain countries have historic rights for fishing between our 6 and 12 mile limits so long as we do not discriminate by nationality. We arc also trying to secure a better system of marketing regulations than exists at present under the Common Fisheries Policy. Other applicants share our concern. The major problem is that the present Community have adopted a system under which there will be one minimum price for each species of fish, regardless of where it is landed in the Community. We have already made quite clear our wish for a system of varied minimum prices relating to remoter regions.
I have spoken on what I feel are two very important domestic problems, but now I should like to refer to three of the chief arguments that have been raised in these long debates, and no doubt your Lordships will feel relieved if I assure you that I shall try to be brief. I cannot myself accept the view that because so many of the British people appear to be against our entry into the Communities it is a denial of democracy for the Government to lead them in. Surely the nature of our Constitution demands that

855
the publicly elected representatives of the people of this country must use their personal judgment as to the interests not only of their constituents but of the country as a whole.
These fears and doubts are by no means new. At the time of the signature of the Treaty of Rome European public opinion was largely indifferent, as is so much of our own to-day. Those who opposed the Treaty dwelt darkly on the problems which are inseparable from change. My noble friend Lord Bethell used a quotation from Mr. Ramon in 1957 to prove this point. I thought it excellent because, alas!, I had hoped to use it myself to-day. But, of course, as many have said, we cannot calculate everything exactly and we cannot estimate the most important factor of all: whether we as a nation shall have the courage and the ability to adapt to change. As a leading French deputy said at the signing of the Treaty of Rome:
"To be committed to the Common Market naturally requires a minimum of faith—faith not in Europe but in France's ability to adapt herself."
The great economist Keynes once said:
"… the difficulty lies not in new ideas but in escaping from old ones which ramify into every corner of our mind."
I am sure it is true, and it is honourably true of many men and women in this country now so far as the Commonwealth is concerned.
Some have lived out their lives in the far corners of the earth and their descendants now belong to the country of their choice. So to those who still have these close family links overseas (and I have them myself) it has taken a long time to realise the extent of the changes within these nations, large and small, that corridor the earth; and if you add to this the aftermath of the Second World War and Britain's own loss of strength and influence, it has meant a slow and difficult acceptance that an era has come to an end. So, in a way, we have sat about too long in a world which in some ways has seemed to lose its point. But now there is Europe, and the young men and women of to-day see Europe as an adventure. They feel that once again they can make a mark. They feel that through Europe they will again become a source of strength to the English speaking peoples and to the developing Third
856
World, and they are far less conscious of national differences and borders than some of us have been, for two world wars must leave their mark.
As for ourselves, as we search for at least some security in a very dangerous world we can perhaps remind ourselves of the words of a famous Englishman:
"We can never be a great Power on our own, but we have a certain genius in alliance."
Yet it is said that this alliance in Europe will weaken Britain's power to shape her own destiny because sovereignty will pass in some measure to the Continent. My Lords, far more able minds than mine have shown that over the years this country has already ceded some independence of action of her own free will, because it was felt to be in her interests in a swiftly changing world. Therefore all I will say is this: the Treaty of Rome rests upon consent. If it were not so, the Communities would break asunder. I am sure it is in our best interest to have the power to help shape the evolution of this great experiment.
I am glad that so many of your Lordships in our debates in July and again this week—six days in all—have spoken not only of the advantages we hope to gain by membership of the E. E. C. but of all that we think we can bring to Europe, and not least our political judgment. For, my Lords, I believe it is this which many countries expect from us above all else. This was made very clear to me at the United Nations Assembly in 1960. It was the time when Mr. Khrushchev, President Eisenhower and Mr. Macmillan all addresed the Assembly—the famous one when Mr. Khrushchev banged his shoe upon the table. When Mr. Khrushchev spoke there was an awed silence while delegates pondered the unknown strength of the Soviet Union. When President Eisenhower spoke one could see that the Assembly was very conscious of the power he represented in the United States of America. So when our Prime Minister came to the rostrum I wondered to myself what would be expected of Britain, so slender in resources compared with the two giants who went before. But everybody listened, with heightened interest, and I realised that the delegates, who reflected so much of the modern world, wanted and expected from Britain her political judgment born of a long historical experience.

857
That even some of the nations of Europe should unite in any cause is a political factor of great importance to the world as a whole. Continental Europeans will grow in strength whether we join them or not, and I am sure we must have some say in the future of the Continent that we have never been able to ignore. The vote to-night is, to quote the famous phrase, Only the end of the beginning", for of course the E. E. C. will grow. This is only the start, and I think we should be glad to have some part in a great historical movement from one era to another. So when we vote to-night let us recognise this moment for what it is. Great historical moments have never been easy to live through, but I am sure we have the nerve to ride out the storms and to create the power that the world will surely welcome. These gifts we must use for only then can we, with any honour, turn to the next generation and hand the future safety into their keeping.
3.14 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, my heart went out yesterday to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—whose presence in this House we shall miss when he retires in a few weeks' time—when lie said that there was little more to say about the Common Market, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, pre-luded her own speech—her thoughful and impressive speech—with the same reservation. This, my Lords, is the third time that I have addressed your Lordships' House on this subject during the short time that I have had the privilege of being a Member here. My own difficulty is therefore peculiarly acute. Nevertheless, I should like to underline a few of the considerations which I think to be the most relevant in making up our minds on this vital subject, and in doing so to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on their outstanding maiden speeches, which were both stimulating and non-contentious.
Public agonising, my Lords, is always a little tedious, especially if it tends to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, and I shall not indulge in it to-day. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear with me while I make one comment. I have always rejoiced in the fact that the Labour Party has been responsible
858
for conducting some of the great controversies in our public life. Indeed, without the Labour Party some subjects would have gone almost unaired. The debate on nuclear weapons and the debate on German rearmament are examples. Had it not been for the strength of feeling inside the Labour Party on both those issues the rights and wrongs would never have been fully discussed.
In the case of the Common Market the debate has gone on in both political Parties, and I am sure that the country is the stronger for it. Speaking personally, I am delighted that we have succeeded in putting the issue of Party discipline into its right perspective. What would have been called by Mr. Ernest Bevina "stab in the back" is now regarded—and rightly regarded—as integrity and courage. What was called, in my days as a rebel," rocking the boat"is now regarded as a brave, humanitarian, life-saving operation. indeed, newspapers which ten years ago were demanding that Mrs. Castle and I should be expelled from the Labour Party—not for voting against it but for insisting that Conference decisions should be treated with respect—are now urging members of the Labour Party in another place to defy the will both of the Parliamentary Party meeting and of the Annual Conference.
It seems to me, however, that the Party which is in real trouble is the Government Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, to whom I always listen with interest and with pleasure, spoke of the constitutional position. It was, after all, the view of the Leader of her Party expressed on May 5 last year, that it would not be in the interests of the Community" that its enlargement should take place except with the whole-hearted consent of Parliaments and people of the new member countries." There were no qualifications in what Mr. Heath said at that time. There was no reference to degree: it was a question of wholehearted consent, and it is quite clear that however likely a Government majority is to-night there is no wholehearted consent, much less in another place than here. Moreover, it seems quite possible that the Parliaments neither of Denmark nor Norway will get the required percentage of the votes to allow so important a change.

859
Certainly there is no evidence that the people of Britain are wholeheartedly in support of the Common Market. For example, the Guardian on October 13 published an article under the heading" The mandate that never was", showing the results of analysing 245 election addresses of successful Conservative candidates in the last General Election. Of the 245 addresses your Lordships will be interested to know that 125 did not mention the Common Market at all. The silent majority included Mr. Maudling, Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Walker, Mr. White-law and Mr. Prior. The majority of those who did mention the Common Market approached it negatively, in the sense that they opposed it unless certain specified or unspecified safeguards were obtained. It appears that only five Members of Parliament expressed themselves as being positively in favour. I know that your Lordships are always anxious to ensure that Governments keep within the mandate that they received at the General Election.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to inform us how many election addresses of Labour Party members stated themselves opposed to the Common Market?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, that is a very good question, but not, if I may say so, wholly relevant. It is not, of course, a Labour Government who are legislating on this issue. The Government are claiming to have a mandate, and the figures given in the Guardian clearly show that the mandate does not exist. Since the time of the General Election, moreover, a number of public spirited Members of Parliament, I believe at their own expense, have conducted their own polls, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield referred to them last night. So far as I know, in every case more people expressed themselves as being opposed to the Market than as being in favour of it, and I read in to-day's papers that a recent and very impressive poll in Gloucester has convinced the Member of Parliament for that constituency that she should vote against the Government to-night. We can all have our own opinion, and most of us do, about public opinion polls conducted
860
on behalf of newspapers, and I would not seek to attach too great importance to them. Nevertheless, in the absence of more convincing evidence, the public opinion polls do at any rate suggest that in spite of fantastically expensive campaigns conducted with all the majesty of the Government behind them, and by apparently prosperous companies, they have failed to carry conviction with the most politically sophisticated public in the world.
I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, was wise to warn the Government last night against the danger of flying in the face of public opinion on a matter as crucial as this. I believe that there is nothing more calculated to discredit both our democratic system and our political Parties, especially among the young people to whom the noble Baroness referred, than for a Government to alter the whole constitutional position of the country without having strong support from an overwhelming majority of the population.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that if the Labour Party had won the Election it would, as a Government, have had a mandate to oppose entry into the Common Market?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the Labour Party's Manifesto clearly stated that we wanted a mandate to negotiate and made quite clear that we wanted no more than that. What would have happened after the Election would have depended on the result and the terms negotiated.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack suggested that some of us were opposed to the Common Market on any terms, and he included me among that number. I do not think that is a fair description. Nevertheless, I know that the noble and learned Lord is an authority on these matters. I keep a small anthology of quotations from speeches of leaders of the Conservative Party, and one of which I am particularly fond is attributed to Mr. Quintin Hogg, then the Member of Parliament for Oxford. I do not know what it was he was objecting to at the time, but he said:
"The Conservatives do not believe it necessary, and even if it were we should oppose it."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to quote my words; but he does sometimes, I hope, himself make a joke, and sometimes it is a good one. I think that was a very good joke by me.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack knows the affection in which I hold him, and I thought, too, that it was quite a good joke on my part.
My Lords, my objection to the Common Market is much more moderate than the unqualified opposition that the noble and learned Lord expressed on that occasion, and I have agreed in this debate with those noble Lords who have said how much they would welcome the Common Market if it embraced the EFTA countries and at least some of the Commonwealth countries, and if it was better designed to end the appalling tensions between East and West. I think at least some of your Lordships will agree that it is a little ironical that during the week when China has been received back into the comity of nations we should be discussing the small market of Europe instead of the enormous, gigantic market that has now been opened up in the Far East. No, my Lords, it is not we who are narrow in our outlook.
Nevertheless, many of us feel that we have a special responsibility for the Commonwealth. I was greatly moved last night by what the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, had to say, and there was scarcely a sentence in his speech with which I disagreed. I was moved, too, by the speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I have studied the position of the Commonwealth with care, and I wish that I could accept the rosy-tinted interpretation which the Government have put upon the arrangements so far. But that, my Lords, I cannot do. I believe that Australia has been the victim of a great injustice, both in respect of her butter and her sugar. If the sugar which cannot come into Europe is put upon the market throughout the world, chaos may well ensue. Nor has the position of the other sugar producers been guaranteed. Mr. Rippon obtained no bankable assurances. He simply made a unilateral declaration which was written into the
862
proceedings of the Community without being accepted by the Six. I do not believe that we shall be in a position when the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement runs out to guarantee the support which has given so much help to our friends in the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
Nor do I believe that the position in respect of India's manufactured goods is as satisfactory as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, would have us believe. Unless I am misinformed, it is a matter which has been left over for subsequent negotiation. So one could go on—palm oil in Malaysia, bananas in the Caribbean, canned foods from Australia and New Zealand. But these are points which have been frequently deployed and I do not propose to go into them in detail this afternoon. I am bound to say, however, that I have a deep feeling of shame that we are putting the completely hypothetical advantages which we believe we in Britain would derive from the Common Market ahead of the undoubted damage that will be done to Commonwealth interests.
I am glad that on this occasion we have heard less of xenophobia than we did in the previous debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to it last night. I doubt whether any of your Lordships who have known me for a long time would convict me of chronic xenophobia. I have probably been for longer a member of the Bureau of the Socialist International than any other Member of your Lordships' House, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. And, in a quite different context, I should regard myself as much poorer if I did not number Pierre Harmel among my friends. Those of us who look with pride to the open seas and to the Commonwealth countries on every continent, the greatest multi-racial, multilingual grouping the world has ever known, can hardly be described, as one of your Lordships described us, as" Little Englanders".
If I may revert for a moment to my anthology of Conservative speeches, I would remind the House of the words which were used by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when he was previously a Minister:
"A small acquaintance with history shows that all Governments are selfish and the French Governments more selfish than most."

863
Personally, I would not go as far as that. I regard myself as a lover of France, with all its faults but with all its greatness. There must, however, be just a slight feeling at the back of the minds of members of my generation that, at a time when we had, in the person of Lord Beaver-brook, a Canadian member of the War Cabinet during the darkest days that we have ever faced, Marshal Petain's reply to Mr. Churchill's noble proposal—and there is no other word for it than"noble"—for Anglo-French union was to say that," To make a union with Great Britain would be fusion with a corpse."
At a time when matters of such great moment are under discussion we should ask ourselves about the political stability of some of the members of the Six. He would be a bold man who would completely rule out the possibility of France and Italy becoming Communist countries within the next fifteen or twenty years. The Paris riots of 1968 will be fresh in your Lordships' minds. And very few members of my generation would put their shirts on Germany remaining indefinitely a democratic country. I hope with all my heart that those fears are without foundation, and certainly I am the first to pay tribute to the efforts of men like Willy Brandt to ensure that they are indeed without foundation.
But apart from political stability, one must have doubts about the economic success of the Six. I thought that the noble Baroness was greatly daring to tell us that one of the main reasons why we should go in is to achieve, and keep, a high level of employment. Actually during the Conservative Party Conference the Financial Times published a survey under the title," Troubles in Common for the Countries of the Six". It quoted the President of the Italian Employers Federation as describing the present situation in Italy as," The most serious crisis which Italy has suffered since the war". It said that in Holland,
"Inflation is now very largely out of control".
It went on to say:
"The major uncertainty hangs over the outlook for the German economy. In particular, whether the downturn which has just started can be controlled so as to avoid recession."
That is a pretty gloomy assessment, my Lords, of the state of the economy which
864
has been so glowingly described by many of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, and it suggests that some, at least, of the economic attractions of the E. E. C. are less substantial than they seemed only a few weeks ago.
I noticed, too, with interest in Newsweek of October 18 a special report which included a section on," The race for efficiency". What interested me in that report was that Switzerland (dare I say it?) in EFTA has increased its production per man-hour more than Italy and Germany (dare I say?) in the E. E. C.; and that Sweden, in EFTA, has done better than Belgium and France in the E. E. C. The Common Market is, therefore, no panacea. Indeed, I agree with the view of Anthony Harris in the Guardian on October 18 that the Government's" Fact Sheets"(as they so wittily describe them) are compounded of half-truths, and that there is no provable economic case for joining.
It is my conclusion, therefore, that the political and economic case for joining Western Europe is, to say the least, not compelling. To inflict what I believe would be a wound on ourselves we should have to pay heavily. The cost of entry, the effect on our balance of payments, the increase in the cost of living would all of them be substantial. However little agreement there may be as to their precise size, there can certainly be no doubt that they would impose a heavy burden upon our already strained economy. Against that, one can only put the quite unquantifiable hopes of economic advantage. In this debate. as in the last, pro-Marketeers have relied on faith rather than on provable facts.
The noble Baroness spoke of two domestic matters. Having represented the Irwell for nearly a quarter of a century I am no authority on fisheries, but I should like to touch briefly on what she had to say about regionalism. I had thought that my noble friend Lord Hughes had dealt with that most effectively during our discussions yesterday. Perhaps speakers on the other side of the House will correct me if I say that, according to my understanding, the Secretary of State for Wales conceded on Monday night that our freedom of action to help the less prosperous parts of Britain would be severely curtailed if we join the Common Market. It was that which evoked

865
an agonised response from a Member of Parliament for Ulster, and which I think was originally responsible for the resignation of Mr. Edward Taylor from the Government.
Those, my Lords, are the reasons which force me to the conclusion that we are embarking upon a disastrous course of action. Perhaps I might venture a third quotation from the greatest Conservative of our time, the one to whom I think the noble Baroness was referring, and one who would never have been the Prime Minister of this country if the choice had been left solely to the Conservative Party. Sir Winston Churchill said, at the time of Munich, that we had sustained a defeat without a war. I believe that that is true once again to-day. Surely all of us must be just a little sad about the step that we are taking. We arc turning our back on many of our friends inside and outside the Commonwealth. We are turning our back on what I believe are our own true interests. We are turning our back—and perhaps this is the most important of all—on our history and our traditions. And we are doing it for reasons which have never been fully explained or understood, and with results that cannot be accurately evaluated.
My Lords, when the cry "Who goes home? "echoes around the Palace of Westminster to-night it will be for the last time this Session. A great and momentous decision will have been taken. It will, in my view, be a grievously wrong decision. I say that, my Lords, without arrogance, and I pray that in the fullness of time events will prove that I am wrong.
3.39 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, unless one has been born and bred in the world of politics, it perhaps never occurs to one that one may be involved in an historic moment. Historic moments seem to the laymen to be something that happens to somebody else at some other time. But, when one thinks, there must have been some ordinary people playing bowls with Sir Francis Drake on a certain day in 1588, and it now occurs that certain quite ordinary people are making speeches on this day when this country has to decide whether the mission, in a sense started by Sir Francis Drake on behalf of this country, comes to an end
866
and Britain has to decide whether positively to take another step into a different future.
Speaking to-day, I am filled with a genuine trepidation that one may not be able to be worthy of this occasion. There are people who can be. and I should like to say how much I felt that in the case of the noble Baroness who opened this debate. I should also like to express my respect for the measured terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, expressed his opposition in principle, and in particular for the very final sentence which he used. I should like to ask him one day, privately, what kind of an anthology a Cross-Bencher ought to keep.
It is not difficult to begin a discourse in this case. I did not have the good fortune to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I should like to join in the general welcome and general commendation of what he said. But I did have the good fortune to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. He made a speech with all that insight to which those of us who worked with him in Whitehall became accustomed. The point he made seemed to me to be so pertinent, to be one of those irrefutable conclusions, that I shall allow myself to re-state it in terms which he would probably feel too simple, but which affected those of us who were working in a similar sphere to himself.
I think that his statement added up to saying that those of us who worked together, in perhaps the last dozen years, to promote the exports of such British manufactures as nuclear power stations and sophisticated aircraft did not quite realise, until near the end of the time, that the difficulty we were working under was that this country did not have the home market to enable it to afford the kind of wide range of sophisticated science-based industries which in these days is necessary. I think that this view is not in fact susceptible of contradiction.
LORD BALOGH: Indeed, my Lords, it is very susceptible of contradiction. It is one of the biggest fallacies I have ever heard in this House since I had the great privilege and honour to join it.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I think I shall leave the noble Lord to

867
argue the matter out with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who will have my support. But I am not proposing in my argument to follow the path of industry, nor am I going to follow the path of economics, in which I naturally defer to the noble Lord who has just intervened, except to say that I do not agree with him there, either. What I would say on this is simply that I am immensely impressed by the two parallel columns in The Times of a few days ago, where it appears that 142 professional economists felt that the economic advantages of joining the Communities outweighed the disadvantages, and 152 felt that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages—I am using the slide rule which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, used earlier to-day. I hope that he has not slid one or two economists either way, but it does not alter the argument. When I saw that, I immediately had a vision of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack saying to your Lordships," The 'Don't knows' have it "and of his utterance being received in a respectful silence. Of course we all want to know what payments we shall have to make across the balance of payments after 1977, and of course we cannot expect to know. All we can know is that this is going to be a very great challenge. We also know that in order to meet it we must have the change of mood advocated by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, or the injection advocated and prescribed by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther.
What I should like to do in the few minutes that I shall speak is, first, to allude to two space-time fallacies, as I would call them, which have occurred in arguments in opposition to entry into the Common Market. Then I should like to go on to develop a little the side of the argument which demonstrates what we can give to the European Communities. I think it is very difficult for many people who have to argue among the public to stress this particular aspect of the argument. Obviously, it is important that people who believe in the longterm and general advantages of this step should not fall into the trap of saying," This is not about fish and butter." For a great many people it is about fish and butter and we must respect that view. This means that the onus is on people who
868
believe in the long-term advantages to convince the rest that these will out-weigh temporary inconvenience; and the onus is on any Government of the day, if we enter the Market, to keep a vigi-lant compassion in regard to the case of those people who are at the economically weakest end of our society.
One of the fallacies (I do not think it has been aired very greatly in your Lordships' House, but it has been aired influentially outside) is the simple proposition that the E. E. C. is a creation of the 1950s and is therefore obsolete. This is a case of a correct premise being misdirected into a wrong conclusion. It is certainly true that the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the Community was a 1950s miracle in the eyes of its founders. In the 1960s the Community was busy bringing itself up to date—and I will mention one aspect—by becoming a true Customs Union with the abolition of internal tariffs; and this took almost the whole of the decade—until July,1968. What, then, it is pertinent to ask, is the task of the Community in order to bring itself up to date in the 1970s? The answer is, of course, to enlarge itself in the way that we are seeking to promote. So it cannot be argued that the Community, having begun in the 1950s, has stayed there or is staying there.
Another space-time fallacy is the view that has been stated in your Lordships' House in this debate, that what we really need is a World Government. I have much respect for this feeling, except that I should feel it necessary to qualify it by saying that an acceptable World Government would have to be singularly unlike quite a number of national Governments in existence at this time. But I think it was the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who put the proposition, not perhaps exactly as I should have done but with great point, when he said:
"… I have come to be a little suspicious of the fellow who always wanted the ideal but was never willing to accept what was availble."—[0i FICIAL REPORT,26/10/71; col.565.]
It reminds me of a small pamphlet which was published in Cambridge University before World War I. It had the title, The Beginners' Guide to the Academic Politician, and it had a piece of advice on how to oppose a progressive step which had been proposed by somebody else.

869
The advice given was to say, at the right moment:
"No, it blocks the way to a far more sweeping reform.
I am not imputing any destructive motives to anybody, but I am saying that this is the effect if you pass up the available practical, limited objective and go for an ideal which is not attainable—because I am quite sure that we shall not get an acceptable World Government in the lifetime of most Members of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I should like now to come to the question of what we can give, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has already referred. I should like to look at it imagining myself not at this time here, but in the Community in the South of France, the North of Italy or the centre of Germany. The first thing that clearly strikes you if you look at the map is that that there is a group of countries which are growing together perceptibly. But the map contains an illogical and inconsequent gap in the North-West; and it is a gap which would be filled, and should be filled, by a country of comparable population, of comparable strength and wealth, to France and Germany. Now that is the geographical absurdity of the present map, the way things are developing.
But if you go into the historical and political reasons for wanting Britain in, you come to an extremely interesting phenomenon of Continental politics—and this, again, was alluded to in the extremely prophetic and profound speech of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. He said that" perhaps we could really play a leading and essential part in cementing the uncertain stability of Western Europe". He also referred to the stable balance of Western Europe. Now may I analyse (and I take my own responsibility for doing so) how this has in fact manifested itself in recent history.
The Community was founded, very properly and very largely, on the determination of wise people from France and Germany that never again must their mutual destructive feud break out. The Six came together as a natural grouping. After a time it is almost bound to happen that dim memories of those feuds come back again—not to the surface, but there
870
are little embers of them somewhere deep down in the soil which occasionally give a little tremble to the soil itself. So, for instance, in the de Gaulle/Adenauer period of the relations between France and Germany there came a certain fear among the others that a situation would arise in which the big Powers would dominate the rest of the Community and would boss it. So there arose a development of opinion in Italy that Britain ought to be in the Community.
Then there was another development. Germany became richer and richer, and there were apprehensions of the consequences of this in France; and opinion in France began to grow that Britain ought to be there. Again, at times you have apprehensions, similar to the Italian apprehensions, among the Benelux countries, and when that happens thoughts go towards Britain as the natural and historic defender of the independence and integrity of the Lowland countries. So for all these reasons there begins to be a feeling that Britain ought to be there. There is one other reason: a certain understanding among the Continental countries that the British have a certain capacity to be, not a" Voice of America"—that is quite wrong—but at least able to understand and explain some of the ways in which the American policy works.
This does not mean that Britain is required in the Six as a leader, as we could have been in 1950, or as anything formal like a mediator. But, exactly as the noble Baroness said, there is this respect for a country which has been developing over the centuries a system of a free political organisation and, which is also important, an uncorrupt Administration. Sometimes when nerves get a little frayed on the Continent over these questions, which have a certain historical foundation, the wish is expressed, and I think rightly expressed, that we, with our political experience, could well be there. That being so, I think it is fair to ask at this moment: if we are so badly wanted, why should we pay anything for going in? The answer is a very simple one. It is that all the other members have paid their annual subscription for quite a number of years, and it would not be exactly fair to ask us to pay less for coming in late. I think it is as simple

871
as that in terms of international argument, and that is something that we simply have to accept. But do not let us get into the psychology, or stay in the psychology, of wondering what" they "are going to do to" us "when we get in. When we get in—if we get in—"they"(if I may put it slightly absurdly) are going to be" us ". We are all going to be" we "working together. That process may well not he easy. They are not all easy people and we are not easy people; but I am sure that in that co-operation and in the difficulties that may arise we shall be well able to take care of ourselves.
If I may come from that political scene into the more human scene of the va et viol' between the Continent and ourselves, the position which must be faced in Europe is that the frontier as an institution is not what it was. The frontier in the European Economic Community is certainly a place where you show a green card—an insurance card. You may produce your passport to show that you have got one. but very often it will not be looked at. Then, when you have done all this, you come back to Dover and the old English Customs, who are efficient and courteous, and maybe you think that is the way life ought to be. Yes, my Lords; but younger people do not think that that is the way that life ought to be. They agree with Mr. Ernest Bevin that you must be able to get around without let or hindrance. They are the people—and I remember so well how vividly the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, described it in the last debate—who say to you, whether you give them a lift when they hitchhike in Europe or whether you meet them around here, "We do not see what the difficulty is about all this". They are perhaps, in the view of some noble Lords, not neurotic enough about sovereignty; but they simply feel that Europe is a small enough place geographically and a united enough place in terms of civilisation to be regarded as a domestic economy.
So, my Lords, everything that goes on around us—politically, economically and scientifically—is, to my mind, leading us in the direction in which this Motion wants us to go. And, if we may once again remember Sir Francis Drake, it is no longer a question of there being
872
"plenty of time to finish the game": as other speakers have said, there is no time except the present to finish this game for a generation. So, my Lords, we have a technological need for a wider market, we have an economic need for spreading our wings and we have a challenge before us. In that challenge we have our own capacities if we can get the mood right, and we have the better instincts of the younger generation. In the light of all these things I can only say that I am sure that what we have to do is to "greet the unseen with a cheer", and a cheer which will go round the world.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, in February,1945, I had the privilege of introducing a Motion in this House which urged the Government of the day to try to work towards a Federal Union of Europe. The reason for this was that I was convinced of the overwhelming importance of having co-operation between those European countries which up to then had so often been hostile to each other. On that occasion no noble Lord got up in the debate, either to support me or to oppose me, except the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who was extremely courteous in answering for the Government but who gave me to understand that the proposition and the subject that I was debating was so absurdly unrealistic that it really was not worthy of the consideration of this House. Now, of course, the Common Market idea has been developed—a much more practical idea perhaps than mine—but I hope your Lordships will forgive me some modest satisfaction to see this House as full and as interested in the subject, when at that time it was so unresponsive. Anyway, I hope that at the end of this debate we shall see a very big majority in favour of the Motion.
There is just one point I should like to stress. A big factor in this whole business has been the very strong opposition of certain leaders of our trade unions to entry. For various reasons they have tried to persuade the Parliamentary Party to vote against it, and I hope very earnestly that in the coming months they will reconsider their stand on this matter. I urge them to do so because I think their stand is a very illogical one. The

873
trade union movement in this country has developed from small beginnings to its present dimension and we now have great unions with enormous influence, prestige and power. Not only that, but they have come together in a Trades Union Congress where they meet to discuss, plan and consider policies, not to dictate how each union should be run, but to consider what is to the best advantage of all of them. That has worked extremely well. I think that the power of those unions has in the past brought enormous benefit not to hundreds of thousands but to millions of working people.
What is the origin of this power? Surely its origin was in unity, in the idea of the unions working together. It seems to me strange that organisations which have so benefited from union and which have become so successful together should now he so opposed to this country adopting the same principle and trying to take advantage of the unity with their fellow countries in Europe. Of course, it might be argued that that which works successfully for a trade union might not work so successfully for a country. But, surely, all history would refute that. From the early leagues of Greek States to modern times, whenever national groups have got together they have increased their influence and power and this usually to their benefit. The more they got together, the more power and the more benefits have come to them. An obvious example is the United States of America probably the most powerful country in the world to-day.
It might also be argued that this influence and power can be abused. It is only too true that power can be abused. But this seems to me to be one of the greatest arguments for this country going into the Common Market. Not only for the rather cynical reason that if there is a big powerful group formed it is better to be inside than outside; rather to get the benefits than to suffer from its activities. A much sounder reason is the one which has been touched on already in this debate. Over the years of time, nations develop faults and develop virtues. I believe that one of the great virtues of this country is the possession of a certain political wisdom. From what it comes is hard to define. It may be tolerance or a pragmatic approach
874
to things; but over many generations we have succeeded in combating crisis after crisis and this wisdom has finally developed for us a Constitution which I would say is second to none in the world. I believe that if we went into the Community we could contribute this wisdom and could help in their discussions. That is why so many of the people of Europe to-day are so anxious for us to come in. They appreciate that we will be a balancing force and that we will bring them our wisdom and judgment.
There is one further interesting point. There are many trade unions in the Common Market; ranging from what one might call rather Right to extreme Left. I think that I am right in saying, though I stand to be corrected, that up to the present none of these unions has demanded that their country leaves the Common Market—which seems to suggest that they fully realise the benefits of being one of the Community.
My Lords, the day has come; the actual moment when we must decide. To-night we and the Members of the other place must vote one way or the other. Some people who are very much opposed to our entry have tried to persuade us to their view by saying that it is all very well for Members of Parliament here and in the other place to make the decision, but that before we take this step we should consider that there are many people in this country who are bitterly opposed to our entry and many more who are doubtful. That is true. Therefore, I should like to end with a quotation from a very great democrat. George Washington, who said. when he was in very much the same dilemma as we now are:
"If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work?"
4.8 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, although I do not wholly share his opinions I find it something of a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Huntingdon in this debate because, like him, in the course of a long life I too have sometimes had the satisfaction of seeing the impossible ideals of one's youth become the commonplaces of one's middle and older age. In intervening in this debate I feel (if my noble friend

875
Lord George-Brown will allow me to use yet another aeronautical simile) very much in the position of the air pilot whose plane crashed on the Yorkshire Moors and who asked his way to Leeds, only to receive the reply: "If I wanted to go to Leeds I would not start from here. "My Lords, I do not wish to "start from here", and since the situation in which we find ourselves at this moment has been exhaustively discussed from every angle, both here and in another place, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I do not "start from here "but start from a good deal further back and work up to how we got to be here.
For once in my life I shall have the sympathy and support of the Benches opposite if I say that in its day the British Empire was a remarkable phenomenon—although our agreement may possibly stop at that point. The Empire, as we all know, was disfigured by the presence within its territories of coloured colonial areas in which the peoples were at best ruled with a certain paternal benevolence, and at worst ruthlessly exploited, and anyway were kept in lasting tutelage. As, one by one, they gained their independence, that disfigurement was removed. New members joined the Commonwealth of Nations which succeeded the Empire. Some of the new members brought distinctive elements of culture to the common table; some had known only the British way of life. They were, in the very moving words of our beloved colleague the late Lord Constantine, in the only speech he was able to make in this House, simply "black Englishmen". But with their presence we were able, as my noble friend, Lord Greenwood said, to establish a multiracial community of nations stretched across the world united by no binding legal ties, but only by sentiments of affection and mutual tolerance and respect for peace and democracy.
My Lords, we had no sooner got to that point than, it seems to me, we started to destroy what we had created. I wish that I could share with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the optimism which was apparent in his distinguished maiden speech and the slightly more temperate optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Garner. I cannot. And I noticed that, apart from what was said by these two
876
noble Lords, and by my noble friends Lord Beswick and Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, references to the Commonwealth in this debate have been but few and casual. I think that when students come to read the report of our proceeding in ten years' time they will conclude that at this time the Commonwealth was not only a wasting asset but also a wasted asset. No sooner had we created it than we started to tear it in pieces and to throw it into the dustbin. We tore up the delicate fabric of goodwill out of which it was woven. We did so by insulting the new members. We insulted them by racial discriminatory legislation. We insulted them by atrocious bad manners and a total failure to comprehend their problems at the last Prime Ministers' Conference—and I should think that it will literally be the last. Finally, just to ram the lid down on the dustbin, we now have paid scant regard to the interests of our partners, black and white, in the price that we are prepared to pay to enter a different community.
My Lords, that is how I think we have arrived at this position from which I did not wish to start: that, as we are constantly reminded, we are a little island, weak, and unable to stand alone, on the fringe of a great Continent; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie said, with but slender resources, and adopting virtually the posture of a suppliant. We need never have been weak or had to stand alone. We need never have adopted a suppliant posture if, instead of destroying the Commonwealth, we had put our whole energies into building up and strengthening the moral, as well as the material, influence that it might have exercised in the world. But now we find ourselves alone and weak and, as it seems to me, we try to bolster up our spirits by ascribing to the magic round-about by which we are anxious to join really almost miraculous qualities.
Since, by common admission, the benefits of entry cannot be quantified, they offer a marvellous field for unlimited magnification. The present Government have never been very good at giving us jam yesterday. They give us precious little jam to-day. But what a magnificent opportunity they have now to promise thick jam thickly spread for ever after. If some members of the European Economic Community

877
seem to be rather more prosperous than we are, or perhaps I should say in the past seemed to be rather more prosperous than we are, we never think to ascribe this to their greater industry, imagination and enterprise; we ascribe it only to the magic of membership. When we are dazzled by visions of great markets to be opened to us we somehow forget that they are not going to be our exclusive possession.
My Lords, may I for a moment indulge in a romantic dream? Suppose none of this had happened. Suppose that instead of throwing away the Commonwealth we had devoted all our energies to strengthening and enhancing its influence in the world. Might not the present position then have been reversed? Might it not have been for us to issue the invitation and to say to the democratic countries of Europe—all of them: let us not forget that the Six are not the whole of Europe—"Have your Common Market, those of you who wish; but all of you come and join us in our free world-wide association of democratic self-governing people devoted to peace".
My Lords, it is too late for that; maybe it is so late, and we have gone up the wrong path so far, that there is no turning back. There, I think, we find a much more credible explanation of the opinion polls than the astonishing theory put forward last night by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who said that the reason why the majority of the public would vote against entry into the Market but yet accepted its inevitability, is because they believe that Edward Heath knows better than they do. Surely, my Lords, the real reason is that they think, as they well may, that it is too late to turn back. It is indeed the eleventh hour. But, my Lords, my romantic dream very well might have come true; and I still think that the judgment of history may he that it would have been better for us all if it had come true. I suppose that it is in the expectation and hope of that judgment, rather than anything else, that I shall cast my vote against what seems to me to be the unhappy termination of a misguided journey.
4.17 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, there is little wonder that so many speakers in your Lordships' House and in another place feel compelled to take
878
part in the debate prior to the critical vote that is about to be taken. The issue of whether we join an enlarged European Economic Community is of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom, to Europe and to the world at large. The opportunity of so doing is before us now on the terms negotiated, but if it is not taken I feel that the prospect of its recurrence is remote, to say the least. The balance of advantage over disadvantage has been analysed and argued from every conceivable angle, but any precision of argument is bedevilled by the element of conjecture that inevitably envelops such a complex conception. In the final analysis, therefore, judgment has to be exercised on speculation as to where the greater probabilities lie and whether the risks to our country of not going into Europe transcend those of entry.
What is not always fully appreciated, however, is that the E. E. C. is now a very different animal from that which will emerge when the Community is enlarged. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, put that same sentiment in different words. Within an enlarged Community Britain would have some opportunity to influence the direction that the financial, economic and political policies take in Western Europe; but outside the Community we should be virtually powerless to exercise any influence whatsoever. By inclination, we in Britain are opposed to inward-looking economic nationalism, and within the Community, therefore, we should at least be an influence for good in curbing any tendency towards excessive, collective, inward-looking economic regionalism.
The advantages of a larger domestic market have been variously assessed. industry by industry and firm by firm. Industry at large, as represented by the Grand Council of the C. B. I. and including the leaders of the nationalised industries, is overwhelmingly convinced of the potential advantages of joining Europe. For those businesses in which I am personally involved, the verdict is unequivocal: that the prospect of economic growth is greater within the E. E. C. than without. Especially is this true of industries based on research and development. The enlarging of the domestic market is the only effective way of sustaining investment in research and development by the spread of its cost over a greater volume of more certain sales in a domestic market, thereby ensuring the

879
pay back and thereafter facilitating the quest for wider markets through more competitive pricing, based on lower unit costs. The problems of reconciling the divergent interests of food producers, consumers and taxpayers that now beset the Community will not be easily resolved, but surely the valuable experience we have accumulated in the United Kingdom in searching for a sound policy for ourselves should help, rather than prejudice, their resolution.
The fact that an effective Common Agricultural Policy has not yet been evolved invites—indeed, almost compels—a positive contribution from the United Kingdom to its development from the wider area of knowledge and experience generated by an enlarged Community. With our background of nearly 25 years of practical experience of collaboration between Government and the agricultural industry, resulting, as it did, in reasonably stable markets and the avoidance of embarrassing surpluses, we should be well equipped to exert a powerful and useful influence in providing greater stability and greater rationalisation through more appropriate food and agriculture policies for the E. E. C. Over these years our consumers enjoyed the advantages of cheaper food, so long as the taxpayer willingly shouldered the consequential burden of the open-ended commitment in making good the lower return derived from the market up to a price high enough to maintain such a volume of production from our own land of the requisite quantity and quality as would insulate us as a country against exploitation on a sellers' market.
The size and uncertainty of our Exchequer liability was aggravated by the use made of the United Kingdom market by any country wishing to unload surpluses, however spasmodic, however subsidised, or simply just dumped, all of which contributed to unwelcome vacillations of price and supply in the British market place. Anti-dumping legislation proved some deterrent in itself in those years, and in extremity, when it was invoked, afforded corrective action; but all in all it was too often too little and too late. The only certain mechanism would have been direct import control of such a degree as to be effective, yet not contravening the requirements of GATT. The
880
prospect of sustaining the deficiency payment system and a free market was declining fast, and minimum import prices and import levies were beginning to be preferred on the political scene.
Meanwhile, the erstwhile suppliers of our cheap food and raw materials were themselves developing their own secondary industries, and in consequence reciprocal trading of the old order was raipidly declining, as the independent nations emerged, selling their products and raw materials processed by their own industries. Thus supplies of cheap food, other than spasmodic surpluses, were progressively declining. Whether we join the E. E. C. or not, food prices will be bound to rise, unless of course the rural workers are to be forever exploited by their fellow man. These circumstances cumulatively caused a veering in our agricultural policy towards the market place rather than the Exchequer as the vital source of the farmers' gross income, but with the consequential changes in import control to ensure that the market place provided an economic price. This change of policy, with its impact on food prices, was initiated by the last Government but one, continued by the last Government and accelerated under the present Government. I personally hold the view strongly that our system of deficiency payments, complemented by a realistic import control policy, but coupled with an effective marketing system, has the greatest prospect of providing a sound, progressive agricultural policy, even for the present Six, and most certainly for a Community of ten countries.
On an entirely different plane, one of the burdens of British industry and commerce is the fragmentation of its politico-economic representative organisations, involving excessive duplication and over-specialisation of representative bodies. That economies of money and manpower could be achieved by rationalisation there can be little doubt, but to transform the acceptance of this fact into a will to progress towards the remedy needs a really effective, almost vibrant, catalyst, which joining the E. E. C. already shows evidence of providing. The very challenge of change is, in itself, a vital stimulant to new thinking and new ways.
I refrain from further general comment for fear of repeating what has already been said so often. All sides of industry

881
—labour, capital and management—and all three political Parties search for economic growth as the prerequisite to providing our population with an improving standard of living. Economic growth is really the creation of wealth from our national resources. Our natural resources are confined to a rapidly declining coal-mining industry and only very limited underground mineral wealth, which by its very nature is a declining asset, along, of course, with the potential out-turn of the diminishing area of our productive agricultural land. These apart, our only other national asset is our people, whose cumulative productive potential is based on intellectual capacity, scientific acumen, creative genius, technological training, artisan skills, professional accomplishment and a more able and capable total population, man for man and woman for woman, than anywhere else in the world. The limitation of our natural resources and the loss of preferential access to our historic sources of cheap food and raw materials, owing to the development by the newly independent nations of their own secondary industries, throws us, as a nation, right back to the imperative need for the fullest possible use of our remaining resources.
To this end, then, we must obtain the highest level of economic production from an efficient, well-equipped, well-manned and properly rewarded agricultural industry, and the highest possible absorption of our manpower into wealth-creative endeavour, producing goods and services that will meet a continuing demand in world markets, based on competitive price, excellence of product and/or quality of service. Economic and financial salvation depends upon, and certainly our prospect of prosperity is geared to, the effectiveness with which this country uses its available resources. This nation cannot afford to underemploy those resources that remain available to it, and our best prospect in this highly sophisticated world is to transform industrial raw materials, of which nearly 90 per cent. are imported, into end products containing a high content of human talents in research and development, ingenuity in produce innovation, technological knowledge and real artisan skills, so that the added value thus accruing represents real wealth creation, thereby ensuring an ever-growing national cake.
882
This challenge is formidable enough in the most favourable of circumstances: but these we cannot dictate.
In the great debate within and outside Westminster I have been tremendously impressed by the knowledge and experience of productive enterprise of those who are numbered among the supporters of entry. For my own part, I am convinced that our prospects of economic growth, so vital to the strength we need to fulfil a more positive political role in this changing world, are infinitely greater within the Community than without. It is because of this, my Lords, that I strongly support the Motion before the House.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, to force Britain into the Common Market, which will change our Constitution and is intended to be irreversible, against the clear wishes of the majority of the people of this country is a denial and a betrayal of our democracy. The vote at the end of this debate will be declaratory on the principle of joining the Common Market, but it will have no legal consequences. If the Government win, it allows them to take two steps, both taking a long time to make us a member. The first step is the signing of a Treaty of Accession to the E. E. C., and the other step is the passing of many amendments to existing British laws that will be necessary to implement the Treaty of Accession. These are the irrevocable steps of the future.
The Treaty, to the best of my knowledge, is not yet drafted, and the signing is not expected to take place until early in 1972. The amendments to our laws are likely to take up much of Parliament's time in the next Session. Therefore, this debate and its vote, which will find me in the Lobby against the Motion, is a vote against the principle of membership; it is not an irrevocable step, but an expression of Parliamentary opinion on which the Government will act. Parliament will speak with its vote, and before we abandon our independence, the sovereignty of Britain and the right to democratic self-government, which we have always fought to preserve, and become one of the Seven, Eight or Ten, the people of Britain, whose lives are seriously affected, both in the political and the economic spheres, should have a

883
say as well. If the Government want to ensure that the Prime Minister's words about wanting the fullhearted support of the people are confirmed, then the people ought to be given the opportunity to declare where they stand on this great issue before the Treaty of Accession is signed.
The Labour Party Manifesto in the last Election made little mention of the Common Market issue, while the Conservatives said: "Our sole commitment is to negotiate ". The Tories never made it clear to the public that these negotiations were not about the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its thousands of regulations, but merely about the transitional period. This fact is now clear to the people, and they now realise that the Tory Government started off by accepting all the principles of the Community as they stood, and the matters for negotiation concerned only the short period of transition. That is why there has grown up among the people in this country the increasing feeling that they have been tricked into a position where they have no say as to their future. This feeling has resulted in a demand for a Referendum. What has surprised me in this House is the reaction to this demand by the very people who were responsible for the avoidance of discussion on this vital issue at the last Election. Instead of welcoming a proposal to make good this deficiency, they express horror at the thought of such a departure from our Parliamentary democracy. Yet to-day the Government are advocating in their Motion a policy which, if accepted, will change the system of Parliamentary democracy in this country.
Under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, regulations emanating from the Council and the Commission are binding in every respect, and directly applicable to each member State no matter what their Parliament may think. Acceptance of the provisions of the Treaty means inevitably surrender of the independence and sovereignty of the British Parliament over a large area of our national life, and entails the acceptance of over 3,000 regulations that have been passed prior to our entry. I do not know whether duplicity can go much further.
Among the major sectors in which the Council under the Treaty of Rome has
884
the right to issue regulations are agriculture, free movement of labour, rules governing competition and the European Social Fund. It can issue directives in fields such as the right of establishment, capital movements and the harmonisation of legislation— whatever that may mean. To say, as many Common Marketeers do, that the acceptance of this Treaty entails no more surrender of sovereignty than membership of GATT, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, EFTA, or similar international agreements, is to falsify the issue. The Treaty of Rome is for an unlimited period—for ever. We can leave the others by giving due notice. Also, the Treaty of Rome is very different from the other Treaties in many vital respects.
Much of the propaganda that has been put out to persuade people to change their minds about the E. E. C. either consists of half-truths or else conceals information from the public. Sometimes it descends to utter falsification. One example is the leaflet published by the European Movement, which says in bold type: "You've lost £ 7 a week in your pay packet". Then it says that "we are losing £ 7 a week because we are still outside the Common Market" and that "incomes in the Market have risen twice as fast as in Britain ". Shortly after this pamphlet was published, Mr. John Davies, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, spoke to the Federation of Industry in Dusseldorf and said that Britain's entry into Europe would reinforce the need to reject inflationary wage demands. When the Government were asked in another place to state, now that they accepted the terms and conditions before us to-day, what action they intended to take to increase wage rates in Great Britain to those which are alleged to be paid in the Six countries, the answer of the Government was "None".
I wonder whether the European Movement saw paragraph 43 of the Government's White Paper (Cmnd.4715), which says:
"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."
Paragraph 43 shows that there will be a major rise in the cost of living and practically no money increase as a result of entry. This is Government policy. That is why the Secretary of State for Trade

885
and Industry spoke as he did in Dusseldorf, and the reason for his answer to the Member of Parliament who asked in another place about wages rising to Common Market standards.
Mr. Jack Jones, the Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has stated that a study of the collection of figures and statistics comparing wage rates of those countries and ourselves refutes entirely the propaganda put out by the European Movement of this £ 7 a week in the wage packet. This was indeed phoney propaganda. The White Paper clearly indicates that the main effect of joining the E. E. C. on the terms before us will lower real wages in this country. Food prices are to go up by 16 per cent. over the years of transition, on top of the rise that has been engineered by the Government—which means that we face a 20 per cent. over-all increase. On top of this we have the value-added tax; this will work against the working-class people in the future. So it is clear from reading this document that there will be practically no money increases to offset the increases in the cost of living. More competent people than I say that this is an under-estimate. and there are some who say that the increase will probably be over 25 per cent., or even 50 per cent. But the facts indicate that the gap between the E. E. C. prices and world prices is more likely to widen than to narrow in the future. This is supported by the official figures of the F. A. O. If this gap does widen, the advantage to Britain of staying out will be greater in the years ahead than it is now.
Food prices, as we know, have gone up in Britain by 8 per cent. They have gone up by the same amount in France; a little more in Germany; the same in Italy and also in Holland. But much of our rise in food prices here is due to the Government's efforts to raise the prices in preparation for joining the Common Market. Then again, France, Germany and Italy always had a dear food policy. Our policy has been different. For over a hundred years we have bought our food at lower prices from the most efficient farmers in the world. That is why our standard of living has been, and still is to-day, despite the false propaganda of the Common Marketeers, higher than in any of the Six countries except
886
in Germany. Our country has created a world-wide free trade system in our Commonwealth, EFTA and the rest of the world. We shall have to give all this up. None of the Six had such a system before they joined: therefore they had nothing to give up. Also, we shall have to apply an external tariff on the whole of the rest of the world except the Six. We shall have to pay £ 500 million to subsidise French farmers. We shall lose exports throughout the Commonwealth and EFTA. There is no reason that I can see why we should pay this tribute to France, and no reason why the British taxpayer should be asked to pay it.
President Pompidou is delighted. He told the French people on June 26 last that under the regulations New Zealand's exports will decrease and eventually disappear. He told the French farmers, "There is a new opportunity for you and it must be taken". The Government have accepted terms which contain no guarantee for the importation of New Zealand food after 1977. It is clear that the French President thinks that this market is his after 1977. So this increase of 20 per cent. in the cost of living—the figure may be higher—will in fact fall heavily on those who are least able to bear it. It is the wage-earner, the working class, the fixed income groups such as the old-age pensioners with least money to spend, who have traditionally bought cheaper foods in Britain, who will suffer. Now in accepting the terms, we declare that these cheaper foods must not be allowed to undercut the level of Community prices: they may only be let in if the price is raised and they may be shut out altogether. As the cost of food forms a large part of the weekly budget for the lower income groups and for many of us here, again these groups will carry the major burden of what I regard as a disastrous exercise.
It is almost unbelievable that this Government, which exploited rising prices when in Opposition and promised to reduce them at a stroke, are not only operating policies to keep prices higher than they should be, but are telling us that under the terms now before us prices will go up by a minimum of 20 per cent. in the years ahead. I ask you, my Lords, what will the trade unions do when this blast hits them? I predict great industrial

887
unrest, regardless of the Industrial Relations Act that has recently passed through this House. You cannot expect that organised labour will just sit back and see their standard of life attacked in this way.
In the lower wage groups it means that a housewife who now spends £ 8 10s. per week to feed her family will have to spend over £ 10 per week. It is to my mind ridiculous of the Government to think that all this will come about without any effect on wages, and that there will be no loss in our competitiveness in the markets of the world. This suggested 21 per cent. increase in the cost of food means, in money terms, another £ 150 million a year that will have to be found by the British housewife on our present imported food bill, and over the six years it means a sum of £ 900 million that will have to be borne by the people.
Trade unions can, by their organised strength, probably offset some of this by fighting for more wages, but what of the pensioner, and those on small, fixed incomes? The plight of the pensioner is bad enough to-day. His £ 1 increase was practically eaten up before he got it this month, and his position is not to be reviewed until 1973. So, as all these increases take place as a result of entry, apart from the increases created by the Government's internal policy, the outlook for our old age pensioners is not a very happy one; they will lag behind all the time. I shall be told that the Government will cushion them against this, but I have no faith in this Government's doing that, as I look back over the past 16 months, when they have taken milk away from children, increased the charge for school meals, taken away the three waiting days' pay under the social security scheme, put up prescriptions to 4s. per item. And next year huge increases will be made in rents, and there will he rising prices as a result of Government action—although the Government said that they would reduce prices.
It is quite apparent that the huge burden of entry into the E. E. C. will be borne by the working classes of our country. Even the Farmers Weekly of October 22—only last week—has suspicions that the public and Parliament have not been told all about what the involvements of
888
Britain are under the terms. In its leading article, called, "Who's fooling whom?" the Farmers Weekly says:
"There is a growing suspicion that we have been hoodwinked, that the Government has not told us all about the Luxembourg Agreement, and we may discover a lot more unpleasant things nestling among the European goodies when the first layer of the hamper is removed after October 28."
So even among the Government, our friends, the farmers, are very dubious about the outcome of these terms. This does not seem to me to indicate that the farmers are in wholehearted support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, said.
What of our trade with the outside world? Some say that we shall not lose a significant amount. I do not accept this for one moment. If the increased cost of living is to be retrieved by increased wages and salaries all along the line, then our industrial costs will be much more, our exports will be less competitive on the markets outside the Six, and our balance of trade will suffer a severe blow through increased imports and falling exports. On top of all this will be the value added tax, and this can be a more serious threat as when we enter it will apply to necessities. We have to pay one per cent. of this tax to the Community. The Government have made no attempt to assess the size of this contribution, or the burden that it will place on the people on top of the burdens I have stated. Possibly it will be £ 100 million added to our food costs alone.
When we come to the terms before us, what is the cost of entry? When the negotiations commenced the Government suggested that they should pay 3 per cent. of the Common Market budget. This was called Anglo-Saxon humour. We finished up agreeing to pay three times this figure. which is 8· 64 per cent. It is to rise to 19 per cent. by the fifth year. The French demand was 20 to 21 per cent. They did very well with that negotiation. This is a huge future burden because it will rise each year as the gross national product of the Six expands. The White Paper says nothing about this.
From 1980 onwards there will be no limits to what we shall have to pay to the Community. The White Paper makes no estimate, either, of what percentage

889
contribution Britain will pay, or what the balance-of-payments cost will be in 1978,1979 or in 1980 when the financial arrangements will be applied without limit. It makes no estimates of Britain's receipts from the budget. In the paper, Europe of July 30 official estimates were made of the budget of the Community of the Ten in 1978. It states what the contributions will be in 1978, and what the recipients will get back. In the Community of Ten it states that we shall pay 31 per cent. of the budget, and receive only 6 per cent. of its expenditure. It means, in money terms, that our contribution will be about £ 400 million. That is the estimate of the paper, Europe, and I have it here if any noble Lord desires to see it. France will receive 21 per cent. more than she pays in. Holland will receive the same,21 per cent. more than she pays. Luxembourg gets more than she pays. Italy gets more than she pays. The main burden of the Community budget will be carried by Britain. If the size of the Community budget reaches £ 1,900 million in 1980, and if our net share of it is 22½-or 25 per cent., then the balance-of-payments cost under this heading alone will be between £ 340 million and £ 360 million. If these terms are regarded as a success, then I shudder to think what they would have been if we had not been so successful. On any fair reasoning of these terms, there will be a cost on our future balance of payments of from £ 650 million to £ 1,000 million.
The terms that we are asked to accept mean that we have to accept the loss of British sovereignty without asking the people of this land; we have to swallow the whole of the Community's agriculture policy and he told where we buy our food. We have to accept the financing of the Community budget—where we get it fairly "in the neck"—and, having been dictated to, we shall have to pay 90 per cent. of levies on our imported food,90 per cent. of customs duty on manufactured goods, and a percentage of the proceeds from the value added tax. We have to accept the freeing of capital movements, which will make regional problems harder to solve, and we have to accept the Treaty of Rome and abide by the whole of it, with its rules, directives
890
and regulations. As I come from the North-East, where unemployment is high, I cannot see our people getting anything from entering the Common Market. I can foresee the possibility, also, of a greater proportion of international companies, and other foreign-owned international companies, placing a greater proportion of their investment on the Continent and serving the British market from there. If this happened it would be disastrous for all of us.
As I said last time, my Lords, I regard the E. E. C. as the citadel of a perpetuation of power, privilege and profit of the international capitalist structure. I am supported in this by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Secretary wrote in a Tory pamphlet, Britain's Place in the World,1969:
"That if the individual countries of West Europe are not to combine, then the outlook is bleak. Each separately will be under increasing pressure from the Soviet world, who will not let up as long as they see that capitalism might crack. Capitalism requires unity to mobilise its full resources and gain full rewards."
That is one of the basic reasons for this whole settlement.
I, as a Socialist, can see no hope for my way of thinking within this Market. In my lifetime we have gained what we have by our own economic strength in opposition to the ruling class, and it is pleasing to some of us who have opposed the E. E. C. over so many years that the Labour Party outside, the Trades Union Congress, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the huge majority of people outside, are now against these terms.
In conclusion, my Lords, it is quite apparent in this debate that big business has been well represented in speaking with one voice to take away from the public rights and liberties they have gained in the past. It is the public now who should have a voice, just as big business has had here in this debate. And if youth is on their side as the Common Marketeers argue, why not try it outside and have a vote and see what the young people will vote on that basis? I regard joining the E. E. C. as a gamble by desperate men, and if it fails, because of the tremendous high costs that we face, we shall be the poorest of the poor. It is because of these reasons that I shall vote against the Motion to-night.
5.3 p.m.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I think we all feel respect for the sincerity of the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and the depth of those feelings, but perhaps some of your Lordships will question whether that sincerity and depth of feeling is wholly matched by the accuracy of the conclusions he draws from ministerial statements or some of the economic statistics he quoted. If, as I suppose, I come under his whiplash as being something to do with big business, perhaps the noble Lord will give to me the same respect as I give to him for the sincerity of what I am about to say. And may I remind him that I count precisely one, as he counts precisely one.
It has been said by more than one of your Lordships that there is nothing left that is new to say; indeed, only the way in which we say it may be of interest. For my part, this is the first speech I have made about the Common Market in this place, or even in the other place, during the last ten years. That does not mean that I have not felt myself closely involved for a much longer time than those ten years. Indeed,16 or more years ago I was watching with growing concern the reports of the Messina talks, and then, happily, under the direction of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft I became involved in the early proposals for Free Trade Area arrangements—very much second best those proposals look now. But that is not the way they looked then, for, like many others, in those days I felt that the more compelling case for Britain's involvement in Europe lay in the economic and trade advantages rather than in what I might call the internationally political benefits. But I changed my mind about that more than ten years ago now, and since 1961 I have been convinced that the broad political case for Britain's entry into Europe was even more compelling than the economic case by itself.
Like other men engaged in industry and banking, I can say to-day to your Lordships that, despite all the economic advantage that in our opinion must clearly accrue to us in Britain from our entry into the Community, the strongest case for entry is the stronger contribution which Britain in Europe can make to peace and general prosperity in the world—a contribution which we could not
892
make so successfully if we were not inside the Community. I find it very difficult to accept that anyone can really think that Britain's interest in the modern world will not be stronger if we are working with our European partners inside their own councils at every stage of their thinking, than if we go it alone "outside. I know there are some of your Lordships who consider that there is such a loss of sovereignty inherent in these proposals that even that advantage is a secondary consideration to what they consider is a damaging loss of sovereignty. I must say that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has just said to us, it is my view that there is no loss of sovereignty inherent in the proposals in front of us in so far as vital matters are concerned. Give and take, yes; but that we have now in a number of treaty organisations and in a number of negotiations.
May we just look at the alternative? Are we quite certain that if we now reject the opportunity to join we can expect the same close consultation that we have built up with our European partners over the years in which everyone knew we were intending to apply to join? Some of your Lordships—I would refer particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, in what I should like to say, with some humility, struck me as a most cogent and rationally argued opposition to entry on any terms, if I may put it like that—spoke of the fear one had of the results of contacts with politically unstable countries. The political instability of any major European country would, in my opinion, hurt us, whether we were in or out, and I hope we shall not have to meet that. But, surely, we should be in a better position to help any such country if we were in their councils and if we are able to offer them privately as fellow councillors the experience that we have gained from the 700 years in which we have evolved our own political institutions—an experience which may well be valuable to those countries (as even to some of the older countries) whose present political institutions are in some cases not much more than of twenty years' standing.
I referred a moment ago to one possible result if we were to decide to-day not to seek entry. My noble friend Lord Eccles in his speech yesterday suggested

893
that the alternatives should be defined and then exposed. He was right to speak of alternatives. I hope it will not seem rude to the opponents of entry if I say that in listening to them and reading what they have to say it seems that they do not agree on many things except that they oppose this Motion. There are a variety of alternatives. We have not seen any of them worked out in the detail in which these proposals in the White Paper have been worked out for us. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that some of you might have had even more damaging comments on them, and have taken even longer to put them to your Lordships. than the noble Lord who has just preceded me and who I see is not now in his place.
One such alternative was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and it relates to what might have happened if we had been able to inspire the Commonwealth, old and new, in a different way. I think she knows that I share an attachment to the Commonwealth, both, as it were, emotionally and in doing business. But I cannot share her belief that we could have inspired a Commonwealth, new and old, which would have wished to combine with us in world influence or economic policy to match this proposal now in front of us. Nor do I share the belief of other noble Lords that we are going to damage the Commonwealth by what is now proposed. Here I would pay my tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not suggest that the Commonwealth and the Community were alternatives but that they might have been combined, on our initiative.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I appreciate—or at least I hope I appreciate—what the noble Baroness has said, and I am sorry if in summarising I have misled the House. I do not think she would wish me to go further into it, other than to express my conclusion.
May I now turn to the economic case? As we all know, this is based on the great opportunities which entry will present to industry, commerce and what are called the "invisible exporters". The existence
894
of that opportunity does not, of course, guarantee that it will be seized. We all know that every single industry will face its problems. The noble Lord, Lord Stokes, in his excellent speech on Tuesday, indicated some of the problems in his field, and the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, has to-day told us about his experiences. Every industry will have some problems, and it is to tackle those problems that they have higher direction and management. But why is it that so much of the leadership of British industry and commerce welcomes the prospect of entry? It is because they want those greater opportunities, and because they know that their work force and they themselves are capable of taking advantage of those opportunities. They do not share the fears and—I go further—the lack of confidence in themselves and in the working people of this country which seems to be at the back of so much of the opposition to the economic case.
The standard of living in Britain will be higher because we shall have a larger market where growth is faster, and I hope that we shall not be misled by false statistics about comparative growth. There is no doubt at all that the growth in the European Community has been, and is now, faster than that in this country. Our success in industry depends so much, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, on exploiting the technological progress which itself needs larger markets, as it generally needs a larger agglomeration of capital and production units. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, referred to Europe as a small market compared with the gigantic market of China. Surely there was a schoolboy howler in that remark. The size of a market for this purpose is the quantity of its purchasing power, and who can doubt that the purchasing power of the Europe we know and are about to enter is many times larger than that of the enormously populated sub-continent of China? We are all rightly concerned about employment prospects. But on one thing I should have thought we can all be agreed: employment will be higher and unemployment lower if we have a larger free market open to us. Surely we can think otherwise only if we have no confidence in our own efficiency.

895
Perhaps I may add one other thought here. Quite a substantial part of the horribly high unemployment figures to-day is due to the growing efficiency in industry and commerce in Britain. It is a growing efficiency which results in fewer men doing the same as more men did last year and in previous years. This is a time when we not only need the opportunity of a larger market but can truthfully say that we can, better than in recent years, face the challenge of freer trade.
Yesterday I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referring to the dangers of the freer movement of capital by industry. But surely he was overlooking the fact that he was a member of a Government which, although it had controls over the movement of capital by industry into Europe, allowed industry to set up production and other facilities in Europe so as to maximise its sales to Europe. I really cannot believe that he, as a member of that Government, was committed to the proposition that it was a good thing to go into Europe and so operated his controls that he prevented industry from getting ready to take advantage of it. Of course he did not, and I really do not think that, on consideration, he will feel that the point he made to us was correct.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think the difference lies in the words the noble Lord has just used."Operated its controls" is quite a different thing from opening the floodgates.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, with respect, what matters is the result; and for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir explained to us, industry itself will operate its own controls and will not go and invest in Europe when it is not sensible to do so.
If I appear to be optimistic, I would add that I do have one fear. It is a fear not about the incompetence or inefficiency of my own countrymen but of a world trade recession and an era of protectionism rampant all over the world. Our present Government, and indeed their predecessors, have given a lead in warning the world against this and in trying to find solutions to prevent it; but there is that risk, and surely we can be clear on one thing. If there were to be growing protectionism outside our shores, how
896
much better for our standards of living and for employment that there should be available to us a much larger market, free of protectionist obstacles, than that the only tariff-free and quota market available to us should be our own small island!
I have one more point to make. It is said that by entering Europe we shall reduce our ability on our own to help the developing world with aid and by encouraging private investment in those countries. Many of your Lordships will know the importance that I have long attached to that function by the British Government and by British industry and finance. But I have never understood the argument that going into Europe will make us weaker in this regard. For surely if we become stronger economically, there will be a larger cake out of which we can give more aid. Surely our industry will be stronger, and so will our financial institutions, so that they will be able to invest more. Our home market will be stronger, so that we shall be able to play our proper part in accepting free of restrictions the manufactured exports of the developing world. Perhaps more important than all that, we shall be able, in partnership with our European friends, to make better concerted schemes of development in those less prosperous areas of the world; and perhaps we shall be able to encourage our European partners (or some of them) to do more than they have felt able to do in recent years. I believe that, far from damaging developing countries, and particularly the Commonwealth countries, Britain's entry into Europe will greatly help them.
So, my Lords, taking all these points, and many others of which your Lordships are aware, I share the views of noble friends on both sides of the House in this matter, that the case for entry is clear. I declare my firm faith that Britain will be stronger in influence and wealth inside Europe, and that faith is founded upon an equal faith that the British people will rise to the new challenge.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it may be thought rash at this time, when the long debate on our entry into the Common Market is drawing to a close, that someone like myself, who makes no pretensions to expertise in the

897
complex economic and political issues involved, should venture to address your Lordships. My excuse for doing so lies in this very fact. For most people are not experts; yet it is they upon whom the impact of our entry or otherwise will fall; it is in their name that we are to make our decision.
The path of the ordinary citizen has not during these recent months of debate been any easy one. He has been bombarded by propaganda one way or the other. He has been hit by a spate of words and pamphlets and newsprint. He has been faced with a series of graphs and tables involving percentages dealing with figures of such astronomical proportions as to be beyond his comprehension. He has listened to an array of experts providing contrary interpretations about their implications. No wonder the man in the street is bewildered, and tends to lapse back into our traditional insularity of outlook, bred in us just because we live on an island and for so long have been wealthy and powerful.
But I suspect that most people know that decisions of this magnitude cannot be taken on the grounds that because we find the whole business very complicated, because we are confronted with so many conflicting interpretations, because we grow weary of the welter of propaganda, we had better stay as we are and continue to enjoy what we have always enjoyed. And our unease at this rather facile situation is extended when we observe some of the factors which are clearly to be apprehended. It is not difficult, for instance, to understand the danger of economic isolation. We observe the countries of the Commonwealth and of the New World realigning their economic policies and their traditional relationships with this country; and we cannot go on alone. Nor can one fail to be impressed by the potential of the great markets of the E. E. C. and by the opportunities presented for our traditional skills and commercial instincts. Even though we come late, who can doubt that we shall be able to take advantage of the opportunities just as effectively as the members appear to have done during their membership.
Most impressive of all is the fact that all three political Parties have thought it right to advocate our entry into the Common Market, and when able to have
898
sought to implement that conviction. The Liberal Party has not wavered in its belief that integration of Great Britain into Europe is an ideal highly to be prized. The Labour Party when in power promoted a round of discussions which were prematurely brought to a stop. The Conservative Party has twice initiated discussions and has brought us now to the moment of decision. In other words, whatever the conviction of individual politicians, the man in the street cannot but be impressed that officially the great political Parties have thought it right to accept the principle of entry into the Common Market, and when they have been in a position to do so have sought to establish circumstances under which entry can be acceptable to this country.
There are sonic, it is true, who oppose entry on any terms, and as I have listened to this debate I think that there are more of that persuasion than I had previously imagined. But the three political Parties approve entry in principle: they are prepared to go forward if the terms, in their view, are just and equitable. It seems therefore, that the differences of opinion arc upon grounds of expediency. Is the price required of this country too high? Are we expected to make too great a sacrifice? Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
At this point the ordinary citizen is even more confused, for he is faced with a wealth of expert and apparently reliable information which flatly contradicts itself. The Government White Paper states in paragraph 65 that a decision to take up full membership of the Community
"would be in the best interests of the peace, security and prosperity not only of the British people, but of the peoples of Western Europe and of the world as a whole."
The document issued by the New Statesman replies in paragraph 67:
"The costs of joining the Community … are the heavy price that we should have to pay for largely hypothetical economic gains. These costs, which would depress our living standards and threaten employment, would immeasurably outweigh any advantages that can be expected."
As we have been reminded, on October 22,294 experts in economics wrote to The Times: 52 per cent. told us that the economic effects of joining the Common Market would be more likely to be unfavourable to this country; 48 per cent. said exactly the opposite.

899
What are we to make of all this? It is reasonable to conclude that on grounds of economic expediency the experts have no clear guidance to give us. The contest is drawn. We must look elsewhere for the grounds on which we are to base our decisions. It has been said that that basis must be political. That is true so far as it goes; but the matter must be judged on wider considerations than these. The issues arc fundamentally moral and ethical issues, for they concern the character of the world that we are to live in, the kind of relationships that we desire with other people, the extent of the opportunities that will be open to us, not only to make ourselves prosperous but to contribute to the welfare of others and to serve those less fortunate than ourselves.
Fundamentally I believe that it is better to be in community with others than to be isolated from them; to be co-operating with others than to be in competition; to create the conditions in which unity, peace and prosperity can grow rather than to accept a status quo wherein others go ahead and we are increasingly left out. It is because I believe it to be self-evident that these good things are more likely to have opportunity to establish themselves if we are in the Market than out of it that I shall vote for entry. I recognise that we have obligations to others. I believe that to the best of their ability our negotiators have protected those obligations. I think it more probable that we shall have the means to meet those obligations now existing or which will arise in the future if we avail ourselves of the opportunities which will be ours in the Common Market than if we stay out.
We have been warned of the dangers to which we shall be subject if we go into the Common Market. Of course there are dangers. What venture ever worth while was free of danger? Perhaps the greatest is the possibility that in joining a rich man's club we shall become inward-looking, self-seeking, ungenerous. But, my Lords, these dangers are not built into the system of the Common Market. It is not inevitable that by entering we shall therefore automatically be tied to a system which makes us selfish and indifferent to the needs of others. The Common Market offers as many possibilities for increased aid to the impoverished
900
world as it does for insensitive self-interest; and if it should be that this country does become indifferent to the cries of the poor and destitute it will not be because of the system, but it will be ourselves who are under condemnation: and it will be in this House and another place where we shall be able to raise that voice of protest.
I have listened with great attention to the debate here yesterday and to-day, and especially to the speeches of those opposed to entry, for I was hoping that I might have heard some positive alternatives to entry. I have heard only one, which was, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. I hope that I am interpreting him correctly when I say that I remember that he said he would be prepared to go into Europe if it was on a much larger basis. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has pointed to the danger of that argument. It is an argument with which, in a different guise, we who sit on these Benches are very familiar, because when we are trying to effect a unity with the Methodist Church we are always told by the opponents that it would be much better to have a wider scheme including the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Baptists. The way of wisdom, I believe, is to proceed from what is attainable, believing that when you have achieved that you will be more likely to attain the ideal.
I have heard many noble Lords for whom I have great respect and from whom I would have expected to hear some radical, forward-looking ideas, and I have not heard those things. We have heard a good deal about fears: fear of the super State; fear of economic recession; fear of agricultural hardships; fear of the break-up of the Commonwealth; fear of loss of sovereignty and patriotism; fear that our partners may go Communist or Fascist. When we have weighed all the issues, I do not believe that fear is a wise counsellor. I have heard no constructive suggestions of what we should do except to coast along as we are, hoping, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said yesterday (col.702),
"for a future bright not only with hope but with the greatest traditions that belong to our past."
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, reminded us yesterday, vast changes, important new alignments, have

901
taken place in the last 12 years, and we cannot be indifferent to them, and we cannot go on as we are, hoping that something better will turn up.
Here I must refer to some remarks made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who twitted my right reverend colleagues, the Bishops of London and Blackburn, for saying that we must make an act of faith. He told us that he wanted guarantees, not "faith, assumptions, speculations, conjectures ". The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said something of the same when he said that he did not want faith but provable facts. This is not the occasion to enter into a theological disputation about the nature of faith. But I would say that my reading of history is that the really important achievements of the human race have been brought about by those who have had the vision of a great ideal, have carefully calculated all the issues involved, and though they could not know where the way would lead, believing it to be the right road, have gone forward in faith. I can think of no important creative movement initiated by those cautious people who only back dead certs. I know of a good many instances of those who have done so and have lost everything.
My Lords, for me the most significant speech made yesterday was that of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, who put the whole matter of our entry into the E. E. C. in its right perspective. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was right in saying yesterday that the idea has been propagated at too superficial a level. In a recent article by Canon David Edwards, the Rector of St. Margaret's Westminster, he quotes Father Thomas Corbishley in saying:
"If we come to think of Europe simply as a larger factory… we are betraying the cultural and religious tradition for which in the past Europe has stood. That is not Europe except in the superficial geographical sense…. No Christian can accept a Europe which does not see human life primarily in terms of human values, spiritual values! "
Canon Edwards goes on to remind us:
"Before the seafarers' adventure of Empire became possible, the British Isles were always thought of as parts of Europe. Feudalism and the monasteries were international. The England of Chaucer was also the Europe of Dante. Nationalism and the Reformation broke up that Europe, and fresh Europes arose without us."
902
My Lords, our entry into the Common Market will unlock the door through which we can move in the future towards a unity we once had and have lost awhile. It will not all happen at once: but the economic, psychological and spiritual conditions will have been provided. I, for one, look forward to the opportunity which will be provided in fuller measure for the healing of the religious wounds which have brought so much suffering to Church and people. A prize of great value is offered to us: we must not allow it to elude our grasp.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, to the aspects of political morality to which the right reverend Prelate has just alluded I shall be returning. First, I make three vital, pragmatic points. Recent events have now deprived us of the inglorious option of living as a comfortable American satellite. Our escape from isolation would help to counter that fragmentation of the middle ground which the super-Powers contest. And since Europe is likely, in the coming decade, to need to import double her present volume of raw materials, and we have the deep water sites through which those could be imported, our association with Europe can give us a very splendid opportunity.
But do not let us allow the fluff of pragmatism to stifle political debate, even when advantage points one way. I should like, with respect, to re-focus attention on words used by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the last debate in July, when he assured us that "the instruments of power are in the hands of the Members ". The effects of to-day's votes, if they go as is widely expected, will be to authorise the Government to accede to the Treaty of Rome, and thereby bring us into a superior lawmaking body different in kind, my Lords, from NATO, W. E. U., the United Nations and so on. Secondly, once ratifications have been exchanged—and for us that is a matter of administrative procedure only, not requiring a Parliamentary vote—E. E. C. law will, at points, from that moment be superior to British law. From that moment on, the Council of Ministers' decisions—at any rate when they are unanimous—will be superior to those of Parliament. That is something that no

903
British Government has attempted to bring about since Oliver Cromwell. That is why, in our last debate, I put six questions to the Government to elucidate the stiuation. The answers which I received later in writing—and in parenthesis I must thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoc for going to such trouble—were as opaque as agate itself, and they forced me to further inquiry. The further inquiry, and the answers given, did little to enlighten me, either on the E. E. C. or on British policy. But I think I now know a little more about the Delphic oracle.
To two of my questions I must call attention. I asked what controls exist to safeguard Britain against any undue rise in the Common Market budget, and whether that was a field worthy of the exercise of the veto. I had no answer. Secondly, I asked—and I believe it is more important still—whether the Government must come back to Parliament for a Supply Vote, whether on the projected import levies or on a percentage on V. A. T., as our contribution to the Common Market resources. Again, the answers that I have had have been both unclear and unsatisfactory. With regard to the Common Market budget, there is nothing but the flimsy barricade of horse-trading among the six or ten members of the Council to stand between ourselves and the inexorable growth of that budget far beyond the mere extra £ 50 million-a-year rise implicit in paragraph 93 of the White Paper, until our net dues could soar well into the £ 500 million range and beyond.
These figures may be acceptable. Our balance of payments may exceed all previous expectation and performance and make thorn possible. But what is not acceptable, I beg with leave to suggest, is a British commitment to an escalating tribute, without chance of review let alone reverse, at least in each Parliament if not in every Session. It is false to pretend, as some noble Lords have sought to do, that the passage of monies to the Common Market would be no different in kind from our yearly subscriptions to NATO, the W. E. U., the United Nations and the rest. Those subscriptions are brought to Parliament each year and are open to debate on the Estimates. But these
904
imposts and levies, it is the avowed intention—and I have beside me for reference the letter of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe—shall amount to an automatic transfer of revenues. The White Paper was notably obscure on all this, but it is suspected—at any rate, it is widely reported in Whitehall where controversy rages on this matter—that the intention is to attempt to bind Parliament by some once-for-all enabling Act to authorise payment from the Consolidated Fund of whatever sums our representative in the Council of Ministers agrees.
This Budget, to which we shall have to contribute, starts in the Brussels Commission. Its members are unrepresentative, hiding their velvet touch within an iron glove, for quite naturally, they equate the Community's advance with that of their own power; and centralism, as we all know from our national experience, develops a momentum of its own. The Commission alone introduces matters to the Council of Ministers. Thanks to our obligations under the Treaty, when the Council of Ministers agrees on something it has the force of Common Market law, and what has the force of Common Market law cannot be gainsaid in Parliament. What cannot be gainsaid in Parliament is a tax on public consumption, which the public's Parliamentary representatives are, at the end of the day, powerless to resist without either breaching the Treaty or withdrawing from it. It comes very close to taxation without representation.
Power should always be distrusted, in whatever hands it is placed. At the heart of this debate, I submit, there lies not simply the question of material advantage. I believe that argument has been won. But there is the stark issue of the accountability of power. Surely a Conservative may quote the great Burke:
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse",
and our Parliamentary history shows us that the simple test is the test of all Parliamentary life: where lies the power to vote or to withhold Supply? In the last resort, one can at least take comfort in the Quinquennial Act. Parliament is omnicompetent and can therefore do as it likes. But, by the same token, Parliament

905
as omnicompetent can undo what it likes. That is—
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Will he not admit that, under the Treaty of Rome, the collective budget is eventually going to be subject to the control of the European Parliament?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for making that point, because the European Parliament has not yet had this power and we do not know when it will have it.
LORD GLADWYN: But it will have it.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it will eventually have it. He may be a successful prophet.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, the noble Earl may be an unsuccessful pessimist.
THE EARL. OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I think we can leave that little exchange where it is. Happily, there is the Quinquennial Act, as a result of which Parliament can undo, just as well as it can do, what it likes. I can only conclude that it is in that sense that my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack was able to assure us that, "the instruments of power rest in the hands of the Members." But just because Parliament cannot bind its successors, surely there is nothing unworthy, surely there is nothing improper, surely there is nothing insincere, if only for the sake of honesty and frankness towards our neighbours and friends, in calling attention to this. By the same token, surely the Government would be very well advised in framing their consequential legislation boldly to build it around this fact, rather than seek to obscure it and mask their inability to hind their successors.
By so doing, our Government's own hand within the E. E. C. would be immeasurably strengthened if, as I trust, their aim within it will be to accomplish that best of all economies of scale, by which I mean economy of Government itself, preaching not the concentration but the diffusion of power true to their philosophy of disengagement and humbly
906
acknowledging, I trust, that the best form of government is always the least.
Despite deep and anxious personal reservations, my sense of proportion bids me, as I believe the logic of our course of history bids us, not to recoil from this distasteful pornography of power, not to run away from the self-generating centralism of the Common Market Commission, but to face this power, to master and check this power, to diffuse this power and, since "the instruments of power rest in the hands of the Members", never to abandon that final check on all tyranny, which is the power to refuse Supply.
Because factors within the Common Market are now at work to make the opportunity more rather than less tractable, if we show courage, I am ready to vote for this step, but for the principle only, and only so far as the arrangements have been unveiled. But I give no pledge whatever about arrangements that have yet to be determined, or made clear or made more precise. I count myself under no obligation to back the ensuing legislation, for I shall look at that as the test of our Government's intentions. I pray that our Government may make good their promise that the "instruments of power rest in the hands of the Members", by making sure that all payments to the Common Market's funds are subject at least to review in each Parliament, if not at every Session, and thus implant upon the European scene the very kernel of the seed of wisdom which has sprung from the 600 years' story of this Mother of Parliaments.
5.49 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I must first declare to the House a particular interest in the subject under debate to-day, since I have the privilege of leading the team who are directing the affairs of the State-owned British Steel Corporation. In the few words which I wish to address to your Lordships, I shall take care not to trespass on the prerogative of Ministers to answer in the House for the conduct of nationalised industries, which is the well-established practice. My reason for speaking is that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for rather more than twenty years, and I feel that on an occasion of this importance it is really impossible for anyone with deep convictions to stand aside.

907
During the time I have had the privilege to sit in your Lordships' House we have debated and worked to raise both the quality and the material standard of the life of our people. This has been the objective of successive Governments, but it is an objective that has so far eluded us. There have been many setbacks and many disappointments. In the past, we have undoubtedly missed some great opportunities—opportunities which have been referred to during these debates—when we might have joined the European Communities. I believe, my Lords, that we now have a unique opportunity which must not be missed. We have a unique opportunity to join the enlarged Community and thereby secure for ourselves a new hope of establishing and sustaining a faster rate of growth in our own economy.
We undoubtedly all have deeply felt convictions and views on the broad political, economic, defence and monetary issues which surround the whole question of joining the Community. These matters have been extensively debated in the House, both in July and during the last three days, and I do not wish to retread any of this ground. However, during the last five years I have been intimately concerned with the current fortunes and the future plans of the British steel industry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rohens of Woldingham (whose notable maiden speech in your Lordships' House in July made such an important contribution to the debate on this subiect), I too, as a member, have attended the Council of Association between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Communities. I have also during this time had the opportunity of continuous and frequent contact with the leaders of the steel industry in the Six countries. My Lords, my personal experience and observation lead me to a single conclusion: that our publicly owned Corporations in the coal and steel industries in this country have no need whatever for concern if this nation decides to accede to the Treaties of Paris and Rome. On the contrary, I believe that they could expect to gain positive benefits.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain that there are some features of the British Steel Corporation which give my colleagues and me the opportunity
908
—a special opportunity—to judge some of these matters. We are the largest single manufacturing organisation in this country. There are bigger companies based in this country and there are larger organisations in terms of employment, such as the Post Office; but in the field of manufacture and marketing we have far away the largest operation. Our turnover in the United Kingdom is £ 1,250 million per annum. We sell a large variety of products to motor car manufacturers. to the construction industry. to shipbuilders, to can-makers and to all sections of the engineering industry. This gives us the opportunity of both seeing and understanding some of the problems and operations of a large part of the rest of British industry.
We also have very wide contacts overseas. We happen to be third in the league of the United Kingdom's exporters, selling directly ourselves £ 270 million worth of products into overseas markets. We also have extensive operations overseas, many of them in co-operation with other nationals. We obtain our raw materials from all parts of the world, involving purchases amounting to over £ 180 million a year; and. oil apart, we control the largest single shipping operation plying to United Kingdom ports. The British Steel Corporation's own net contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments is £ 100 million a year; and I might just mention that, in addition, more than half the remainder of the exports from this country are steel-based. I speak, therefore, not only with conviction but also with the benefit of some up-to-date knowledge of the trading and manufacturing situation in this country as a whole.
My Lords, entry into the Communities, in my judgment. will bring faster growth to the United Kingdom economy. This will benefit our basic industries, firstly because of the greater activity of their customers. But for steel I see a wider market in the enlarged European Community. There will also be additional competition, but this is something that we should welcome, and not fear. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, who spoke earlier in the debate, I am an optimist. I am optimistic that we can both compete and succeed in reasonable and fair competition with our friends across the

909
Channel. I see also a more vigorous growth of the economy, enabling us to provide an essential springboard from which we shall be able to modernise and rationalise large parts of British manufacturing industry, not least the steel industry. The European Coal and Steel Community rules will also, in my opinion, take us a step further towards ensuring the essential commercial freedom which is required by an industrial enterprise, coupled with proper public accountability where the State is heavily involved.
I see also improved prospects for financial stability under the disciplines and the safeguards which are clearly set out and provided in the Treaty of Paris. In fact, my Lords, the Community is especially tailored to the needs of the basic industries, and within the theme of regulated competition I foresee greater market stability and less erratic price movements than we have had to cope with in this country during the last decade. All this will lead to a more rational approach to the development of British industry in general and the steel industry in particular in an international context, which in my view is indispensable for the future.
Finally, my Lords, in the light of my own most recent experience I am convinced that nothing could put our regions, our development areas and the employment of our people in greater jeopardy than turning our backs on Europe to-day. To contemplate the next ten years with the growing economies of Europe, the United States and Japan, with this country in isolation, is a daunting prospect indeed. We need to cooperate with Europe. We need to co-operate with Europe to obtain the raw materials we require for our industries, including, in some cases, semi-processed materials. The great rich deposits of the future no longer lie in Northern Europe; they mostly lie in the Southern Hemisphere, at great distances; and the development of these future deposits are beyond the scope of any single European nation to-day.
We must co-operate with Europe, and this will undoubtedly lead us into further co-operation in selling and, I believe, in some cases, in manufacture in the third country markets which we have progressively surrendered to the Japanese in the last few years. We shall also need to contemplate joint manufacture in Europe
910
itself; because technology, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, told your Lordships earlier, has already led us to the point where we need very large investments indeed and in some cases investments beyond the scope of the resources which this country is able to muster on its own. There are, of course, still some practical details which have to be worked out and resolved; but, having been fairly close to one aspect at least of these negotiations, those concerned with the Treaty of Paris, I am personally convinced that we have negotiated good terms for entry. For my industry, the key questions of scrap supplies, tariffs, the structure of the industry and pricing have either been satisfactorily resolved or are being sympathetically negotiated with the other six countries involved. My Lords, if you want to see this country prosper and ensure full employment and a better quality of life for our people you should go into the Lobby and vote for the Motion before the House to-night.
6.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that it would be your wish that I should express to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at all events my very deep appreciation of the fact that he has been able to come here and add his deep knowledge and supremely weighty and authoritative opinion, as the most responsible public servant in his nationalised industry, to those of other nationalised industries in support of going into the Common Market on the basis of improving the standard of living for those for whom we are all responsible. Your Lordships will remember that it was only a short time ago that my noble friend Lord Robens made a similar speech in respect of the coal industry. His speech has been confirmed by the present chairman, and both their speeches have been confirmed by the Minister in the Labour Government who held responsibility and who himself rose from the pits to become the President of the Board of Trade. So I do not think that there is any room for doubt as to where the argument lies in the opinion of those most capable of judging with regard to two of the largest employers and the most important organisations in this country.
But really I should have started off by apologising to your Lordships for seeking to speak in this debate when I have

911
been unable to attend this House on the first two days. The simple answer is (and I am sure that your Lordships will accept my apology) that I have not been very well. If I were to listen to my doctor I should not be here to-day. The simple answer to my doctor is: in the light of the sacrifices that have been made by millions in pursuing war in Western Europe, how dare I not put up with a momentary inconvenience to play my modest and unimportant part in helping to promote a lasting European peace? And a further answer is, and it is an answer to my noble, and, if I may say so, my much-loved friend who speaks with such authority upon the North-East: is it not right that I, who can perhaps in this House claim to have earned by the sweat of my brow the right to be heard when I am saying what I honestly believe is in the interests of the workers of the country, should come here and play my part in securing what I believe as Lord Melchett has just said, is going to be the surest opportunity—not a certainty, but an opportunity—for the working class to receive a much deserved increase in its standard of living?
Peace and properity are two arguments which take a lot of defeating. It takes a lot of butter and a lot of the other arguments that we have heard about to defeat those two main arguments on which I hope that most of us who are and have been for years keen Europeans, base our case. But it is also right that one who has propagated this view ever since there has been any organisation of any kind for it, should look at the arguments which have been used over the years to see that one is right and that one is not merely obstinately sticking to preconceived views. It is also helpful in judging where an argument stands to see the movement of it in the past so that one can see which way it is likely to go in the future. There is no more encouraging process than to go over the arguments in this way and to find that all those arguments which we put forward some ten years ago and which were positively in favour of join-'rig the Community have strengthened, and all those arguments which were against joining the Community have weakened.
In the first category I include, most importantly, the consolidation of public
912
opinion throughout the Six in favour of the Community; because we are liable to forget that their public opinion was precisely as concerned as is our public opinion td-day as to the wisdom of going in; and there is not one responsible body of opinion in the Six which is promoting the possibility of coming out. All seem to be reasonably satisfied, although, naturally, they have views about the way in which the Commission is working. Another argument is economic growth—on which one based one's case ten years ago in the hope that one would be able to prove it right ten years later; as we now can. We can compare the acceleration in growth that we have achieved and the acceleration in growth that the Community have achieved and that achieved by nations in like circumstances to ours, as a result of joining the Community. We can compare the consequential social policies which have been adopted and which we hoped would be the case and which are now proved. We can look at the success of their regional policies, a success beyond measure. We sometimes forget what was the position in Southern Italy a few years ago, never mind ten years ago. It has moved out of all recognition as a result of the regional policies carried out by the Six, policies on which those on both sides of the House place enormous importance. Finally, the argument that we hoped would be shown to be correct, the development of an outward-looking attitude on the part of the Six: which has been proved by the aid that they give to developing countries, which has been proved by their support for measures to liberalise world trade, which has been proved by their support for worldwide solutions to solve our monetary problems. All these have moved strongly in the right direction.
The negative arguments which have weakened in the main are, first, the argument of the Commonwealth trade patterns. Trade with the Commonwealth in those days was still on a very substantial scale, although dwindling. It has continued to fall off substantially, recognisably, understandably, because of trading with nearby trading partners. As a result, the possible damage to the Commonwealth has been very much reduced. Sterling balance difficulties which loomed large no longer loom large. Food price

913
differentials which were likely to be enormous are now likely to be very much reduced. And the one negative argument that has come out clear as a bell, and has been mentioned in many of the speeches of noble Lords, has been lack of an alternative. It has been asked for for ten years at least. It has not been made available. Everybody, in both Governments, knows that we have all done our best to achieve higher growth, to improve the standard of living of our people, and we have all been driven to the conclusion that this was not possible without going into the Community. And so I say that there can be no doubt that the arguments which were put forward ten years ago have strongly increased in favour of entry. So, my Lords, I am going to have the privilege of voting for entry on this historic occasion tonight. And the one thing I have to ask myself is: in doing so, shall I be flouting public opinion and also shall I be flouting Party opinion?
Let me deal with public opinion first. I accept the point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, in her excellent speech at the start of today's proceedings, as to the function of this House and its Members. For example, if we were talking about capital punishment, where the opinion of your Lordships is very different from the opinion of those people outside—thank heavens !—then I do not think any of us would hesitate to vote as our consciences directed. But I do not seek to put it on that plane; I merely interpret to your Lordships what the public opinion polls are telling us, and telling us, I should have thought, quite clearly. They are saying that John Citizen believes that he, personally, would rather not take the plunge into the Common Market. They then go on to say, "But he thinks that, as a nation, we should go in ". Above all, they go on to say that the one thing he is declaring, by more than 80 per cent., is" For heaven's sake don't ask me to decide. It is you who have the knowledge, not me ". That is what he is saying, and I propose, as a Member of your Lordships' House, to respond to that appeal, to exercise such judgment as I have and to walk into the right Lobby.
May I, if your Lordships will be good enough to allow me, devote a few
914
moments to the question, am I flouting Party opinion? I daresay that what I am now going to say will be of more interest to those on this side of the House than to those on the other side. Having listened to all the speeches, including the interesting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale (who did not seem fully to appreciate that a unanimous view of a council, unless my classics have deserted me, is the view of a council in which every single member is of one mind) may I say that so far as the Government side of the House is concerned the only thing that I think is needed between now and the time for voting is a large enough Lobby to accommodate all those who want to go into the Market; and so there is no need to spend a great deal of time on that side. I am one who in 25 years has never voted against his own Party, and I hope that your Lordships will, therefore, forgive me if I try to look a little more deeply into the present situation within my Party and to try to distinguish between the reality and the superficiality.
First of all, may I invite your Lordships to remember what happened when we, the Labour Party, were in Government? We went into Government not openly enamoured of the Common Market. We did not go into government on the basis of a Manifesto saying, "Vote Labour and we will join the Common Market." The reason my Government took the initiative to send the then Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary into the European capitals to try to reopen entry into Europe was that they had been convinced, as a Government in Office, of the need for so doing; as the previous Government had been and as the present Government are. It is that which determined the initiative which was then taken; and, indeed, the initiative was taken very forcefully on the basis of, "We will not accept 'No' for an answer". It was made clear to everybody in the other place, and I have no doubt here also, that that entry was not on the basis of conditionally accepting or refusing the Common Agricultural Policy. That was an integral part of the Treaty, and the only way to change it—as indeed it needs changing, and as most in the Six recognise that it needs changing—is from within and from arguments based from within.

915
So that is the basis on which we endeavoured to enter Europe; and that, my Lords, is the basis on which the last Labour Government went to the Electorate. Their Manifesto makes that position absolutely clear. I have a copy here in case anybody wishes me to refer to it. I think that I had better say two words about it. It says:
"We have applied for membership of the European Economic Community and negotiations arc due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining the enlarged Community, provided that the British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded."
That speaks for itself.
Now I want to turn to the position of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which last week, in my presence, voted substantially against joining the Community, but noble Lords on this side of the House, those of my noble friends who listened to that debate, will agree with me that the main argument produced was the argument of defeating the present Government because of their economic and social policies—an argument which I found very appealing, too. But it is an argument against the Government and their social policies; it is not an argument against entering Europe. I find it impossible to be persuaded by the argument that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose what the Government are doing if it does not like the Government, as I do not. I cannot be persuaded by that argument, and I test it in the simple way of reversing it—the usual method. Suppose the Government had come forward and said, "These terms are not satisfactory. We propose that we do not enter the Community. "I ask all my noble friends who are anti-Marketeers, would they then have voted against the Government? Of course they would not. They would have said, "We have been convinced anti-Marketeers all our lives on principle, never mind the details, and we are not going to change our view merely because the Government have taken up a particular point of view. "That is how I regard it at the present time.
I now come to the question of the responsible Labour Ministers, to see where the weight of opinion is. In the Labour Government from 1964 to 1970
916
we had three Foreign Ministers: Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, my noble friend Lord George-Brown, and Mr. Michael Stewart. Each of them has made it quite clear that he believes in entering into the Common Market, and they are going to vote for it in their respective Houses, irrespective of Whips or otherwise. That is their view as to the principle. Now let us consider the details. During the course of the Labour Government various Ministers were charged with the responsibility of the detail of going into Europe. They were generally known as "Mr. Europe". One of them was my noble friend Lord Chalfont, and another was my friend in another place, Mr. George Thomson. He was charged with that responsibility at the time when negotiations were being prepared at the very end of the Government. The third is Harold Lever, who is the present "Mr. Europe" on the Shadow Front Bench. All these three have stated clearly that they are in favour of joining the Community and have stated their determination to vote for it in their respective Houses, irrespective of the Whips.
I come finally to the nub of my argument, and mention three individual Labour Members—Mr. Roy Jenkins, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Douglas Houghton. Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and to his great embarrassment, my noble friend and Leader, Lord Shackleton. If he is feeling lonely about this, may I tell your Lordships that his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Longford, has authorised—indeed, requested—me to say that he very much regrets that, owing to his having to carry out a long-standing public engagement to debate a topic dear to his heart in one of the older universities, he is unable to be here to vote, but would undoubtedly have voted for entry had he been here. I refer to these three distinguished men, each of whom has a responsible position and each one of whom has made his position clear and by doing so has in varying degrees imperilled his official responsibility. Not one of them is resigning. Each one of them enjoys his responsibilities. Each one is going to vote for entry.
What is it that makes each one of these men do that? It is their sense of integrity. It is their self-respect. It is their desire to continue to enjoy the

917
respect of their fellow men, inside and outside the Party. They value that more than their official responsibilities. I understand that. That, in a much more limited field, is my own feeling. That is why, as a Member of your Lordships' House, I accept the responsibility put on me by public opinion. That is why, as an ex-Cabinet Minister, I am going to vote consistently for what I believe is in the best interests of the people of this country and particularly of the workers of this country, as also of the people of Western Europe. That is why, as a fervent international Socialist, I propose to respond to the appeals from Socialists and trade unionists in the countries of the Community to come and help them. That is why, as a good Party man, I shall be accompanying my noble friend and Leader in the Lobby, as I am free to do, with firm conviction, with hopes high, with my views confirmed and, above all, with a clear conscience. I fully respect the views of those who have a different conviction, but those of my noble friends who share my view I invite with all humility to stand at the appointed time and be counted.
6.24 p.m.
Loin BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDENMy Lords, I am sure we are all greatly obliged to the noble Lord for defying his doctor, and if I were able to have a short word with his doctor I could assure him that his patient is in excellent form. Several political commentators and writers have compared this historic occasion in your Lordships' House to that of the passing of the great Reform Bill. Some, not content with that, have compared it with the passage of the Revolution Settlement in 1688. But I think that these are somewhat exaggerated parallels. They deal almost exclusively with our constitutional history; and while the atmosphere to-night and. I think, the political implications and repercussions will not be very different from those of the passing of the great Reform Bill, I look upon this more as a foreign policy revolution.
For myself, having just read A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe,1848– 1918, I regard this as the fulfilment of Winston Churchill's prophecy at Zurich, that Germany and France would bury the hatchet and Europe would unite after the most bloody
918
of wars. M. Jean Rey, of the E. E. C., spoke of an American who said: "Have you thought of our long struggle in the United States between the Jeffersonian supporters of State rights and the Federalists who emphasised the rights of the Union? We fought a civil war to put an end to these quarrels and I suppose you think you have done enough in the same direction in fighting wars in your community. "The answer to this amiable American historian is, I think, that we have certainly fought such wars, but what we now intend to do is to rebuild Europe spiritually, morally, economically and in every other way.
The second answer to this American is, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said, that there is no proposal for the suppression of national rights. Schumann, in his original utterances, never intended this; nor does M. Pompidou now. I should like to quote what M. Pompidou said at his Press Conference of July 21. He said:
"I therefore conclude that important decisions can only be taken on the basis of unanimous agreement and that what is at issue here is political reality rather than juridical rule. If one ignores that reality, everything would be destroyed."
No doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House will reassure us, when he winds up, that any proposal to go beyond the Treaty of Rome and threaten our national sovereignty would obviously come back here before Parliament. I am certainly voting to-night on that understanding, because if there were an occasion on which our national sovereignty was endangered or threatened I should certainly want to discuss it in your Lordships' House. I am sure that that is the intention of the Government, and that is really the answer to so many who have expressed doubts up and down the country, about entering Europe at all.
Quite apart from the question of rights and of independence, I want to discuss, very shortly, because we are at a late hour, the economic aspects of this matter. There are at present four industrial groupings more powerful than Britain: the United States of America, Europe, the Soviet Union and Japan—with China coming along behind. If we stay out, the best we can do is to come along about sixth. When I look at the Financial Times monthly review of capital spending, I

919
find that it stands at the present moment at about the lowest for four years. Our lack of industrial investment is far below that of the average in the Community, and it will be unlikely to increase if we do not go in. If we do go in, it is quite possible that we shall be running among group 2, and very near the top of it.
I want to tell your Lordships that all this was discussed by Mr. Macmillan and myself, when he was Prime Minister, in 1961. I told your Lordships when I last spoke in July that we had had a talk in the gardens of Marlborough House, when we had a Commonwealth Conference on, about the realities of this situation. We discussed five aspects of this matter, which I can put very shortly, and I can show your Lordships how, in the ten years between 1961 and 1971, our forecasts have come true. We feared then that if we were out Britain would have a far less growth rate than the European countries. Speaking ten years later, in 1971, I can say that this is undoubtedly the case. Secondly, we argued that we should fall behind in advanced industries. This has happened. Advanced industries are having a very sticky time—although we must acknowledge the value of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to our debate this evening. Are we to confine these advanced industries to a 53 million people market or give them scope in a market of 300 million people? I think the answer is quite obvious for anybody who wants to make up his mind in this debate.
Thirdly, Mr. Macmillan and I argued in 1961 that if we stayed out our investment would be well below the European levels. I have just described how that is the case. We forecast in 1961 that European standard of living, then below ours, would overtake ours by 1970. And it had overtaken ours by 1970. We claimed, lastly, that our trade to the Commonwealth would not increase in proportion to the Community's. Here I need only quote the Foreign Secretary in another place a day or two ago, when he referred to the level of Commonwealth trade. He said:
"The fall has been dramatic. In the years from 1961 to 1969 our proportion of the Commonwealth countries' imports of manufactured goods fell from 29 per cent. to 15 per cent., while their contribution fell from 35 per
920
cent. to 23 per cent. of our total imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 21/10/71, col.918.]
These figures, my Lords, speak for themselves. But I have had the opportunity recently of visiting Australia and seeing the staggering alteration in the pattern of trade made by that country: how Japan leads, the Community more or less comes second, and we have now to take a comparatively low place, where we used to be the principal customer. This is very regrettable, and I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, when he says that his eyes are on the open seas and that he looks to the Commonwealth. So do I. One thing that I hope and pray is that if we pass this vote to-night we shall not only be in Europe but also still remain the leader of the Commonwealth, and backing the Commonwealth in every way we can, including India, whose Prime Minister is shortly to visit us. Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that we are living in an industrial world. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, talking about the comparison with China, because what we want is industrial markets for our industrial goods. That we must get in the immediate future, if we can in Europe.
Looking back on all this conversation I had in 1961, I cannot help feeling that the case is absolutely clear. If we miss our chance, the five tendencies or aspects that I have discussed, which we foretold in 1961, will deteriorate still further. By going into the wider market the challenge will develop; our investment growth will increase, and this will help cure our unemployment, which is the single most human and tragic problem of our own world to-day. I think that these advantages will much more than balance the disadvantages of helping the E. E. C. out with her agricultural problems, and the consequent strain on our balance of payments. The increase in the growth rate, which is almost inevitable, will help also, I think, to deal with the very big problem, not only political but economic, of prices. Our own producers, through the N. F. U., now support our entry—a very different story from what it was in 1961. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, in the speech that he made to your Lordships' House. But I can agree

921
with the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe. I hold in my hand perhaps the most striking document produced in the whole of the E. E. C. struggle, and that is the latest N. F. U. pamphlet about the reasons why our farmers are in favour of entry: and I am glad to say that, for once, British farming has something to look forward to.
I should like to conclude this short speech by simply saying this. Europe needs our industrial and economic contribution: and in terms of financial institutions and companies, this will be greater than Germany's. It needs also our political skill and balance. Of course we know that Italy is in a difficult situation. Of course we know the problems of political France. Of course we know the fear of changes in Germany. But, as Lord Halifax said to me when I served him in the Foreign Office: "I always tell my groom to get very close under the horse so that he cannot be kicked."And I should very much rather be in Europe, dealing with these problems at first-hand, than outside watching them develop without my own care and attention.
We shall bring our own compact and modern defence; and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, we shall bring our cultural contribution. I happen to be President of the European Cultural Foundation in this country, and we work with the Council of Europe. Strange to relate, our first projects in Europe are social and economic. We have been trying to find out whether agriculture, for example, is going to spread and form such a large part of the economies of European countries as it did before. In fact, it is not going to. So a great many of the fears of the anti-Marketeers will in the course of time be gradually dissipated. At the same time, we shall bring our mixed, varied, Christian civilisation and culture to serve that of Europe. I am not content to leave Europe only to Dante, Voltaire and Goethe; I should like one quotation at least from Shakespeare.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any further. I am certainly going to vote to-night in favour of this great event. It is a challenge to our civilisation. Our civilisation in Britain needs
922
a challenge, and when we face this challenge we shall be surprised at the effect that it has on all of us.
6.36 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I think the Party Whips to-night must have been in a mischievious mood to put me immediately following the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. The noble Lord and I are fellow officers of one of our newer and most promising universities, and there we work together in complete amity and concord. So all my instincts are to say: "Three cheers for what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Butler! "But, alas! that is not to be the case. Then we had a most fascinating and delightful speech this afternoon from the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. She ended up by saying that the Division to-night was to be the end of the beginning. She must not blame us if some people—some uncouth people—probably say: "Ah!; but may it not also be the beginning of the end?" Then, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester invited us to have faith, to take a long view. May I remark, in terms perhaps with which the right reverend Prelate is familiar:
"I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me."
I stand before your Lordships to-night as a sinner who has repented. Let me explain how it came about that I saw the light. Until earlier this year I had been persuaded that the Common Market was a perpetual hive of prosperity and was the answer to all our economic prayers. Naturally, that made it very attractive to me. But I spent the greater part of the Recess in searching through financial and economic reports covering the past three years to fortify myself as a pro-Marketeer, but the facts I found led me in exactly the opposite direction. I began to ask myself: Why are the Six so eager to have us in at this moment when they were not eager a few years ago? Is it because their economic miracle is ending? Is it because they are past the peak? Is it because they have picked nearly all the apples off their own tree and now want to start picking ours? And I found that they are now suffering from the same economic hysteria, the same economic melancholia, that has been afflicting us during the past few years.

923
I will try to give your Lordships, as briefly as I can, a few of the facts that I found. I shall have to give them largely in telegraphese because of the hands of the clock, and I cannot quote the individual sources for the same reasons, but I will say that they are from the Financial Times, the Investors Chronicle, The Times Economic Review, the O. E. C. D. Official Reports and the E. E. C. Official Reports. This is what I found. Holland: riddled with inflation which wage controls cannot hold hack. The Government has had to impose a six months' surcharge on income tax, petrol tax and company tax and has increased value-added tax from 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. The new Cabinet is calling itself "the Austerity Cabinet "—it has given itself that description—and they are facing the biggest ever balance-of-payments deficit of 2,000 million guilders expected this year. against last year's deficit of 1,700 million guilders. There are widespread dismissals. The giant Philips electrical plant is cutting staff by 20,000 to 25,000. The Fokker Aircraft Company is laying off 10 per cent. of its workers in the next nine months, and the diagnosis of Barclays Bank is:
"Upsurge in inflationary pressure, deceleration in growth, faster increase in wages and prices, continued deterioration in trade deficit."
And it adds:
"The trade position will continue to cause concern."
The Times Economic Review this month says:
"Holland living far beyond its means; economy beginning a serious slide."
Now let us look at Belgium. The O. E. C. D. says:
"Belgium and Holland both continue the deceleration in output and growth. The Prime Minister himself says tough measures are needed to fight inflation and control the economy. Increased taxes are threatened for the end of this year."
They have not been put on yet, although they are justified at this moment, because there was a General Election in prospect and the Prime Minister wanted to put them off until after the Election. The Financial Times says:
"French-speaking Wallonia, whose coal mines and heavy industries were once the main source of Belgium's industrial wealth, is near economic decay."
924
Referring to France, after the Market had been running for ten years, which is a pretty good running-in period anyway, the Financial Times said:
"Not since the last War has there been a swifter reversal in the fortunes of a major country than in France last year. Unemployment reached historical proportions. The Bank of France accepted a massive foreign loan to bolster its resources."
Now that sounds like an economic crisis; and devaluation and tough monetary and fiscal measures had to be taken to deal with it. More recently in France we found wage increases, cost-push inflation and price increases still worrying the Government; unemployment steadily rising; stock markets fallen steeply—in mid-September they were at or near the year's lowest level. The giant Citroen company. one of the prestige emblems of France, lost 378 million francs last year (a loss of 616 million francs since 1968) and is thinking of reducing its capital. British building firms operating around Paris have lost millions of pounds. The Times Economic Review this month says:
"Ministers fear rising prices and union militancy will provoke strikes this winter and might blow the economy off course again. They fear mass disturbances, with disastrous effects on the franc and balance of payments."
And the O. E. C. D.—a very official body—said:
"France is suffering from the twin dangers of stagnation and inflation."
Now let us look at Italy. Capitalists there are refusing to invest and Government bodies are having to take over one industry after another. Nationalisation is increasing more rapidly there than in any other Western country. The Financial Times says:
"Private investment dwindling to a trickle: the flight of capital has grown alarmingly."
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt him for one moment? I have some connection with the Financial Tunes. I do not know whether he reads the leading articles, but despite the terrible things which he is allegedly quoting from our newspaper I should like to tell him that we do strongly favour British entry into the Common Market.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, that is all right. I am not surprised that the Financial Times speaks with two voices—not at all—and the quotations are correct.
Let me turn again to Italy. There was a wave of disastrous strikes in 1969 and 1970. and cost-push inflation is rampant. The Employers' Federation President has said that the outlook is gloomy. The Investors Chronicle says:
"Financial circles call Italy 'the sick man of Europe'."
In May the Investors Chronicle said:
"Entire stock market collapsed to the lowest level for seven years and nearly the lowest for 12 years: atmosphere chaotic; selling in almost panic proportions."
And on September 3:
"Stock market gloomier than ever."
Zanussi, the refrigerating and electrical appliance giant, put 6,000 workers on short time; Pirelli have invited 15.000 workers to quit. with the promise of more than usual compensation. The Times on October 3 said:
"The Budget Minister has presented a bleak forecast—a worsening of the current recession."
Do they have recessions in the Common Market, my Lords?—apparently so: and they recur. The Times Economic Review said this month:
"Two years of stagnation: the economy has been going downhill for a year."
The Financial Times on September 30 complained of growing unemployment and rising prices; and the Italian Government itself told E. E. C. officials a few days ago that there are now 1.700,000 unemployed, and that figure is still rising.
Now let us come to Germany. Here profits and investment are falling. Short time and unemployment are growing in all the commanding heights of the economy: in motor cars, shipbuilding, steel, chemicals and coal. On motor cars, the Financial Times says:
"Volkswagen leads the way downhill: 1970 profits down 42 per cent.: likely to worsen. Seldom has a fall from grace been more dramatic."
And Volkswagen was one of the economic miracles. In the Opel factory profits are down 41 per cent. The Financial Times on Tuesday of this week—
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I should just like to thank the
926
noble Lord very much for this colossal "plug"
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am a newspaper man myself; I am always kind to others. The Financial Times on Tuesday of this week said that Daimler-Benz are putting 6.000 workers on short time and that the Kloeckner lorries firm is putting 5,000 on short time. Let us look at shipbuilding—and here the Financial Times words are far more eloquent than any of mine could be. They talked of "very heavy losses in 1970" and added:
"In Hamburg one answer seemed to lie in forming a super-yard by merging the giants, H. D. W. and Bloem and Voss. The logic was doubtful, since four years ago H. D. W. itself had been formed by mergers which made it the largest yard in Europe, only to find the losses growing bigger and bigger."
So what Upper Clyde can do, Hamburg in the Common Market can do better.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would aid my perplexity over the point to which he is leading us? I ought to say that I have no connection with the Financial Times now. Are we to draw the moral from these gloomy facts which he has been adducing that a disinterested observer would advise the dissolution of economic union in Europe?
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord asked me to pronounce on morals: I am not competent to do so. Now let us look at steel, another of the commanding heights of the economy. Production is down by 10 per cent; unemployment is increasing; short time at Krupps and Thyssen; Thyssen dividend this year to be notably reduced; orders down by 10 per cent.; steel workers stage protest march—10,000 on short time.
Then, in chemicals, we have profits 30 per cent. lower than the already deteriorating period of 1969. Hoechst profits fell by 36 per cent. in the first eight months of this year and the company are severely cutting staff. Then, in coal, the Ruhr industry lost 400 million Deutschmarks last year, after losing 199 million Deutschmarks in 1969—more than their entire share capital—and the Government are having to arrange a subsidy. In other industries, Zeiss optical

927
are closing down their Brunswick factory. The Pfiff engineering company have 5,000 people on short time. The Olympia typewriter company are dismissing workers.
Now we might have a few general comments from other well informed sources.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, may I ask him whether he can tell us about the foreign exchange position of Germany? Are they suffering, too? He has told us all about the other countries. I wonder why he has not told us about Germany.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am not an international currency speculator, so I will leave that until later. The Financial Times on October 4 said:
"Touch and go whether economic downturn can be controlled. The boom is over…. Company profits down by 20 per cent. on a year ago. Considerable pockets of poverty and under-privilege."
The Investor's Chronicle of September 3 said:
"Stock markets depressed. Capital investment stagnant. Investors concerned about company profits."
The Times Economic Review earlier this month said:
" The worst inflation for 20 years has cut severely into economic growth…. The expansion curve shows a clear downward trend… "
Now we get this Churchillian passage:
"… A country tormented by inflation, whose industry is moving gradually from boom into stagnation."
It goes on:
" Experts fear that if inflation is not controlled soon, the nation could face a severe industrial recession."
The Times (and this is no relation to the other firm) on September 29 said:
"Twelve per cent. increase in German bankruptcies alarms industry."
The Guardian on September 7 said:
"Germany's seven month current account was 469 million Deutschmarks in deficit to the end of July."
Then, if I may dare to quote from the Financial Times of Tuesday, they reported the findings of five main economic institutes in Germany, and it was said:
"Germany may have negative growth rate for most of next year."
928
Now let me leave the Financial Times—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND:—until I read its tips to-morrow morning, and quote the O. E. C. D.—an eminently respectable international organisation. This is what they have to say about the Six generally:
"Real G. N. P. growth rate slowed down in France, Germany and Italy between 1969 and 1970."
Then they added this:
"The fast rise in consumer prices is appreciably impeding progress towards a higher standard of living."
Let us now come to the E. E. C. itself, the Cabinet of the Common Market. Earlier this year (and I emphasise that this was before the Nixon "coup") they said:
"In 1970 the Common Market as a whole had its biggest trade deficit since 19641,400 million dollars."
They added:
"The growth of economic activity has lost momentum."
While this deterioration was going on in the Common Market, Britain had the second biggest surplus in the world. Speaking of Germany, the E. E. C. said:
"In July the Government economic stabilisation programme put a 10 per cent. temporary surcharge on income tax, pay roll tax and corporation tax."
So, my Lords, vote for the Common Market for higher income tax!
Regarding Italy, it says:
"Tax increases were necessary last year to restore economic equilibrium."
Fancy a Common Market country full of dynamism falling off its economic equilibrium! About Holland, it says:
"Fairly high deficit this year on current account. In September last year surcharges on wages and income tax. corporation tax, motor tax and petrol tax were imposed."
The Commission added about the Six as a whole:
"If present trends do not change, serious consequences for standards of living and employment will be inevitable."
A few days ago the Commission issued a new report forecasting a continued rise in prices in the Six, and a mounting trade deficit for the Common Market as a whole. So the closer we look, the clearer it becomes that Britain has been "conned" on a magnificent scale about Common Market prosperity.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Are we to understand that the noble Lord's cure for the deplorable situation is to vote to-night in favour of economic nationalism?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when I permit my political thinking to be determined by a Liberal Party which has split more than once in its career I will give up. Now let me go on. One must not waste time, my Lords.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I was saying that the closer we look, the clearer it becomes that Britain has been "conned" on a magnificent scale about Common Market prosperity. It is as clear as a giant hogweed in the middle of some blasted heath. So, what do we see? Raging inflation; soaring cost of living; rising unemployment and short time; increased income tax and other taxes. We have some of these diseases afflicting us here, but we are not paying hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the French for the privilege of enduring them.
At a time—and this is almost the last thing I will say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: I note the unanimity! My Lords, at a time when Mr. Heath tells the Conservative Party Conference that:
"Britain is standing on the threshold of growth and prosperity unparalleled since the War"
we are asked to gamble our nation's future on a basis of dangerous guesswork; on a basis, according to the White Paper, of 1969 figures. Things have altered very considerably since then. In an assembly of this kind we ought to pay some heed to the warning of one of the leading firms of London stockbrokers last week; namely, that
"British industry will be vulnerable to competition, and is not well placed geographically to benefit from entry. The country with the most to gain is Germany."
So, my Lords. I come reluctantly, because the whole of my personal (if I might call it) intellectual history for the past 40 years has been in favour of customs unions and organisations of that kind, to
930
the decision that in the present conditions, and at the present price, we should stay out. But whether we stay out or go in, whether we are in the Six, or whether we are not, we cannot 'stay as we are. Britain needs a very powerful industrial aphrodisiac—and that goes right up from the factory floor to the boardroom.
7.0 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, after that speech, I think the House will want to come to an early conclusion of this debate. It is obviously a lot later than we think, and I am surprised that the noble Lord did not announce that the end of the world was nigh. But we have had many speeches in the course of this important and excellent debate and I will not conceal from the House that the ones that appeal to me most are those which are forward looking and outward looking. I take the line which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, took at the beginning of this debate today: this is an end of the past and there is a new beginning before us. We should forget the political casualties on the way and get to grips with the problems that we have to face.
We must now look forward to the Community with the United Kingdom as a member, and to the United Kingdom as a member of the Community. I think that the article which was written by Mrs. Miriam Kripps recently hit the nail on the head when she put forward the views which some of us have been canvassing for some time, that a new expanded Community could be the catalyst for the obvious changes which must be brought about in Europe in the next few years. This is where Britain has a real contribution to make. What is needed is something imaginative enough to generate the sort of enthusiasm which people of my generation felt when the Schumann plan burst on Europe. That opened up entirely new vistas for us, and this is what we can see ahead in an expanded Community if we tackle it in the right way. We need new targets and new ideals. We want to sit down with our European colleagues and decide where the Community is going and where the Community should be going, and Britain can help to give the impetus and the political leadership which is going to be very important in shaping these new relationships.

931
The start of this new journey must be to recognise the changes which have been taking place in the world over the past twenty years, because the world is very different from the world of the 1950s. There are a number of most important factors which it is not difficult to identify. Most of them have been touched on to-day, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, in that remarkable and excellent speech. There is the strategic parity which has been achieved between the United States and Russia, and it now appears to be accepted that the risk of a major war has at least receded. This is a fact. There is a new attitude to China and the fascinating, tentative relationships between China and Russia, China and the United States, and all three together.
There is the emergence of Japan as an economic super-State. I have been engaged recently on studies of the corporate environment, sponsored by the Hudson Institute in America, and they have made some important forecasts on the Japanese economic future. I doubt whether the rapid emergence of Japan has really been appreciated, because that emergence of Japan as a super economic State has a marked effect on the decision one makes about the Common Market. During the 1960s the Japan real G. N. P. growth rate was 11 per cent. a year. By the end of the century, on a conservative estimate of the way in which Japan might grow, it is not only going to overtake the United States in 1990 as the greatest industrial Power in the world but by the end of the century they will have, if this conservative forecast is right, a per capita G. N. P.—that is, if you like, the income per person—of 15,000 dollars, compared with 10,000 dollars in the United States, with Europe as a whole (not Britain) at 7,000 dollars, and Russia at 6,000 dollars.—That is the picture which is going to emerge.
I think that the common denominator is the development not of individual nation States as we knew them in the 'forties and 'fifties but of five major Powers: the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and Western Europe. And it is pretty clear that Britain cannot achieve its full potential if she remains isolated and alone. Her obvious place economically and culturally is within one of those
932
groups. In Western Europe we shall be on equality with other nations. If we choose any other group—and it is unlikely we would—we should be subjugated to the detriment of our influence and power. And Europe—and this really means the expanded Community—must, in my view, organise itself effectively to speak collectively and with authority in the essential debates with the other major power groups, and again Britain has a great part to play when this dialogue, triologue or whatever it is, takes place at that level. The growth in economic interdependence and interaction demands that a number of international problems must be dealt with by the major Powers acting together and not unilaterally. One has only to look at the chaos which resulted from the United States' unilateral action on the surcharge and the dollar to recognise that these matters affect us all.
The prospect of a trade war developing to carve up the European markets means that Europe must stand firm as a whole and not allow its national markets to be picked off one by one. As a number of noble Lords have said, pollution, environment and the quality of life are of concern in varying degrees all over the world. There must be a strong European voice to speak up on these subjects. Monetary union, drugs and aid—all these, and other subjects, call for action and decision above the level of the nation State.
But, equally, while there are many problems to he solved at and above the European level, there is a strong case for decentralising other problems downwards to local regional government, to strengthen their powers and their chance to involve more people in local community work and local decision making. And here again we have the political experience to know how important it is to work along these lines in Europe to devolve decisions down to Scotland, Wales and other parts of the European Community. I find there is so much that is stimulating and challenging in the concept of the United Kingdom in the expanded Community that I sincerely hope—and I address this to the noble Lords on the Labour Benches—that we shall not see the dreary, undignified and humiliating spectacle of Mr. Wilson being allowed to lead his Party into the Lobbies day in and day out in a

933
futile attempt to defeat the enabling legislation. This will be bad for British politics, it will be bad for British policies as a whole, and I think it will be disastrous for the Labour Party.
But there is more to this than the mere humiliation of British polities. In the July debate I appealed to the official Opposition, particularly to Mr. Harold Wilson, not to allow doubt to prevail about the Opposition's intentions concerning secession from the expanded Community if Labour came to power in the future. I felt that it was an important declaration that had to be made and I was delighted and relieved when almost immediately afterwards the Labour leadership confirmed that Labour would not attempt to remove Britain from the Community. Much the same consideration applies to the way in which the Opposition treats the enabling legislation. By all means let us clarify, amplify; let us fully debate the Bill clause by clause. But once the principle is accepted by both Houses, I plead that we do not embark upon tactics which will cast doubt on the finality and the validity of that decision of principle. I make this appeal because the decision to enter the Community should lead to an upsurge of economic activity pretty quickly. It should trigger off a number of decisions in business to embark on capital investment projects and a host of other actions that will help us to create more employment and reduce the number of people out of work. If the Opposition are determined to fight the legislation line by line and subject the Government to a series of narrow majorities or narrow technical defeats, they will prolong the doubts about our entry and delay the very decisions the country is awaiting to help our economic recovery. It is a tremendous responsibility and we owe the unemployed and British industry a far better fate than that.
I feel that I must stress once again my deep regret that this tremendous constitutional matter should have been removed from the non-Party arena in which we had it in 1969. I am sorry that it should now be subjected to narrow Party political considerations. This is a further reason for not prolonging the agony once we have obtained a decision in principle. I salute those members of the Labour Party who have stood their ground and done so much to develop the concept of
934
the United Kingdom in the expanded Community. I sympathise with them at the present time. They had every reason to think that their Party would continue on the lines it initiated in Government. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is to follow me—and I suppose the implication is that he is going to vote against entry to-night since he has rested his papers on the Despatch Box—that, once there has been a decision in principle, can we not get together, pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers, and try to solve the problems which will face us, instead of going through these mock political manoeuvres in the Lobbies, which will only delay, in the minds of many people who have to make decisions, the validity of what we are about to do. This is a responsibility which I hope will be accepted by the Labour Party and that we shall have an announcement in the not too distant future that, once the principle is accepted, we will go into Europe together, using every bit of intellect and expertise that we can.
7.11 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at the outset I should like to express on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House our very deep appreciation to the noble Earl the Leader of the House and to the Chief Whip for the arrangements which have been made for this and the previous debate on the Common Market. Also, since mine may well be the last speech of the Session from these Benches I should like to convey further thanks on behalf of my noble friends for the way in which both noble Lords have sought to meet our wishes during a long and tiring Session. I should like to congratulate, too, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. He certainly achieved his intention of making a brief speech, and I hope to be able to follow his example this evening. Equally, I hope I may succeed, as he succeeded, in not raising the temperature of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, we are nearly at the end of a long debate and soon we shall have to go through the Division Lobbies to register our individual decisions. It has been a notable debate, both in quality and in breadth of view, and I think it is impossible, if not invidious, to mention speeches that struck one in particular. But the debate was certainly enriched by

935
the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, to whom I should like to extend my congratulations and join with others in the hope that he will attend your Lordships' House frequently to give us the benefit of his wide experience. In a similar way we wish to offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.
The decision we take tonight is one of momentous importance and will, with the passing of the years, have a profound effect upon our nation. Whether that effect is good or ill will, in my view, depend in the main on our own exertions. But if we enter and the great expectations that have been presented to our people do not materialise, I believe that then there could be dire consequences to our social fabric and our political stability. Great expectations have been put before our people. They may be achieved in the long term; but there are hard years immediately ahead of entry, and I do not think there is any doubt, as my noble friend Lord Blyton said, that the main burden of entry will fall upon the working class of this country. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about that.
Let us not underestimate the profound change of attitude and policy that will flow from entry. First, we are a sturdy, independent people. We do not mix easily, and we shall have to adapt not only our procedures but, I believe, our whole attitude if we are to succeed in Europe. While it is true that we are, and have been, part of Europe and have been deeply involved in Europe for many years, we have always looked consciously beyond the seas. We created an empire and built on it our industries and acquired our trading and financial expertise. That empire is now a Commonwealth of free nations whose links and friendships many of us deeply appreciate. It may be that our entry will not break those links, but I think we must be realists. As we become more integrated by trade, and eventually by more political connections, these links will become more fragile and some are bound to break. The decision to enter the E. E. C. and to accept the Treaty of Rome alters the whole course of this nation and its relationship with the Commonwealth.
936
That in itself must have a touch of sadness; but I would hope tonight, if our decision is to go into the E. E. C., and recognising its possible effect on the Commonwealth, that we in Parliament and those who have any connection at all with the Commonwealth, will have a renewed determination to see that those links do not break but, if possible, are strengthened. We owe a debt to the Commonwealth which I hope none of us will ever forget.
My Lords, the debate has ranged widely. I think it is true to say that there cannot be one aspect of the issue that has not been discussed during the last three days. I suspect that those who are convinced that we should enter the European Economic Community will leave your Lordships' House more convinced; those who take an opposite view I suspect will leave your Lordships' House convinced still that they are right, and those who came to your Lordships' House with doubts I suspect will leave with those doubts unsettled, because in the main the case for entry, particularly in the economic field, is based on assumption. There is no hard fact, and I do not believe that any speech would sway the determination of those who support entry or who are opposed to entry—not even the silver tongue of the late Lord Birkett and some of the great orators of our time.
I am not going to ask the House to hear from me my particular feelings towards the E. E. C. I put them forward in August. But I will ask the House, irrespective of the views noble Lords may hold, to pause for one moment. There has been a repeated claim throughout our debate that what we can offer the E. E. C. is our democracy, our sense of stability, our sense of understanding. I would ask the House to consider for a moment how best we can serve democracy in this country and in Europe. I do not make a great case on the question of sovereignty, but it would be idle to believe that when we enter the E. E. C. the power and control of this Parliament will remain the same. Food and agriculture clearly will go. So will matters dealing with overseas trade and international financial relations. Indirect taxation, too, will have to be harmonised with directives from' Brussels. There may be other things. My Lords, I suspect that some

937
of us are going to have a slight shock, when the enabling legislation comes before Parliament next year, as to the extent to which Parliament itself has been affected. I do not question whether that is right or wrong. What I question is whether this irreversible loss of sovereignty is to be accepted by the British people without their having some further say in the matter.
I am not now making Party political points. I had three very happy years as a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office. I chaired a good number of constitutional conferences, and I see on the Benches opposite distinguished noble Lords who held similar responsibilities, but as Secretaries of State. I think they will confirm that whenever we considered constitutional changes or advances, we always sought, both at ministerial and at official level, to assess the degree of public support and agreement to the proposals that were being made. We went to very great lengths. There were occasions, certainly during my time, when it was quite clear that we could not reach agreement between the Government and the Opposition on the changes proposed, and we said to them,"Go back to your country, hold a general election on a manifesto with your proposals, come back with a mandate and we will implement it ". In the case of the Federation of Malaysia, when it was a question of bringing Borneo and Sarawak into the Federation, we even sent a Commission of eminent gentlemen to assess what were the wishes of the people. Certainly in my time in the Commonwealth Office that was the guiding word: what were the wishes of the people. We went to great efforts to find out.
Is it to be said that our colonial people are to he treated better than our own? Are we to deny to our people what we in this British Parliament have insisted on as of right for our peoples in the Colonies? It must have been the hope of all those who for years have been dedicated to British entry that when the moment of decision came there would be a wide measure of support in Parliament and in the country. The Prime Minister expressed the view last year in Paris that it would be inconceivable that any British Government could take the United Kingdom into the E. E. C. without a broad measure of agreement. What was incon-
938
ceivable then appears to be conceivable to-day.
The major political Parties are deeply opposed to each other on this issue. The major political Parties are deeply divided within themselves. This is not surprising, since the country as a whole is deeply divided. As my noble friend Lord Beswick said on Tuesday, despite the intense debate, despite the wide coverage in Press, television and radio, the country appears obstinately to oppose entry. Certainly the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister are not present for Parliament to commit this nation to such an irrevocable act as joining the E. E. C., whatever view one may take on the issue itself. I do not think any noble Lord would challenge my assertion that the electorate is either unconvinced on the merits of entry or opposed to entry. Certainly no noble Lord has stood up in this House and suggested that the electorate are supporting the Government's proposals.
What should the House do in these circumstances? First of all, have the Government a mandate? The Prime Minister has never hidden his determination to join the E. E. C. The Conservative Manifesto at best could be described as lukewarm in its commitment:
Our sole commitment is to negotiate, no more, no less."
The world "sole" surely means that there was no other commitment in that Manifesto. The question of a Manifesto is important, since the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I think speaking on behalf of most noble Lords in this House, expressed the view that your Lordships' House should never oppose the Commons if the Government of the day had a clear mandate based upon its Manifesto.
In his maiden speech, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry declared that he had no sense of a mandate for the Common Market and found it difficult to believe that the country had given a mandate. May I quote what he said in another place:
"I have no sense of mandate for the Common Market and find it difficult to believe that the country has given a mandate. I feel that there must be further consultation with the electorate hut find great difficulty in considering what that further consultation should be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 6/7/70, col. 389.]

939
The Nuffield College election study found that 38 per cent. of the Conservative candidates never even mentioned Europe in their Election addresses, and, moreover, less than half of the present Cabinet devoted a single word to Europe in their Election addresses. Clearly those who support the Government in the Conservative Party were coy; they kept their options open; I do not think anyone would question it. If that is so they cannot claim to have a mandate from the electorate.
If the Government have no clear mandate from the country, and if it is agreed from all the available evidence that the country is opposed to entry into the E. E. C., what should this House do? Does it say, as some of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite said yesterday, "It really does not matter. We know best. We are the leaders. Public opinion? Immaterial. It is for us to lead, others to follow ". I do not think there is better advice which I can give to noble Lords opposite than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. speaking in your Lordships' House in 1965 on the War Damage Bill and speaking with all the authority of the Leader of a majority Party. I feel that I must quote what he said on that occasion:
"It may well be that in the future some issue may arise of such gravity and of such importance to the wellbeing of the country as a whole, that it would be perfectly right and proper for your Lordships to use the powers which remain to you in order to bring home to the people of this country the gravity of that issue, and to give them time to understand its importance "—[OFFICIAL REPORT,25/5/65, col.734.]
In a paragraph above he said this:
"In the procedure debate the other day I said that I thought there could be occasions, when measures were passed through the House of Commons on which the opinion of the electorate was not known, or in so far as it was known it was not thought to be favourable, when our delaying power might be used, and perhaps should be used, so as to enable public opinion to make itself felt."[col.734.]
I should have thought the noble Lord must have done some crystal gazing, because is this not exactly what he himself must have had in mind? The public clearly opposed; no clear, stated mandate for the Government for the action they take. If these words are to have
940
any credibility or meaning, I have no doubt at all where the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be this evening, and those who supported him on that occasion. If democracy is to have any meaning, the electorate are entitled to express their view. Any Government proposing irrevocable steps of such profound importance should take them only with a clear mandate from the people.
It falls to me, as the concluding speaker for the Opposition, to give such advice as I can to those who sit on these Benches. I do so deeply conscious of their personal anguish at this moment—and may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that his contribution this evening did not help? Some of my noble friends regard to-night's debate and vote as a matter of principle and conscience. Whether it is so is a personal matter of judgment for them. We who are Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party are bound by the rules of the Party, which we have freely accepted. But, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has said as Chief Whip, we do not require those who, on this unique occasion, feel passionately on this issue to vote contrary to their strongly held beliefs. I personally do not believe that this is a matter of conscience; it is a matter of judgment on whether a policy is to the long or the short term advantage or disadvantage of our country and our people.
In an earlier debate I set out my own view that the advantages and disadvantages were finely balanced, and at the end of that debate in July I concluded that I supported entry and I accepted the terms. I made it clear that I had grave reservations about the terms and the economic policies that were being adopted by the Government; and about their effect if we entered the E. E. C. Since that debate, whatever new we have learnt of those terms, they certainly have worsened and have not improved. Since that debate, my Party has gone through the democratic procedures, and has reached a decision to oppose entry on the terms negotiated. I refer to my position if only to show that my dilemma is no less than that of my noble friends.
I am guided to-night in my decision to vote against the Motion by two basic reasons. First, while it is true that we in this House have always enjoyed greater freedom than Members of another place,

941
I have always held the view that, as a member of this Party, one that I have freely adopted, we have some accountability to those who are the rank and file and whose views should be taken into account on major decisions. The Labour Party, at its Annual Conference, called upon the Prime Minister to submit to the democratic judgment of a General Election. In the light of the remarks that I have made to the noble Lords opposite, I cannot help feeling that a vote for such a Motion can be construed only as a denial of the right of the electorate to make a democratic judgment on this issue. Therefore my strong advice to my colleagues, no matter how passionately they may feel on the principle of joining the Market, is that this consideration must mean that they should not consider voting with the Government to-night. But, as I said earlier, this is for them to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me a question about what will be the attitude of the Parliamentary Labour Party when the legislation comes before Parliament. The noble Lord is as well aware as I am of the constitution of the Parliamentary Labour Party. We are a democratic Party, and it will be for the decision of the members of my Party as to what steps we take when legislation comes before Parliament.
My Lords, I have only a few more words to say; in the main, they are to my friends behind me. We have had long debates in this House, and within the Party. They have been conducted, despite all the reports to the contrary, with great humour and tolerance. Some of us have been under very great strain. Tomorrow is another day, and next week is another Session; and I hope, therefore, that we shall forget these difficult weeks, and that we shall combine our energies for the purposes that brought us into the Labour movement. To the House itself, I say that we are part of Parliament, and it has been said many times that we stand between the Commons and the country. I believe that there is an issue to-day, and I say, as one who supports entry into the Common Market, that I believe that this irrevocable act of such supreme importance should have the support—the declared support—of the people of this country. I believe that if we had that support, we should go into the Com-
942
mon Market infinitely stronger than we will under the present circumstances.
7.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this is our second marathon within three months on this great issue. Once again I think it fair to claim, without undue modesty, that your Lordships have risen to the importance of the occasion. It has been a good debate, sustained, on the whole, at a high level and with a noteworthy absence of partisan rancour.
First of all, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate our two maiden speakers. We heard a notable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. I have known him for many years, ever since the time when, as an adviser to the Chief of Combined Operations, he took a friendly interest in some experiments which a young commando officer, myself, had been conducting into the possibility of living off the land. I had tried to acquire, and to instil into my unit, a taste for snails and grass—the sort of diet which some of the anti-Marketeers seem to suggest we are condemning ourselves to if we enter Europe. More seriously, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is a great public servant. He has rendered great service to the State, and his speech two days ago showed that he will be a notable addition to your Lordships' House.
I think I can fairly say the same so far as the speech of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever is concerned. Like the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, he happens to be an old friend of mine—as his father was a friend of many of your Lordships—and we served together in the same unit at the start of the war. He has a very wide range of interests, and one of those interests came through loud and clear in his penetrating speech yesterday. That was the importance which he attaches, as I do, to the whole nexus of Commonwealth relations, to its preservation and fertilisation, and his feeling that that relationship can be enriched rather than diminished by our entry into Europe.
There was no one in your Lordships' House yesterday who was not glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Soper, back with us and on his feet again. He said that his speech was testimonial rather

943
than evangelical. There may be some doubting Thomases with us this evening, but there are few Sauls, I suspect, who can be put on the road to Brussels by me in these last few remaining minutes of our debate. That being so, I think it right for me to express, speaking from this Box, how I regard the basic issues here, and I shall attempt to do so as a simple capsule credo.
First, economics. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put it yesterday, my knowledge of economic theory is distinguished by the few gaps which illuminate my ignorance. And on the economic issues which have been debated up hill and down dale by laymen and pundit alike, I should like to say only these few brief words. I am very willing to concede that the economic case for entry is not provable, pro or con. By its very nature it is unprovable. But, my Lords, I can only say (and I am sure that I am not alone in your Lordships' House in saying this) that I was impressed by the testimony in these two great debates that we have had in these last three months of men who know as much about business—and about their business—as any in the world. And their testimony, almost universal (and we heard it again to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, from my noble friend Lord Aldington and from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett) has been decisively and categorically in favour of entry, and in favour of our acceptance of the terms which our negotiators have won for us.
However, my horse-sense tells me something very clearly. It tells me to agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Molson, that if we cannot compete inside the European Economic Community we cannot compete outside, and the advantages of being within seem to me to be compelling. There is the wider home market approaching 300 million people which entry will open to us. But if we exclude ourselves we shall not only deny ourselves the advantage of that enormously wide home market; we shall also be vulnerable, on the basis of our far smaller domestic market, to increasing competition in third markets from Europe, from Japan and from the United States.
944
I should now like—and I make no apology for turning so quickly from the economic side of this matter—to state, as clearly and simply as I can, the underlying political reasons for entry.
In the first place, I am convinced that our entry would help to enhance, would help to cement—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown—the peace and stability of Europe. Even the most fervent anti-marketeer would not deny that we are involved and inevitably involved, with the affairs of our European neighbours. That Cenotaph a few hundred yards away in Whitehall is mute testimony to this. But those World Wars were in origin, and in essence, European civil wars, and it must be an absolute in our policy to do everything we can to create the conditions in which Europe could never again rend itself apart. As the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, pointed out, in a speech full of wit and pith, and as my noble friend Lord Butler pointed out, the essential pre-condition of this was of course Franco-German reconciliation; that reconciliation which was called for by Winston Churchill in that great speech in Zurich a quarter of a century ago; that reconciliation which was subsequently achieved by statesmen of world stature—Adenauer and Schumann and, let it be said, de Gaulle.
But, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, rightly reminded us two days ago, much still remains to be done if the still uncertain stability of Europe is to be firmly cemented. I am convinced myself that a further and important step in that direction is our entry as a free and equal partner into the enlarged Community. I am equally certain that as the institutions of the Community develop—as we help those institutions to develop—they will in themselves constitute a guarantee against the danger, a danger which has haunted British statesmen for 500 or 600 years, that any single State in our Western Europe becomes so powerful that it bursts through the European fabric.
I should feel differently about these matters if I really believed that the Europe which I hope we shall help to create from now on would be an inward-regarding Community; if those with whom we shall be associated were seeking in some way to constitute Western Europe

945
as an island to itself; and if that Western Europe were therefore to become an impediment to some eventual wider grouping, which one day perhaps could emerge. My Lords, I do not for one moment believe this to be the case. Per contra, I believe it should be one of the fundamental tasks of Western European statesmen in the coming decades to bend their best endeavours, by means of peaceful persuasion and peaceful penetration, to healing that tragic breach between the Western and the Eastern halves of Europe which opened up in the aftermath of the Second World War. Nothing is likely to do more to frustrate the coming together of the two halves of Europe, which I hold in the long run to be inevitable, than lack of cohesion in our Western Europe. I do not wish to be dogmatic about these matters, but in my view enlargement of the Community would most certainly help, rather than hinder, that opening to the East; that positive dé tente with our fellow Europeans in Eastern Europe, who are just as much the heirs of European civilisation as we are; that dé tente which we all desire. What is more, that great Social Democratic statesman, Herr Willy Brandt, has made it clear time and time again that he takes this view. Indeed, his whole Ostpolitik rests upon this fundamental assumption.
By the same token, a strong, confident Europe is much more likely to strike a fruitful relationship in the coming decade with the countries of North America, with the United States, than a Europe which is fragmented or not realising its full potential. Ever since the war there has been an unreal element in that relationship: the element of Euronean weakness and of undue European dependence upon the American economy and upon American generosity. But there have been many signs these past years, and these past months, that that relationship is changing markedly and swiftly. The North Atlantic Alliance will be cardinal to our security for many years to come, but we have been clearly put on notice that we in Western Europe shall be called upon in these coming months and years to make a greater effort in our own defence; and in the international monetary sphere the events of August show that we shall suffer, that Europe will suffer, the world will suffer, unless a better and more
946
enduring balance can be found between the respective weights of the American and European economies.
In all these spheres, an enlarged, self-confident grouping in Western Europe is almost the precondition of a better balance.
Above all, I am convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that it is through our membership of an enlarged Community that we can best contribute, and permit Europe to contribute, to helping to solve, or, if not to solve, at least to alleviate that crucial problem which confronts us all in the next third of this century—the problem of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke so eloquently last night—the problem of bridging the gap, economic, social and psychological, between the richer nations of this world and the poorer nations of this world.
My Lords, as we peer over the horizon of this century I think that many of us believe that the area of Europe's greatest difficulty and greatest challenge in the future is likely to lie in its relations with those billions who are mostly poor, and mostly hungry, who mostly live in the southern hemisphere, and whose skins have a different colour from ours. Quite rightly, the younger people recognise this as one of the crucial challenges of our age. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said in his speech earlier this afternoon. I believe that the enlargement of the Community which will come with our entry will create an unrivalled opportunity for us all, all the partners in this enterprise, to work together in Europe in discharging the responsibilities of our richer Continent towards the poorer Continents of this world; and there is a great part for Europe to play here in its relationship with the developing Commonwealth countries.
My Lords, the opponents of entry are inclined to say at times that those who propose it are actuated by a lack of faith in ourselves and by fear. I would claim to have as much faith and belief in the future of Britain as any noble Lord in your Lordships' House, including the "Ancient Briton" himself, who disclaims the title of "Ancient Briton" and put on a marvellous show yesterday evening as part of that disclaimer. But, my Lords, I frankly confess that I really

947
fear some of the consequences which I believe would follow a decision by us to reject the hand which Europe is now proffering us. I fear the diminished prospects of economic growth which I, at any rate, believe will ensue from entry. Nothing is provable here, and that I readily concede, but it happens to be my belief—and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, endorse it—that, following entry, and provided (and, of course, only provided) we seize opportunity by the forelock, we should be able to secure a substantial increase, in time, in our national product.
I know that in these days it is fashionable to decry economic growth—we have heard it decried in this debate—and I agree that there is no point in economic growth for growth's sake. But I wish it for the things which we forgo when we do not get it: the hospitals and the schools, and our ability really to care in our society for those who are poor, or deprived, or handicapped. Not least, my Lords, I regret it if we do not secure it because of the ability which more growth will give us to close the gap between the richer and poorer regions of our own country and to deal with the gaunt and daunting spectre of unemployment. But I frankly fear—and I confess it—for the consequences in diminished expectation and in diminished economic confidence which would follow rejection.
On another plane, I have an equal fear. If we opt out we shall be, by a deliberate if wanton decision, denying ourselves much of that positive and humane leverage in the big affairs of the big world which I am convinced we can exercise as a country if we are members of the Economic Community. I frankly fear a world in which all the really vital decisions will be taken, willy-nilly, over our heads. I wish us to be involved effectively in moulding our own larger destiny, be it in the domain of security, in the crucial monetary sphere, in our relations with the developing world, in the issues which threaten us even on our own doorstep—in the Middle East, for example—or be it in the environmental field. We by ourselves, try as we may, would have little impact in all this vital decision-making area. We as part of an enlarged Community will have all to play for here.
948
Again, I fear the consequences of rejec-tion, and all that rejection would involve, in missed opportunities for us as a nation. In essence, my Lords, we are to-night considering more than just an economic package: what we are being offered from now on by our friends and neighbours in Europe is the chance to contribute on a free and equal basis to a developing and deepening economic community. We are being offered, as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, pointed out, a chance to contribute to the design and structure of the economic and political institutions of that nascent grouping at a time when perhaps the foundations have been laid but when the structure is still infinitely malleable. We are being offered, too, a chance to contribute to the common pool, and to our mutual advantage, our rather special skills and attributes. I am thinking of our political maturity, on which my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie remarked, in a notable speech opening this afternoon's debate. I am thinking. pace the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, of our social cohesion. I am thinking of the special contribution whcih we could make to the problems of the environment, to the problems of urban society and in the mass media. I am thinking of the skills which our scientists. engineers and technologists can bring to bear in projects conceived, planned and executed jointly or not at all. And I am thinking, not least, of our administrative skills as a nation.
In some of these fields, my Lords, we could do something in co-operation with Europe even if we remained outside the Community. But in all these fields we can do much more, and have much more leverage, if we operate from within the Community. I really believe that there is a great task of construction waiting to be achieved by us, and with us. I hope that we shall embrace that task wholeheartedly, positively and (echoing the noble Lord, Lord Byers) imaginatively.
Equally, my Lords, I fear the social consequences of rejection. Ever since the Tudors, we have been involved, and effectively involved, in the affairs of this world. If we opt for "the mixture as before" we shall be, perforce, either uninvolved or ineffectively involved. There may be nations who are able to jog along quite comfortably on this sort of diet, but

949
I do not think that our nation is that sort of nation. It is my belief that opting out—that outward manifestation of the withdrawal symptoms to which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred recently—would bring with it, sooner or later, an impoverishment and a crippling of our national spirit.
There is one further consequence of a decision to reject, now or later, which again I frankly fear. We should be rejecting a set of proposals hammered out in negotiations which, one way and another, have been under way for ten years or more. We should be rejecting proposals agreed, not merely in response to a recent application by a recent Conservative Government which some noble Lords may dislike, but in response to an application by a Conservative Government in the 'sixties, renewed by a Labour Administration in the later 'sixties, and reaffirmed by a succeeding Conservative Administration. If we were now, at this moment, when the plane of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is waiting to depart, to shuffle hack to the air terminal and to cash in our ticket to Europe, we should, if nothing else, be cutting a very poor figure in the eyes of Europe and the world. We should be showing that, as a country, we now lack consistency in our basic policies. It would be no easy matter for this Government, or for successor Governments, to regain or retain respect in other future negotiations on this subject or on others. Because, my Lords, we should have shown ourselves, not perhaps as a perfidious Albion but as a light and frivolous Albion.
That, my Lords, basically, is how I view this issue, and those are the advantages which I see should flow from entry and the sad consequences which would follow a decision, at this late hour, for us to turn the cold shoulder on our friends, our neighbours, and, I hope, our future partners in Europe.
My Lords, as I come to my conclusion I should like to deal with the fact that some have sought to question our mandate in this matter. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in a moderate, balanced speech. I should like now to thank him for the things that he said at the outset of it. I would only say this in reply. When in
950
Opposition we backed the last Government's application. We also made it crystal clear that if we were returned at the General Election we proposed to pick up the negotiating hand. It was quite evident to the electorate in June.1970, and evident to the world, that a Conservative Administration would wish to join the Community if we were able to negotiate acceptable terms. It now happens to be our belief and it is a belief which is endorsed by a great weight of informed and impartial opinion, and a belief which this evening we are submitting to the judgment of Parliament, that the terms are acceptable. That being so. it is right and natural for a Government who believe in themselves and believe in their policy towards Europe to be submitting this matter, as we are submitting it this evening, to Parliament, to both Houses, for its approval.
Some noble Lords claim that we should wait, since opinion in this country is divided. Well, we have bandied the polls around enough in this debate. My reading of them—and I admit that it may be a subjective interpretation—is that a clear majority of the electorate would seem to expect us to enter Europe, and that a majority believe that it is in the national interest. But that is not the real point. The real point is that it is a poor government which looks over its shoulder all the time at the ups and down of transient popularity. That is not democratic leadership. That is the sort of thing for which, rightly or wrong, Governments between the wars were condemned.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, quoted some words used by my noble friend Lord Carrington on this issue. Perhaps I could return the compliment and quote some words written by his right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. They are these:
"To retreat at the first whiff of psephological grapeshot is not only cowardly, but may be the means of inflicting on the nation long-term hardship, even national decline… Treat the polls with respect … then recognise that you were elected as legislator, as an executive, to exercise a judgment—not on what is expedient, or electorally rewarding, but a judgment on what is right."
My Lords, the Government are prepared to accept that advice from that authoritative quarter.

951
My Lords, it is said that this is an historical vote, and I believe it is; although I must confess that my confidence was shaken when I heard that the noble, much beloved Earl, Lord Longford, had accorded our debate second priority to his favourite subject. Nevertheless, I believe that this is an important debate, and so do your Lordships. That being so, I recognise that this is a vote which has caused and is causing anxiety for some of my noble friends on this side of the House—not, I suspect, the majority. Be that as it may, I respect the sincerity of those who take a different view of this matter from that which the Government take and from that which I have been seeking to elaborate, and I accept their judgment in the Division Lobby.
By the same token, I recognise—and I do not wish to trespass on the territory of the other side and certainly do not wish to sound patronising—that it may be an even more painful vote for some noble Lords opposite. For some, I know, the decision is an easy one. They have always been opposed to entry, they remain opposed, and will vote against entry. Those who are genuinely doubtful may possibly decide in the last analysis to give Party the benefit of the doubt. But it is my view that in the last analysis—and I would hold this for my Party as well as for the Party oppo-
site—that Party, for its part, must recognise the claims of passionate and strongly-held convictions. If this applies anywhere in Parliament, it most certainly applies in this House of Parliament.
In conclusion, may I just add this. My eye was caught recently by a quotation which reads as follows:
"To have common glories in the past, a common will in the present; to have done great things together; to wish to do greater; these are the essential conditions which make up a people."
In our endless adventure, we, as a people, still have great things to do. Our 60 million people still have a distinctive, moderating mark to make on this dangerous planet which we inhabit with some three and a half thousand million of our fellow human beings. It is because I believe that we shall have far more scope for exercising that potential for greatness within the Community; it is because I believe that with entry could come a resurgence of national spirit and national self-confidence; it is for those reasons, my Lords, that I would urge you to-night to vote decisely and, above all, to vote wholeheartedly, in favour of the Motion.
8.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,451; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Avebury, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Abergavenny, M.

Bacon, Bs.

Bolton, L.

Abinger, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Boothby, L.

Adrian, L.

Balerno, L.

Bourne, L.

Ailsa, M.

Balfour, E.

Bovd of Merton, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Baifour of Inchrye, L.

Bradford, E.

Airedale, L.

Barrington, V.

Brecon, L.

Airlie, E.

Bathurst. E.

Brentford, V.

Albemarie, E.

Beatty, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Aldenham, L.

Beauchamp. E.

Brock. L.

Aldington, L.

Beaumont, T..

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Allerton, L.

Beeching, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Broughshane, L.

Amherst, E.

Belstead, L.

Brown, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Buchan, E.

Amory, V.

Bessborough, E.

Buckton, L.

Amulree. L.

Bethell, L.

Burgh, L.

Annaly. L.

Birdwood, L.

Burntwood, L.

Annan, L.

Birk, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Arbuthnott, V.

Birkenhead, E.

Butler of Saffron Walden, L

Ardwick, L.

Birkett, L.

Bvers, L.

Armn, E.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne. L.

Blackford, L.

Camrose, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blake, L.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Auckland, L.

Blakenham, V.

Carnock, L.

Carrick, E.

Esher, V.

Hylton, L.

Carrington, L.

Essex, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Cawley, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Chalfont, L.

Exeter, M.

Ilford, L.

Champion, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Inchyra, L.

Chandos, V.

Falkland, V.

[nglewood, L.

Chelmer, L.

Fal mouth, V.

Ironside, L.

Chesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Tacoucs T

Chester, L. Bp.

Ferrier, L.

Janner, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Fisher, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Fiske, L.

Jessel, L.

Chorley, L. Clarendon, E.

Fletcher, L. Foot, L.

Kemsley, V.

Clinton, L.

Forres, L.

Kennet, L.

Clwyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

Keyes, L.

Cohen. L.

Fulton, L.

killearn, L.

Cole, L.

Furness, V.

Kilmany, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gape, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Coleridge, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Kiixlersley, L.

Colgrain, L.

Gardiner, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Collison, L.

Garner, L.

Knutsford, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Landsdowne, M.

Colwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

I, rjtymcr, L.

Combermere, V.

Gisborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Conesford, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Leathers, V.

Coneleton, L.

Glasgow. E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glendevon, L.

Leicester, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Glcndync, L.

Lciirh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Goodman, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Courtown. E.

Gore-Booth. L.

Limerick, E.

Cowley, E.

Gormnnston, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Craigavon, V.

Goschen. V. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Craigmyle. L.

Gowrie, E.

Listowcl, E.

Craigton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Greenway, L.

Lloyd-Georee of Dwyfor, E.

Crathorne, L.

Grenfell, L.

London, L. Bp.

Crawshaw, L.

Gridley, L.

Long. V.

Croft. L.

Grimston of Wcstbury, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cromartie, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Lothian, M.

Crook, L.

Hackinrr, L.

Loudoun, C.

Cross, V.

Hailes. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crowther. L.

Haihham of Saint Marvlebone,

Luke. L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lyell, I..

Dacre, Bs.

Halifax. E.

MacAndrew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), Bs.

Halsbury, E.

Maclean, L.

Darwen, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Hampden, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter,1

Davidson. V.

Hankey. L.

Malmesbury, E.

De La Warr, E.

Hanworth. V.

Mancroft, L.

De L'Tsle, V.

Hfircourt, V.

Mar, E.

De Ramsev, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dcnham, L.

Hnrlech, L.

Margadale, L.

Derwent. L.

Hirvev of Prestburv, L.

Masham of Tlton Bs.

Devon port, V.

Hnrvev of Tasburgh, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Diamond, L.

Hnstines. L.

May, L.

Dieby, L.

Hatherton, L.

Melchett, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Hawke, L.

Merrivale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Henrlfort. M.

Mersey, V.

Dormer, I,.

Helsbv. L.

Merthyr, L.

Doup-liss of Cleveland, L.

Hemingford, L.

Meston, L.

Dowding. L..

Hemphill. L.

Middleton, L.

Drogheda. E.

Henderson, L.

Mills, V.

Dnimaibvn, L.

Henley. L.

Milne, L.

Dudlev. E.

Hereford, Bp.

Milverton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hertford. M.

Molson, L.

Dundee, E.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Monck, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Hindlip. L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Eccles, V.

Hirshfield, L.

Monk Bretton. L.

Effingham, E.

Hives, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu. L.

Egremont, L.

Holford. L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hood, V.

Morrison, L.

Rlliot of Harwood. Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Mottistone, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Howe, E.

Mountevans, L.

Enniskillen. E.

Huntingdon, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Erroll of Hale, I.

Hurcomb, L.

Muirshiel, V.

Munster, E.

Rootes, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Nairne, Bs.

Rosenheitn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Nathan, L.

Rothermere, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,1

N'clson of Stafford, L.

P. otherwick, L.

Strathcden and Campbell, L.

Nethcrthorpc, L.

Rothcs, E.

Suffield, L.

Newton, L.

Royle, L.

Swaythling, L.

Norlhchurch, Bs.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Tangley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Rusholme, L.

Tanlavv, L.

Nunburnholmc, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Tavlor of Grvfe, L.

Onkshott, L.

Sackville, L.

Tenby, V.

Ogmore, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Terrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

St. Aldwvn, R. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

On slow, E.

St. Davids, V.

Teynham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thomas, L.

Penrcc, L.

St. Oswald. L.

Thomson of Fleet, L.

Peddle, L.

Salisbury, M.

ThorneycTOft, L.

Pender, L.

Sandford, L.

Townshend. M.

Penney, L.

Sandys, L.

Trefcarne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Savile, L.

Trevciyan, L.

Perth, E.

Seear, Bs.

Tweedsmuir of Belhclvie, Bs.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Sseal, L.

Ullswater, V.

Platt,"L.

Selkirk, F.

Vernon, L.

Plowden, L.

Selsdon, L.

Verulam. E.

Poiwarth, L.

Somrill, Ly.

Vestcy, L.

Poole, L.

Shackieton, L.

Vivian, L.

Ponnlcweli, L.

Shaftcburv. E.

Wade. L.

Radnor, E.

Shannon, E.

Wakcfield of Kendal, L.

Rnrilnn, L.

Sharp, Bs.

Waldesrave, E.

Rinfuriv, E.

Shawcross. L.

Waiston, L.

Rank, I..

Sheffield, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rnnkei'lour. L.

SUkin, L.

Watkinson. V.

Ralhcavan. L.

Silsoe. L.

Waverlev, V.

Rendina, M.

Simon, V.

Weir, V.

Reav, L.

Sirron of Giaisdale, L.

Westminster. D.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Westwood, L.

Redesdaie. L.

Slim, V.

Wheatley. L.

Rcdryipvne, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Wifrram, L.

Reisate, L.

Somprs. T..

Wilberforcc, L.

Remnant, L.

Southward. L. Bp.

Williamson, L.

T^nneil. L.

Snencr, E.

WilliiTdon, M.

Rhvl, L.

Stair. K.

Winchester. L. Bp.

Ridlev, V.

Stamford, E.

Windlesham. L.

Ritchie of Dundee. L.

Stamp L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rabbins, L.

Stokes, L.

Wolverton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Stonehaven. V.

Wrenbury. L.

Rochdale. V.

Stow Hill. L.

Wynford. L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Strabolgi. L.

Yarborough, E.

Rochester. L.

Stradbroke. E.

Younn. B.

Rockley, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hushes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Arwn, L.

Tnsleby, V.

Serota, Bs.

Balogh L.

Kahn. L.

Shepherd, L.

Bernstein, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Beswick. L. [Teller.]

Les of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Soper, L.

Bowden, L.

Lucan, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Brockway, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary. L.

Strani, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Maelor, L.

Strange, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford. L.

Milford. L.

Tavlor of Mansfield, L.

Dclacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fraser of North Cape. L.

Monson. L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Moran, L.

Wiea, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Moyle, L.

Wise. L.

Gray, L.

Pargiter, L.

Woolley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips. Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Harris, L.

Poltimore, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  RADLETT AERODROME AND GREEN BELT PYLONS
  RADLETT AERODROME AND GREEN BELT PYLONS
  M.4 MOTORWAY EXTENSIONS
  M.4 MOTORWAY EXTENSIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES: CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSALS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES: CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSALS
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH