Sitting of 3 August 1972

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

  DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

  SCHEDULE
  Standing Order 1, line 86, at end insert—
  'Where under Standing Orders 48 to 59 a length or distance is required to be stated, marked or described in Imperial measurements it may be stated, marked or described in metric measurements instead of Imperial measurements, in the case of measurements in miles, furlongs, chains or yards, to the nearest equivalent expressed in whole metres and, in the case of measurements in feet and inches or decimal parts of a foot, to the nearest equivalent expressed in metres (taken, where necessary, to two decimal places of a metre); and for the purposes of Standing Orders 50(1) and 52(4) distances from one of the termini of a railway, tramroad or tramway (as the case may be) may be marked at intervals of two hundred metres'.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SELSEY FISHERMEN (PETITION)
  Mr. Luce: I beg leave to present a Petition, signed on behalf of 23 fishermen of Selsey and District, in Sussex, which states:
  "That there will be a … depletion of the Inshore Fishing grounds … as a result of joining the European Economic Community on the 1st January 1973",
  932
  and of the proposed abrogation of the Fishery Limits (Territorial Waters Order in Council) Act, 1964. They also believe that there will be inadequate naval protection in the six- to twelve-mile zone and that immediate action is required to ensure the continued supply of high protein food.
  They conclude by praying
  that your Honourable House do retain the Fishery Limits Act of 1964 for an unlimited period and that your Honourable House establishes an adequate Naval Patrol system competent to protect all areas under their control and supervision, and urges your Honourable House to call for an immediate inquiry on these matters.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Internment
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he can now announce when he proposes to terminate internment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to consider further the release of all persons now interned; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Internment will end as soon as the security situation permits.
    Mr. Archer: I wish the Secretary of State well in the steps he has taken, but does he agree that if internment is to continue it can no longer be applied only to one side but must be applied to suspected terrorists whatever their persuasion?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept that. I am most anxious, as I have made clear, that we should reach a position in which internment can end. I must accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many men are still incarcerated in Long Kesh who were

    933
    lifted last August following the disastrous decision which, in my opinion, has been the cause of much that has happened since? Is he aware that his gyrations in the past few weeks over the question of internment are clearly seen as an attempt to use these men as hostages for the good behaviour of the rest of the Catholic population? Will the right hon. Gentleman announce a date for the end of internment and imprisonment without trial in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There is a later Question on the first point and I think that in fairness to the hon. Member who tabled it, but who is not present, I must delay giving the figures until it is reached. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about hostages. I agree that I must have regard to the security situation on the ground, but I must stick to the point which I have always made.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that what we on this side have always been concerned about is internment without trial, and that we support the detention of all those against whom charges are brought? For the rest, taking into account the problems involved, their release would do much to help the forthcoming political talks.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I am most anxious that in all cases in which charges can be brought they should be brought. I continually urge that on the security forces. Like, I think, everyone in Northern Ireland, I am most anxious to ensure that as many people as possible who may be guilty of, or who can be charged with, offences are brought before the courts, which is the proper way of proceeding.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those interned and detained without trial on 9th August, 1971, are currently interned and detained; and at what places.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Of the 245 persons detained on 9th August, 1971, 61 are still held at Long Kesh as internees.
    Mr. Bidwell: While the retention of the 61 raises important questions—and I know the right hon. Gentleman's broadminded attitude—will he not now in retrospect accept that the wholesale internment policy of the Stormont Gov-
    934
    ernment on 9th August was an unmitigated disaster? As we are coming near to the first anniversary of the event, does he realise that if he can bring himself to say so it would go a long way towards developing harmonisation in the Province?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What I must put to the hon. Gentleman is that I have enough problems on hand at present without looking forward to any or dealing with any in retrospect.
    Mr. Winterton: According to the Press today, my right hon. Friend has signed papers to release 14 members of the IRA from internment. Does he feel that this will help the Prime Minister of the Republic to clamp down on the activities of the IRA which one of his Ministers has described as "a scourge"?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that, as perhaps he saw in the Press, the people whom I released were members of the official IRA, who have been operating a cease-fire for a considerable time. That is rather different from the position of the Provisionals in the Republic.

    Ulster Defence Association
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has recently held with representatives of the Ulster Defence Association.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I met members of the Ulster Defence Association on 13th, 14th and 28th June, 1972.
    Mr. Mather: Would not it be possible for the energies and activities of local defence organisations of whichever community to be recruited to the service of the Crown by the formation of a nonsectarian home guard to relieve the security forces of some of their burdens?
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the first instance, I must make it clear that private armies, from wherever they may come, are a great danger to the State and must not be permitted. It was part of the operation conducted at the beginning of this week to see that that position stopped. There are ample opportunities for those who wish to serve the State in Northern Ireland. They can be recruited through the UDR, through the Reserve of the

    935
    RUC, and into the RUC itself. I am ready to consider other methods by which people may protect themselves. But I believe that the paramount need is to increase and improve the value of the security forces as they are at present constituted.
    Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the request from the Minister of Justice in the Republic that all arms should be handed in. It is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to have further talks with the UDA and other interested persons with a view to seek their co-operation so that he may make a similar announcement in the North.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think that we ought to be clear about the problem of arms. The problem in Northern Ireland is not licensed firearms but unlicensed firearms. The security forces are acting to try to find and to remove unlicensed arms wherever they may be found throughout the community. That is being done and has been done in the last few days. It is extremely important. When it comes to licensed firearms, I note what has been said by the Republic. They have exempted shotguns and airguns from their
    proposals. The figures in Northern Ireland are that there are 72,437 shotguns and 11,000 airguns out of a total of 104,000. I will look at this situation. However, the shotgun position, in an agricultural community, is a reasonable one—and one which even the Republic is not seeking to change.
    Mr. Orme: Returning to the point about the UDA, will the Secretary of State say what steps he is taking to remove this para-military force, often hooded, from the streets of Belfast and other cities in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that many people in this country feel that it is about time that these people were removed, just as the Provisional IRA was removed?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have made my attitude to private armies of all sorts perfectly clear. Anyone wearing a para-military uniform can be proceeded against. I do not intend to allow it to continue.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that members of the UDA have not appeared in the streets of Belfast with guns in their hands and,
    936
    therefore, that it is not fair to compare them with IRA men who have publicly justified their acts of violence and murder? Is not it a fact that the leaders of the UDA have condemned murder?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, it is. It is also fair—and I think that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to say so—that private armies of any sort do not aid the security situation in Northern Ireland. It is to that end that all our actions must be directed.

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Foleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of extra jobs expected at Harland and Wolff following the recent Government financial aid to the shipyard; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): The terms and conditions of Government assistance for this scheme are still under consideration but it is expected that some 4,000 jobs will be provided.
    Mr. Foley: In view of the fact that the terms and conditions are still under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no Government aid to Harland and Wolff or anyone else in Northern Ireland unless the Government are satisfied that employment and recruitment policies are on a nondiscriminatory basis?
    Mr. Howell: The chairman and management of Harland and Wolff have given clear assurances that their recruiting policy is and will be one of nondiscrimination. As for discrimination throughout the private sector, there is another Question on the Order Paper on that specific point. I think that I had better leave that for the moment.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of assistance given by the Government the shipbuilding facilities at Harland and Wolff, with a capacity to build up to a million tons, are now the best anywhere in Europe and that the productivity of the men matches them? Is not it fair to say that any assistance to Harland and Wolff will improve not only the employment position but the economic position of this country?
    Mr. Howell: I gladly confirm that point. Assistance to Harland and Wolff means assistance to all the vast ancillary industries and additional outside facilities which go to make it a great shipyard.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of school leavers who entered into apprenticeships during the last 12 months; and how these figures compare with England and Wales.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): The statistics do not relate specifically to school leavers but to young people on their first entry into employment. The most recent figures are for the calendar year 1971, when 3,276 or 24·5 per cent. of all young people entering employment took up apprenticeships. The comparable figures for Great Britain were 112,302 or 24·3 per cent.
    Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does not he agree that there is a major problem with young people in Northern Ireland, as we witness daily on our television screens? Will the Government consider some special training schemes for apprenticeships through the training boards, even if employment is not readily available, so that young people can be given a trade and the basis for a start in life?
    Mr. Channon: Certainly I will look at any suggestion that the hon. Gentleman cares to make. Already, a thousand boys are recruited by the Ministry of Health and Social Services each year to augment industry's intake of apprentices. Last week we announced a programme which included additional training for young people and other measures to help the employment situation. Certainly we intend to take energetic action about this.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the definition of "apprenticeship training" current throughout the United Kingdom which is used to collect statistics of the kind just given by him does not grossly inflate the picture since, in most cases, the period of training is less than 12 months in duration and is sometimes only a few weeks?
    Mr. Channon: I have no evidence that the definition is unsatisfactory. If my
    938
    hon. Friend has any, perhaps he will send it to me.

    Civil Service (Recruitment)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of people recruited for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland during the last 12 months.
    Mr. David Howell: The number of people appointed to the Northern Ireland Civil Service during 1971—the last period for which figures are readily available—was 2,085.
    This figure excludes industrial staff and people engaged for seasonal or holiday work.
    Mr. Cox: In view of past criticisms can the hon. Gentleman assure us that recruitment into the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is now free of religious prejudice? Can he assure us, further, that any future promotion within the service in Northern Ireland will be based on the abilities of those seeking promotion and on no other form of discrimination?
    Mr. Howell: Certainly I give that assurance, and I think that it has been so in the past. The procedures have been rigorously fair. There is no evidence of discrimination or of a sectarian policy in recruitment. I gladly give that assurance for the present and for the future as well.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my hon. Friend also assure us from the knowledge that he has that there was never any such religious discrimination in recruitment to the Civil Service and that there is a good proportion of the minority in the Stormont Civil Service at present?
    Mr. Howell: That is what I said. There was never such discrimination. There are no precise statistics kept on the religious categories of existing Civil Service staff, but I think that any fair assessment will show that today there is no discrimination in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

    Referendum
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are now his plans for a referendum on the border.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when special legislation will be introduced to provide for the holding of a plebiscite in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Government hope to introduce legislation in the autumn with a view to holding a poll as soon as possible after its approval.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for, in effect, taking over my Bill. Will not a referendum enable those many Roman Catholics who, according to a recent poll, favour the Union to demonstrate that union with Britain is not a sectarian cause?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to prejudge what people might decide to do on such an occasion. But certainly I note what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Foley: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up an ambiguity which has developed in the last month or so? In response to a question from me, the right hon. Gentleman assured us that the political parties in Northern Ireland would be consulted about the form of a referendum and about the time of it. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet started consultations, is it wise on his part to announce dates before he has consulted them?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have been discussing with and consulting a large variety of people about this, about conferences, and about other general matters. I believe that it would be advisable to hold such a plebiscite or referendum, whatever it is called, as soon as it can be reasonably held. That is why I say that I hope to hold it as soon as the legislation can be put through.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the plebiscite is held before the local government elections and that those elections are not turned into a conflict over the border? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the plebiscite will be held on a Province-wide basis and not on the electoral areas set out in the draft order?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would be advisable to hold such a referendum before the local government elections. I must always remain firmly of the view, to the
    940
    House and to everyone else, particularly in view of recent developments, that the security actions must be paramount: they must come before everything else. Subject to that, I hope that it will be possible. The question of how the plebiscite will be held will be seen when the Bill comes forward, but I note my hon. Friend's view and I have no reason to dissent from it.
    Mr. McNamara: What question or questions will be asked? Who is to ask them? What other interests will be invited to state an opinion upon the future of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must reserve that matter until I bring the legislation before the House, because it involves the whole question of the preparation of the legislation.
    Mr. Deedes: Might there not be advantages in having the two votes—the referendum and the local government election—at the same time?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is a possibility. It has been strongly urged on me in previous supplementary questions and by some of those to whom I have talked that it would be better to have the referendum before the local government elections rather than at the same time. I am open to receive various suggestions, including that put forward by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State well aware of what he is taking on board here? He acknowledges that the security position is paramount. Is he not willing to acknowledge also that statements about the plebiscite might in effect endanger the security position?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is exactly why I say that the security situation must be paramount.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not everybody is enamoured of his proposal for a referendum or plebiscite? Is he aware also that views on Ulster are not necessarily identical throughout Great Britain with those in Northern Ireland? Is it not reasonable that, if there is to be a plebiscite or referendum on one part of the United Kingdom, everybody in the United Kingdom should expect to take part?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. As to the rest of the United Kingdom, the House must have regard to the perfectly clear assurances which have been given by Governments of both parties and which form the basis of the constitutional position on which Northern Ireland stands today. [HON. MEMBERS: "leave it there."] I know, but I am saying that people must have regard to that point, because that is the whole basis of the Act on which I am working and of the plebiscite which was promised at the time of the Act and which was at that time very widely supported.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State accept that we agree with the view that a plebiscite or referendum would only polarise views and tell us what we know, but that we made it clear earlier this week in the House that a carefully planned plebiscite, perhaps held after the conference and perhaps after talking to all concerned, might be a valuable step?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It was widely accepted on both sides of the House at the time that the Temporary Provisions Bill went through that a plebiscite was part of the proposals which were put forward. We are, therefore, committed to it. I have received much advice about the exact timing of it. I have stated my view that I still believe that it would be desirable to hold the plebiscite before the local elections if the security situation and all other circumstances permit.

    Security (Mobile Equipment)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that the mobile equipment available for security purposes in Northern Ireland is adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: I am satisfied that the mobile equipment used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary is fully adequate for the Force's security role. There are effective arrangements for reviewing police requirements in the light of changing needs.
    Army equipment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.
    Mr. Farr: How many soldiers have been killed or wounded in Army personnel carriers which have been in use until recently, and how long is it since the Army was first aware that the Irish Republican Army possessed bullets which would penetrate these carriers?
    Mr. Howell: These are questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. There is a later Question about these specific matters, and I must leave my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer that question.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best mobile equipment for security forces is the law-enforcement agent of the Crown himself on his own feet on the beat?
    Reverting to Question No. 2, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in every counter-insurgency situation since the war it has nearly always been the locally-recruited indigenous forces of law and order that have been essential for restoring the situation? Therefore, will he, looking to the longer term, do his best to build up locally-recruited law-enforcement agencies in Ulster?
    Mr. Howell: There is validity in what my hon. Friend says, but we must reconcile what is desirable with what is possible.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will set up an advisory Committee on the police in Northern Ireland, to review the rôle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the light of events in Ulster since 3rd October, 1969.
    Mr. David Howell: The rôle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is still in accord with the principles recommended by the Advisory Committee on Police in Northern Ireland. The practical application of these principles is a matter for the police authority and the chief constable.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am rather disappointed with that answer, because the sooner the police can take back responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland from the Army the sooner Northern Ireland is likely to return to

    943
    normality. It follows that the Royal Ulster Constabulary of its present size and type is not capable of performing that task. As the return to police control is a matter of top priority, in the same way as security is a matter of top priority, we cannot sit back and leave this matter without an urgent re-appraisal.
    Mr. Howell: That may be so, but it does not follow that we need an advisory committee on this matter. In my view, we do not. In the last three years events and the lessons learned have proved the need to evaluate the tasks of the RUC. This evaluation is now going on. I believe that there is no need for an advisory committee of the type my hon. Friend suggests. My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the police authority and the chief constable about these matters.
    Mr. Foley: What task is being given to the RUC in the former no-go areas of the Bogside, the Creggan, Andersonstown and the Ardoyne? When does the hon. Gentleman foresee that the RUC will be able to patrol these areas again, as they did before events of recent years?
    Mr. Howell: This raises long-term questions. The RUC is in the no-go area and plans are being developed with a view, which we have stated, of restoring normal services, including police services, to those areas as soon as possible.
    Mr. Pounder: Will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the position of members of the RUC Reserve and, indeed, of any members of the part-time security forces who have been called up on mobilisation, to ensure that their employment will not be prejudiced whey the period of emergency is over? Will their jobs be kept for them?
    Mr. Howell: I will consider that point sympathetically.
    Mr. McNamara: Reverting to the answer which the Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), what does the Under-Secretary mean by "normal police services"? This was the start of the trouble in the Bogside in 1968 and 1969. Armed police are back in the Bogside. The auxiliary police are viewed with grave suspicion. What discussions is it
    944
    intended to have with the leaders of the community in no-go areas about adequate and proper policing and not "normal policing" as it was before they became no-go areas?
    Mr. Howell: It must be recognised that it is too soon to be dogmatic and precise about the final outcome. Discussions are now going on. All reasonable people in the whole community will want to give the discussions a chance so that sensible and practical arrangements can be developed.
    Mr. Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standards of the RUC are exceptionally high and always have been? Has not the problem with the RUC always been undermanning? How is the recruiting policy for the RUC going?
    Mr. Howell: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the standards of the RUC. Of course that is right. We have put as much effort as possible into our recruitment policy, and recruitment is proceeding. It is not always as good as we would wish, but it is proceeding satisfactorily.

    House Building
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of houses and flats both private and public now under construction; and how this compares with the previous five years.
    Mr. Channon: On 30th June, 1972, 15,973 houses and flats were being built—10,291 by public authorities and 5,682 by private enterprise. This figure is a record for the same date in the previous five years.
    Mr. McNamara: May I congratulate the Minister of State on those figures for Northern Ireland, as representing a great triumph for public enterprise building? Is he aware that we would like to see as good figures in this country? Can he say to what extent he has, through the Central Housing Executive, worked out plans for getting rid of the slums which still exist in Belfast and other cities, the Shankills, the Falls and places of that description, so that people may have decent houses?
    Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to learn that

    945
    this figure is a record for private enterprise building for the past five years, too. There are big plans for slum clearance in the cities in Northern Ireland and if the hon. Member would like further details I will get in touch with him.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind those districts where there have been no troubles but where the housing conditions are deplorable, especially in certain rural districts? Does he understand that some of these communities feel deeply aggrieved because they have been overlooked in building? Can he also keep in mind not only the Falls Road and the Shankill Road but Sandy Row where some of the housing is in a very deplorable state indeed?
    Mr. Channon: I will draw the attention of the Housing Executive to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    Legal Aid and Advice
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement as to the progress of his consultations with legal organisations in Northern Ireland relating to the introduction of legislation comparable to the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that all changes currently being made in legal aid and advice arrangements in Great Britain will also be implemented in Northern Ireland; and what further proposals he has for law reform in this area of policy.
    Mr. Channon: The further development of the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme in Northern Ireland is still being discussed between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs and interested parties.
    Mr. Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman say when these discussions are expected to end and when legislation will be introduced? Does he not recognise that the introduction of legislation along the lines of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill is at least as essential in Northern Ireland as it is here, to promote the principle in active terms of equality before the law?
    Mr. Channon: I note the hon. Member's views. I am not in a position to say when legislation will be introduced.
    946
    There are all sorts of proposals. The Director of Law Reform for Northern Ireland is considering a conference at the suggestion of the Child Poverty Action Group of Northern Ireland and there are a whole series of wide-ranging discussions going on about the topic at present. I note the hon. Gentleman's views about the urgency of the matter.

    Bill of Rights
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has now received for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland which would embrace the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions from the hon. Members for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 6th July.—[Vol. 840. c. 738–740.]
    Mr. Judd: While thanking the hon. Member for that reply, may I ask him to assure the House that serious consideration will be given to this possibility in future discussions, since legislation of this kind might do a great deal to reassure the minority?
    Mr. Howell: Serious consideration will be given to these things because these are serious issues, as I recognise. As my right hon. Friend suggested, some form of guarantee of this kind may well form part of the constitutional future as the political talks towards a settlement progress.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are not against a guaranteed Bill of Rights for the whole Community? Will he keep in mind that all right-thinking Protestant people believe in the fullest possible civil and religious liberty and that a proper Bill of Rights would be welcomed by all right-thinking people in the community?
    Mr. Howell: I will certainly keep in mind what I think the House will recognise are very wise and encouraging words

    Policy
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will

    947
    make a statement on the progress being made to achieve a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I discussed this matter among others with the Unionist Party and will meet them again. I have in addition met representatives of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Northern Ireland Liberal Party, the Alliance Party, the Republican Labour Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to discuss my proposal for a conference, and I hope to meet the Social Democratic Labour Party next week.
    Mr. Douglas: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he will not now concede that we need to proceed apace to bring the political parties together in Northern Ireland to get on with a political solution so that the people who have the guns in their hands will not have their status enhanced? Is he aware that what we want to do is to enhance the status of politicians in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the determinants in a political solution must be an easing of tension? Would he not further agree with some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that the time has come, with this enormous number of troops in Northern Ireland, to see that arms are handed in? Would he agree that there are far too many arms on both sides? Is he aware that now is the time to call in heavy calibre riles, pistols and hand guns?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As for unlicensed arms, the figures on what has been achieved since the operation of 31st July are in themselves considerable. We have made considerable gains in arms in both Protestant and Catholic areas. If I mention that we have among these gains obtained 1½ tons of explosives it will be seen that that is a great deal in terms of the damage that might have been done if it had not been secured by us. We shall press on with this arms search as fast as we can. I have made my position about shotguns and air guns perfectly clear. I am prepared to look at higher calibre rifles, pistols and revolvers, but I must warn the House that even here there are a large number that are old war
    948
    relics and the rest. The real problem is that there are enormous amounts of arms for which there are no licences at all, and which we have to collect.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I come back to the question of tension? Would the right lion. Gentleman not agree that it is time that some of the people in the North realised the moderate nature and the views of all the main political parties in the South and that even Mr. Faulkner has talked about an All-Ireland Council which would not entail the North being part of the Republic? May we hope that eventually this sort of solution may be looked at, because it would be for the good of all concerned?
    Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters will certainly be discussed and carefully considered.
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is now in a position to make a statement on Government policy about the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Government's policy continues to rest, as it always has done, on twin objectives: to restore peace and to destroy the capacity of men of violence to terrorise the community; and at the same time to engage in constructive discussion as to how the political, social and economic aspirations of the whole community can be met.
    Captain Orr: Is the Secretary of State aware that while political discussion is welcome, the important thing in Ulster is to have political decisions about the future fairly soon? So long as things are left open in the way they now are, there is danger. Will my right hon. Friend look at the general question about who represents whom? Has he given thought to the possibility of holding an early General Election for the Parliament of Northern Ireland, without necessarily committing himself to the future status of that Parliament, in order to determine who represents the views of the majority and the minority?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I believe it right to discuss the future with those holding a very wide variety of views and opinions, as we have done. I also believe that the idea of a conference of the parties, attended by the elected representatives,

    949
    would also provide a wide variety of views. I hope thereafter that it will be possible urgently to produce the best solution that can be found.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State not agree that as Mr. Lynch consulted the SDLP, the elected representatives of the Catholic community, the other day, about the cease-fire and about the difficulties arising from last Monday, the Republic would be a moderating influence in any talks? Will he not consider bringing the Republic in at an early date, because this would then involve the whole of the Irish people, and I am sure that it would reassure the Protestants that the people in the South do not want automatic reunification?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There are two sides to that question. On the one hand, we must make it perfectly clear that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that therefore a solution is the responsibility of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, I believe that the Republic has a considerable part to play in the removal of the capacity of terrorists to wreck the community, and anything that can be done to encourage the Republic to play that part, as I am sure it will, is extremely important. That is the basis on which I would like to work.

    No-Go Areas
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in restoring law and order in no-go areas in Northern Ireland; and what his present plans are for a complete solution to this problem.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what date he now envisages ending the no-go areas in Londonderry and Belfast under both Catholic and Protestant control.
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what instructions he is giving to the security forces in Northern Ireland to neutralise those districts from which terrorist attacks are launched.
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is now taking towards preventing new no-go areas in Northern Ireland, and in
    950
    bringing the existing areas back under normal civil jurisdiction.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The main answer to all these Questions was seen in the action taken by the Security Forces at 4 a.m. last Monday
    Mr. McMaster: I welcome this action, but has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the totally unjustifiable and murderous assault from a semi-no-go area in my constituency yesterday on ordinary workmen in the Sirocco works? There is still a large number of armed IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland living and operating from the no-go areas, as we have seen in the past two or three days. Will he therefore state whether he is to carry out intensive searches followed by a search and destroy policy in order to establish complete peace in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that my hon. Friend will not now start to go back again on what we have been determined to do—
    Mr. McMaster: But people were shot in my constituency yesterday.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will come to that point in a moment. The actions taken last Monday were to put an end to all no-go areas in Northern Ireland, wherever they may be. I am absolutely determined that no-go areas shall not start again. I do not know quite what semi-no-go areas are, but I will not have any of them.
    I come to the serious point concerning the action at the Sirocco works yesterday where a gunman fired two shots and, most regrettably, hit, fortunately not seriously, two people working in that works. Immediately that happened I was contacted. I spoke to the GOC, and extra troops were put into the area. Every protection was given to those workers going into and coming from their work. That was done again this morning and it will continue to be done, because it is the duty of the Security Forces to protect the whole community. I am glad to say that as a result of this action the area and the move to work this morning was completely quiet. I hope that that situation will continue. I understand my hon. Friend's concern over this difficult incident, but I hope

    951
    that it will be appreciated that, while we will do everything we can to find the terrorists and to destroy their capacity, the odd sniper will not be removed overnight. That is why all the protection that can be given by the Security Forces will be given.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that has been taken. Will he also congratulate the armed forces, particularly the command over there, on the efficiency and speed and the lack of loss of life with which the operation was carried out? It was a most highly commendable operation. Will he confirm that the forces will stay in these no-go areas for as long as necessary and that he will make every effort to stop and apprehend, where necessary, those IRA members who have escaped over the border but who will wish to return to carry on their nefarious operations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying, as my hon. Friend said in my absence on Monday, how much we admire the military operation undertaken on that day. I saw it at first hand and it gave me an opportunity to realise how very much the Army had progressed in the 20 or so years since I was in it. It was a magnificently planned operation in every way. It was vitally important in the Government's judgment that the operation be carried out with the absolute minimum of casualties and that was why the warning was given the previous night. I believe also that because of the various actions taken over a period, the great danger of the civilian population taking to the streets, which could have caused casualties, was avoided. That was a significant factor in the way in which the operation was carried out.
    Mr. Edward Short: May I make a practical suggestion for restoring confidence among the people of Derry? The Secretary of State will be aware of the treatment of Magee College by the new University of Ulster by which this college is to become an extra-mural college. That has caused very great resentment in Derry. Will the Secretary of State consult the new University and, if it is not possible to retain the college as a university college affiliated to the university, see whether a polytechnic can be established
    952
    there? That would be extremely useful to the economic development of Derry and it would help to restore confidence among the people of Derry in the Government's good faith.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am hopeful—and I believe it will be possible—that Magee will continue as a constituent part of the new university.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow more supplementaries on this Question. We must turn to Questions to the Prime Minister.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a separate Lord President of the Council.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister realise that this is an affront to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is very important that we should have a Leader of the House who will protect the interests of the House as a whole, irrespective of the party considerations in which we are so often involved. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake at least to make a gesture of appeasement to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and to make him Leader of the House in order that we might have an agreeable confrontation between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), because that would make a very pleasant change?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's responsibilities to the whole House as Leader of the House are in no way affected by his being the Lord President of the Council.

    PORTSMOUTH
    Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1972 he has officially visited Portsmouth.
    The Prime Minister: I visited HMS "Ark Royal" in Portsmouth Harbour on 7th July.
    Mr. Judd: The next time the right hon. Gentleman is passing through Portsmouth on his way to the Solent or the open sea, will he allow me to take him on a visit to some of the more disadvantaged areas of the city where people live in soul-destroying physical surroundings? Will he also consider the bitter contrast between the social extravaganza surrounding Cowes Week and the predicament of most people in Portsmouth where the dominant employer is the Government, where wages are below the national average and where too many people are struggling to survive on basic wage rates below £20 a week? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to close this gap?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to look at any part of Portsmouth whenever I go there.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whenever he comes to Portsmouth, whether on a public or on a private visit, he will be given a great welcome by the people of Portsmouth?
    The Prime Minister: That has always been the case so far.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech of 19th July to the Royal Commonwealth Society on the subject of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Royal Commonwealth Society on 19th July on Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 19th July, Sir.
    Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend had any firm reaction from the people of Ulster to the expression which he gave in that speech to his determination that there is no question of a united Ireland until there is clear evidence of a firm majority for it in the Province? What more can we back benchers do to assure the people of Ulster that very few
    954
    hon. Members would even consider changing the border in the foreseeable future?
    The Prime Minister: The undertaking to the people of Northern Ireland is on the Statute Book, and it is an undertaking of all three parties. The best that any hon. Member can do is to reinforce that undertaking instead of casting doubts on it.
    Mr. Rose: Notwithstanding the current military situation, will the Prime Minister confirm that the only long-term solution for Northern Ireland is a political one? Will he bring into talks all sections of the community who can help in ending the violence and whose influence counts? Will he also allow direct talks with the Republic of Ireland, which has an important rôle to play?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, that is the objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has invited all parties, and representatives of all sections of the communities, in Northern Ireland to take part in talks with him. I personally assured the Prime Minister of the Republic almost a year ago that on any matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole and the Republic we should, of course, remain in the closest contact and that we could always have discussions with him either directly or through diplomatic channels. This remains the position. As I told the House on Tuesday, I was gratified by what he said in the Dail about the close relations between our two countries
    Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two things would greatly restore the confidence of the people of Ulster? One is to proceed early with the promised referendum, and the other is for my right hon. Friend to say that he has had a firm assurance from Mr. Lynch that he will not permit his territory to be used as a safe haven for those who escaped after the admirable operations of last weekend.
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Lynch has made it public in the last 48 hours that he will deal with illegal activities in the Republic of any kind whatever. I am sure that he will keep to his word in this.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Following the answers given by the Secretary of State

    955
    this afternoon on the question of arms, which appear to show an encouraging degree of willingness to look into this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before the House rises this matter is dealt with by the Government and a statement made? Our troops are placed in an impossible situation. There are arms on both sides, legally held in many cases, and it is clear that there are too many people on both sides in Northern Ireland who cannot be trusted with arms in this situation. There have been several private assassinations, and yesterday there was the deplorable shooting of workers on their way to work, which the whole House condemns. Will this matter be looked at again?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and the Government are looking into this matter. We have done so from time to time and we are looking at it again in the new circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman from his past experience will realise the acute problem that arises from unlicensed arms. It is not a question of asking for them to be turned in but of getting hold of them. We will look at the question of licensed arms, but we should not underestimate the real problem, which is that of the unlicensed arms.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this idea was first put forward in April, 1971 we had in mind illegal arms? If everyone, except in most stringent circumstances, is forbidden to have a weapon, it is very much easier to conduct searches. So many searches, inevitably, have been of Catholic homes, and it is important that there should be absolute impartiality. The troops want to exercise impartiality and to round up any arms that should not be there and, as I suggested the other day, there should be a mandatory prison sentence for anyone found in possession of illegal arms—and they would all be illegal if gun licences were revoked.
    The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the troops will be impartial in their search for arms. Wherever there is evidence that there are arms, they will go after them. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that widespread indiscriminate searches for arms are damaging to relations with
    956
    the civilian population. This matter is being looked at and we shall endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer before the House rises.
    Mr. Thorpe: I accept that the question of unregistered arms is the most important single factor, but is the Prime Minister aware that the number of arms per thousand of the population is higher in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else in Western Europe, and that it is precisely in such a situation of extreme tenson, where tempers are apt to flare up quickly that registered arms also should be handed in, so that the number of persons who have their own private armouries is kept to an absolute minimum?
    The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to accept the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman about the relationship between arms in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Europe, or the rest of this country. My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary gave figures to the House, and I think it is well known that the great majority of weapons are held in the rural areas of Northern Ireland on roughly the same basis as they are held in rural areas in this country. The real need is to bring in all arms which can be used by the communities against each other, and so achieve the Government's purpose of removing the means of violence.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there is evidence that any of the murders during the campaign of terror were committed by persons using licensed weapons? Are not the regulations for air pistols in Northern Ireland slightly different from those applying in the rest of the United Kingdom, in that air pistols are included as licensed weapons?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to look into the last point. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the murders were committed by people holding licensed weapons.

    CBI AND TUC (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement following his meeting with the Confederation of British Industry and

    957
    Trade Union Congress on Tuesday, 18th July.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st August in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).—[Vol. 842, c. 342.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister accept that subsequent to that meeting progress has been made by the CBI and the TUC on a conciliation policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the national opinion poll in today's Daily Mail, which states categorically that the majority of the British electorate are against the Industrial Relations Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman put that Act on ice and take note of the TUC view that a minimum wage policy would go a long way towards solving the industrial problems?
    The Prime Minister: While I do not take particular cognisance of public opinion polls, I think the hon. Gentleman has drawn entirely the wrong conclusion from the poll published in today's Daily Mail. The Government have encouraged the setting up of conciliation machinery, and I am delighted that the CBI and the TUC have now put into operation the first stage of the conciliation machinery which they propose. The test of it will be in the extent to which it is successful in bringing about conciliation without at the same time bringing about inflation.
    Mr. Adley: Would not putting the Industrial Relations Act on ice be equivalent to putting the country on the rocks? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that today's announcement of a joint agreement between the CBI and TUC is exactly what those of us who supported the Industrial Relations Act always hoped would happen, in spite of the protestations of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: The Industrial Relations Act in its separate spheres makes provision for conciliation. There is also machinery in the Department of Employment and there is the new machinery which is being created between the CBI and the TUC. To the exten to which other conciliation is used, the pro-
    958
    visions of the Industrial Relations Act need not be implemented.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Is it not clear from the expressions of public opinion in recent weeks that it would be wise for the Government and the Prime Minister to listen to the voice of the trade union movement on matters with which it is particularly concerned governing conditions of work. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Solicitor-General not to adopt the provocative attitude he adopted at the end of Tuesday's debate and not to reintroduce the spirit of confrontation which the Government must abandon?
    The Prime Minister: I can think of no one less provocative than my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will welcome the agreement between the CBI and TUC on conciliation and arbitration services? Does he recall that this proposal was originally made by Mr. Jack Jones in an article in the New Statesman and that it was fully discussed with my right hon. Friends and myself before it was discussed with the CBI? Therefore, obviously we welcome it. Does he also recall that he made a great point of insisting that any such service should have within it either some Government representation or representation of the consumer interest? Since this does not appear to be in the proposals in their present state, will he say whether he intends that that should feature in the further development of the scheme? Has he dropped his idea, or has it been rejected by the two parties?
    The Prime Minister: I also recall that I suggested the idea in 1959 when I was Minister of Labour. Indeed, the idea may have been suggested before that. I would not claim any proprietary rights. I welcome the fact that it has occurred. In regard to the second part of the question, the discussions we have been having have been in the context of containing inflation. That is why the real test of the conciliation machinery established by the two sides will be in the extent to which it can bring about conciliation without bringing about inflation.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the decision of the TUC and CBI in making

    959
    such an agreement indicates that not only the TUC but also the employers' organisation are not in favour of the continuation of the Industrial Relations Act? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The statement made by the Director General of the CBI indicated that the employers wanted the Act used only as a last resort. In view of the attitude taken by both unions and employers about this legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will look again at the Act, as he has promised, and will make proposals for drastic amendments, until the Bill is finally repealed?
    The Prime Minister: The CBI has made it plain that it does not wish the Act to be repealed or suspended. It is perfectly prepared to play its part and to put forward amendments when it has seen the operation of the Act and the Government, as we have announced, are fully prepared to consider them. I hope that the TUC will take the same responsible view as the CBI and that it will operate the Act. We have given our undertaking that we will consider amendments which it wishes to suggest.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. McMaster: On a point of order Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member raise it later, please.
Mr. McMaster: The point of order arises out of Questions to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I did not raise it at the time in accordance with your earlier ruling, but when the Prime Minister was asked a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about a shooting in my constiuency yesterday, in the context of legally and illegally held arms his reference was incorrect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of questions and answers is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Robert Carr, statement.
Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This shooting came from an automatic weapon, a Thompson sub-machine gun.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other ways in which the hon. Member can
960
make his point. He cannot make it in a point of order to me.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  Proclamation of State of Emergency
  Message front Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
  The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended.
  Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the third day of August, 1972, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

  PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
  The Government consider that the present industrial situation in the ports constitutes a threat to the essentials of life of the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services. They have, therefore, thought it right to advise the proclamation of a state of emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended, followed by the making of emergency regulations under Section 2.
  The regulations will come into force at midnight tonight. Copies will be available this afternoon. I shall shortly make an announcement about the arrangements for debating the usual Motions on the address and on the regulations. The regulations are almost identical with those made last February; the only significant change is a new regulation to facilitate the supply of medicines.

  961
  The use of the powers will be limited, as always, to what the essential public interest requires, and it is premature to say what orders may have to be made under the regulations.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: First of all, may I belatedly, since this is the first time I have met the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box, congratulate him, or perhaps commiserate with him, on taking on the job of Home Secretary?
  This Government have a remarkable record of productivity in days lost in industry and in the production of emergencies; this is the fourth emergency which is taking place during their term of office. There was precisely one in the previous 15 years.
  May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman the following questions? First, will he confirm that as far as possible the emergency regulations will not be used unless absolutely necessary, in view of the very good opportunity of an early
  settlement of the strike? Will he confirm that troops will not be used in the docks, unless it becomes absolutely critical. Secondly, may I ask about price control of essential foods, particularly in the light of sharp increases in prices of certain fruit and vegetables? Will he consider introducing maximum price controls for these commodities? Thirdly, will he say something about supplies to the outlying islands of Scotland as well as to the Channel Islands? Finally, does he feel that there is now a good opportunity for assurances to be given to dockers with regard to the security of future employment in container depots?
  Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks, but not for those which immediately followed. I must remind the hon. Lady and the House that, although the number of days lost by strifles is very serious—there has at last been brought about a sensible downward trend in the number of strikes—for the first time for nearly a decade—in a matter to which the Donovan Commission drew particular attention as being extremely serious in terms of the welfare of this country.
  In answer to the hon. Lady's questions, I certainly confirm unequivocally that no powers will be used unless, in the Government's opinion, they really are necessary to maintain essential services
  962
  for the community. That, of course, applies to the use of troops.
  Secondly, the emergency regulations contain powers for the control of prices, including essential food prices. We shall watch the situation carefully, and I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on that matter. (An HON. MEMBER "What can he do about it?"] It is easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about imposing price controls, as if this were easily accomplished. It does not always have the desired effect. To be effective, it requires a substantial administrative procedure and machinery, as the House knows. Therefore, it has to be considered very carefully before such a course is embarked upon. I will consider the matter carefully, and the powers are there.
  Thirdly, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the outer islands of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and so forth, are very much in our minds and will be a matter to which we shall pay particular attention.
  On the hon. Lady's last point, I understand that the Jones-Aldington Committee met yesterday and is to meet again next Tuesday and that, apart from meetings, it is proceeding urgently with discussions. Certainly I hope that these meetings of the Jones-Aldington Committee will lead the union to feel able to recall its docks delegates conference in the hope that this will lead to an early return to work.
  Mr. Orme: As the emergency arises out of the docks strike and the failure of the Jones-Aldington Committee Report to be accepted, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects that Committee to make a report and whether he has had any discussion with Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington on the progress being made? When is the House to have a report, even an interim report, on this dispute?
  Mr. Carr: I should have thought the House had already had some reports on this dispute on a number of occasions. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is in touch with both Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe the latest meeting between them was as recent as this morning. I am not quite

  963
  sure about that, but I think that may have been so. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend has something further to report he will do so. I am sure that we all want to give the maximum support and help to Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington and the members of their Committee in so clarifying the ideas they have in mind and the proposals they have put forward as to make them better understood and acceptable to both the dock delegates conference and the dockers themselves.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: In addition to our own essential national interests, will any regard be had to the interests and livelihoods of our overseas suppliers in the Channel Islands and elsewhere?
  Mr. Carr: Great hardship is caused to many people, not only to those resident in the United Kingdom, but a strike of this kind. For example, there is much hardship to suppliers in the Channel Islands, as we have seen, and potentially in Northern Ireland and much further afield. That is why we must all hope that everything possible will be done to bring this dispute to a conclusion.
  Mr. Molloy: Regarding the problem of possible black marketeering and rising prices, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has time and again demonstrated that he would not recognise a food price rise if he saw one? Is there not grave danger that if there is a rise in prices and malevolent people try to attribute this to the dockers, that can only exacerbate the situation—[Interruption.] That is a demonstration of what I am talking about—and make the job of the Government, the TUC, the CBI and the dockers very difficult? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make a more demonstrative statement that the Government will not stand by and allow an unjustified increase in prices and any form of black marketeering?
  Mr. Carr: We shall do all we can to see that prices are kept as low as possible. All of us would be foolish to imagine that we can have this kind of disruption, whatever controls we may have or use, without it having some effect on prices while it is going on. I hope
  964
  the hon. Gentleman will practise all he preaches to others and avoid making exacerbating statements.
  Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the point raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about vegetables and fruit getting more expensive? This is the season of the year when British home-produced vegetables and soft fruit are available in the greatest plenty at the cheapest prices. If people are stupid enough to buy imported fruit and vegetables at this time they deserve to pay over the odds. Further, will my right hon. Friend look with some urgency at the Channel Islands supplies because if the Channel Islands situation is further disrupted future supplies of tomatoes will be reduced, and if supplies are reduced in future years as a result of this situation prices will indeed rise in 1973 and onwards?
  Mr. Russell Kerr: End of commercial.
  Mr. Carr: I hope the whole House and, indeed, a far wider audience will heed my hon. Friend's commendations on the merits of British home-grown fruit and vegetables. We are very much aware of the situation of the Channel Islands from not only the immediate but the longer-term point of view regarding the future supplies which my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Mr. Atkinson: When the Home Secretary opens the debate on the emergency powers next week, will he inform the House in some detail of the kind of mechanism he proposes to use to control prices? Will he also tell us about the kind of organisation he has in mind for policing prices and the action he intends to take? In view of the announcement he has just made, will he now confirm that he will include these details in his speech when he opens the debate?
  Mr. Carr: I hope I shall deal adequately with the regulations when I open the debate. I think the whole House must recognise two matters. First, we hope that this dispute will not be much longer extended. That must surely be our main hope. Secondly, we must accept that the establishment of a system of price control, if it is to be more than window dressing, really has to be backed by large administrative machinery and

  965
  substantial enforcement measures which, by their very nature, cannot be established quickly. I will, of course, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I very much hope the dispute will be settled long before that.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Is it not scandalous that, at a time when millions of people in the world are living just above the subsistence level, substantial cargoes of food are rotting in ships in the ports of this country? Is it not possible, even now, to persuade those who are responsible to make some exceptions in order that this food shall be brought in?
  Mr. Carr: I note what my hon. Friend says, which I am sure will have a large measure of agreement. I believe the right way of dealing with this matter is to leave any approaches which may be made to specific issues at specific places when the matter can be put to the dockers and their representatives in concrete terms.
  Mr. Bidwell: In view of the events in the National Industrial Relations Court, the reasons given for the ultimate release of the five dockers, and the bearing which their imprisonment has had upon consideration of the acceptance of the Jones-Aldington Report, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some word of regret for those events, if not an apology to the dockers concerned and their wives, would go a long way towards alleviating the present situation having regard to the 18 abstentions and the exacerbation of industrial relations over the whole economy that that has caused?
  Mr. Carr: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks and judgment of the situation. In the interests of what we all desire, I will take a grip on myself and refrain from replying to the hon. Gentleman as I should wish to do.
  Message to be considered upon Tuesday next.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will indicate the business of the House for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Coun- cil and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 7TH AUGUST—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure, together with the subsequent evidence published by the Defence Sub-Committee.
Remaining stages of the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill, and of the Land Charges Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the National Debt Bill [Lords], and the Poisons Bill [Lords]. which are consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY, 8TH AUGUST.—Consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message and of the Motion to approve the emergency regulations.
Procedure Motions relating to Privilege and the election of the Speaker.
Consideration of Church of England (General Synod) Measures.
Remaining stages of the National Debt Bill [Lords] and of the Poisons Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 9TH AUGUST.—It Will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon, and adjourn at 5 p.m. until Tuesday, 17th October.
Now that the end of what has been a particularly arduous parliamentary term is in prospect, I wonder Mr. Speaker, whether on behalf of the House, I may say "thank you "to you and the other occupants of the Chair, to the Officers of the House, to all the staff and the police for the splendid way in which we have been served in difficult conditions, often until very late hours.
Mr. Wilson: I hope that it will be in order to echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in paying tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, to your Deputies, to other Officers of the House, and to the staff and the police.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that after that catalogue of thanks there are no thanks due to the Government for the record of this Session? Will he study the state of parliamentary business at the end of this Session, with many Supply Days which we have been unable to take up, with a large number of Statutory Instruments which we have not

967
been able to debate—as is the right of the House—and with far fewer than usual White Papers and other Government announcements debated in Government time?
With regard to Tuesday's business on the emergency regulations—and I am putting this question to him as Leader of the House, not as author of the regulations—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the ordinary course of events we should have wanted a major full day's debate on this—though it will still be a major debate—because of our view of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the state of affairs which has brought about this fourth state of emergency? But it is fair to say to the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House, that as he speedily conceded what we asked for last week—namely, a full day's debate on the responsibility of the Government in bringing about this strike—I hope, as I think many hon. Members will, that the debate might be over at a reasonable hour—perhaps not later than 8 o'clock; perhaps a little earlier—because on the major points we have had a debate and registered a vote earlier this week.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the exchanges last week about the date of the debate on the Motion for the House to adjourn until 17th October. Can he now confirm, because I did not hear it read out in his statement, that this will not take place on Wednesday, the day of the Adjournment, and will he say when it will?
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the debate on Tuesday on the emergency powers. We recognise that it is a major and serious debate, but I am grateful to him for what he said; namely, that in view of the debate that we had earlier this week next Tuesday's debate might not last for as long as it might otherwise have done.
What I have in mind about the debate on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment is that perhaps it might follow the debate on the emergency powers, because I agree that it would not be satisfactory to the House to leave that debate until Wednesday. Having considered Monday's business, I believe that what I have
968
suggested will probably be for the overall convenience of the House.
My reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point about Statutory Instruments is that there have been one or two opportunities recently which have not been taken advantage of when there might have been Prayers. I do not want to make too much of this, but even now it may be possible before next Wednesday to arrange a Prayer, if any hon. Members wish it, through the usual channels.
Sir D. Renton: In arranging future business will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great desirability of our having a debate on the reorganisation of water supplies and sewerage before the Government decide upon the terms of their legislative proposals?
Mr. Carr: I shall certainly bear in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend said. As there is no chance of a debate before next Wednesday, I shall have time to consider it very carefully.
Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that as from 1st September the Icelandic Government intend to enforce the 50-mile limit off their shores. Is he aware of the intense anxiety and, indeed, the deep indignation in the fishing ports of Hull, Fleetwood and Aberdeen about this? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ensure that there is a statement about this and about what contingency planning the Government intend to make for the defence of our fishermen after 1st September?
Mr. Carr: I am very much aware, as is my right hon. and noble Friend and, indeed, the whole Government, of the seriousness of this situation for the whole of our fishing industry, from whichever port it operates. The International Court is now considering our application for an interim settlement of the matter, and that, I think, must be our main action, but I shall talk to the Secretary of State for Defence about it. The difficulty in striking a balance between the need for enough statements and too many is very great, most of all at this time of the year.
Sir J. Rodgers: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his right hon. Friend

969
the Secretary of State for Employment intends to make a statement before the House rises on picketing, which has been the subject of a departmental inquiry by that Department?
Mr. Carr: I doubt whether any statement will be made before the Summer Recess, but I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about that. I know that the study is going on, because I initiated it when I was in that position.
Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to provide time for a debate on the White Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service, rather than that the Government should hurriedly introduce a Bill at the beginning of the next Session? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the White Paper is incomplete, with a great lack of information on vital matters, and that it is wide-ranging and highly controversial on many points, both inside and outside the House?
Mr. Carr: I take note of what the hon. Lady said, and I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about it and consider the matter. There is a temptation, as one sees oneself released from the pressure which has been standing in the way of our summer holidays, to imagine that in the autumn there will be time for everything. I am sure that when we come to the autumn that will not be quite so easy. I shall not make a promise, but I shall consider the matter seriously.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 438, which is signed by about 22 hon. Gentlemen opposite and contains a savage censure upon one of Her Majesty's Judges of the High Court?
[That this House condemns absolutely the action of Sir John Donaldson, President of the National Industrial Relations Court, in committing the five dockers to prison; and expresses its utter contempt for Sir John Donaldson and his Court.]
Is it not in accordance with precedent and, indeed, with common decency to the distinguished judge named that the Motion should either be removed from the Order Paper or else be debated forthwith?
Mr. Carr: I shall consider what my hon. and learned Friend has had to say.
970
I am sure that he is right in what he says. I think that we must consider the number of supporters for this Motion. But I shall take the matter into account. However, I do not see any chance of debating this before Wednesday. I should like seriously to ask all hon. Members who have signed the Motion or who might still be thinking of signing it to consider very seriously what an important matter it is to censure a judge of the High Court.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government propose to announce any plans for the steel industry before the recess? Is he aware that there is strong evidence now that at the Shotton steelworks in my constituency an announcement will be made that 7,000 men will be made redundant? If my constituency is to be annihilated in this rather brutal manner, may we at least have an assurance that a statement will be made in the House?
Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend is committed as soon as possible—but I do not think that that will be before the rising of the House for the summer—to making a statement about the long-term strategy of the British Steel Corporation's investment plans. But one should look back at past practice and the terms of the nationalisation Statute, which was introduced by the Labour Party, and the practice of the Labour Party on that. I do not think that I can promise a statement in the House about every action which the British Steel Corporation is entitled to take under the Statute passed by the Labour Party when in Government. But I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this matter. I know that he and the corporation have been and are in contact about the great need for the maximum degree of consultation with unions, communities and local authorties whenever any major closures unfortunately have to be considered.
Mr. David James: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 404, which has been signed by 208 hon. Members from all quarters of the House, urging Her Majesty's Government to ban importation of all whale products? Will he bear in mind the fact that this flows from the almost unanimous decision of the Stockholm conference that there should be a 10-year moratorium on all whaling, which was not agreed to

971
by the International Whaling Commission? I believe that the Motion represents the views not only of this House, the Fauna Preservation Society and the Friends of the Earth but of the electorate and the civilised world? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see whether action can be taken in this matter?
[That this House, noting that the International Whaling Commission has failed to implement the Stockholm Conference decision to put a ten-year moratorium on whaling, once again urges Her Majesty's Government to prohibit the import of all whalemeat and whale products.]
Mr. Carr: Unfortunately, the Motion for the 10-year moratorium, to which my hon. Friend refers, and for which the United Kingdom delegate voted, was not carried. I am sure that we regret that, and I hope that the House will take note that the United Kingdom delegate sought to get into the team. Nevertheless, it is recognised that what was achieved, in spite of not passing that resolution, was quite important. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is making a written answer today, to which I might refer the House.
Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that we get a statement this week on the preparations following the Foreign Ministers' meeting for the forthcoming Common Market summit meeting later in the year? As economic and monetary union appears to be the front runner of the subjects that are to be discussed and as yesterday's figures show that we have lost £1,000 million in payments across the exchanges in fulfilling our part of Mark 1 of the economic and monetary union arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to discuss this matter further before any further arrangements are made?
Mr. Carr: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend would agree with the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his question. All I can say at present is that I will consider his point. But in the few days available I cannot make a definite promise.
Mr. Ronald Bell: When does my right hon. Friend expect the next Session to be opened?
Mr. Carr: I cannot say that yet. It is impossible for me, as early as this, to forecast exactly how long the spillover will have to be.
Mr. John Mendelson: With regard to the unsatisfactory statement made by the Leader of the House about the date for debating the Adjournment Motion for the Recess, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that over the last year or so a very unsatisfactory principle seems to have been followed by the Government of being rather mysterious about the date for these debates? Will he now change his mind and put on this debate for Monday next? Does he realise that hon. Members from various areas affected by unemployment or hon. Members who have to raise issues of particular industries must not be deprived of their right to have a debate in the light of day and not late in the evening, so that their views may be properly taken notice of? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he does not change his mind on this he may have more trouble on his hands than he thinks possible now?
Mr. Carr: I regret the hon. Gentleman's tone about this matter. He is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no mystery about this. It never has been the practice, I understand, to announce it long in advance. I considered having the debate on Monday, but I considered carefully the business of both days and the day when most hon. Members would wish, and would find it most convenient, to be present. We undertook some consultations about this matter and concluded that for most hon. Members—although I am sure not for all—Tuesday was probably the most convenient day.
Mr. Money: When my right hon. Friend bears in mind the business for October, will he take special account of the fact that both his predecessors and himself have given the House the assurance that they will give the House the opportunity for debating the television broadcasting of its proceedings?
Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed. I shall bear that in mind, and I hope that we shall be able to do something soon after returning.
Mr. Concannon: What are the Government's intentions with regard to the Robens Report on Safety and Health at

973
Work? This has great bearing on just about all the legislation that passes through the House, in particular the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which we are about to discuss.
Mr. Carr: I do not think that my memory is playing me false when I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already made a statement about that in which he stressed the urgency of this matter. I think that he said not only that consultations were being proceeded with immediately but that he had set a fairly sharp time limit for trying to reach a conclusion.
Mr. Kilfedder: When will the Northern Ireland draft planning order be laid before the House and debated? Will the Leader of the House ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity of moving Amendments to it?
Mr. Carr: I have to admit to my hon. Friend that I do not know the precise answer to his question at present. I shall have to consider it and let him know.
Mr. Dalyell: What about the promised statement on Vinter and the future of the nuclear power industry?
Mr. Carr: I hope that there will be a statement by my right hon. Friend before the Houses rises.
Mr. Crouch: Can we expect a statement next week on the decision on the runways at Maplin Sands for the third London airport? If there is to be a statement, will the matter be debated before it is finally proceeded with?
Mr. Carr: I can hold out considerable hope to my hon. Friend that there will be a statement before we rise. No doubt the question of a debate will be something to press following the statement by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that Scottish Members in all parts of the House are very anxious that we should have a debate on the reform of local government in Scotland before we get the Bill? Secondly, will he give an assurance that any proposal the Secretary of State for Scotland has, and any announcement of such proposal, in respect of reform of crofting tenure will be made by statement in the House?
Mr. Carr: May I consider both those matters? I knew that reform of local government in Scotland had been discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says about wishing to debate it in the House. As to the matter of crofting tenure, as a poor Londoner I am not as well briefed in this matter as I should be, but I will consult my right hon. Friend.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW
Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will rule that this is a point of order, because it arises out of the statement you made from the Chair yesterday afternoon. You then informed the House that you had been invited by the Prime Minister to preside over a conference, Mr. Speaker's Conference, to deal with matters affecting electoral law.
Whatever may have happened—and I do not think that anyone intended to be discourteous or in any way at fault—there must have been a slip-up through one or other channel, usual or unusual. But the statement was made yesterday, and the Opposition had been given no notice that it was to be made, nor had we had any chance for collective consideration of the proposed terms of reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) had been taken into consultation on the matter by the Home Secretary, and had expressed some opinions and conducted some consultation, but it was only at the end of last week that she heard what the proposed terms of reference were. We had not had time to consider them.
In those circumstances, I think that it would be unfortunate if the House were to feel itself committed by the statement of the terms of reference that was placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Government's initiative. While I personally would see no objection to arrangements going ahead for the work of the conference, which presumably will not be next week, or until our return, I hope that the exact wording of the terms of reference can be left in abeyance so that there can be discussions not merely through the usual channels

975
between the two major parties but in a way in which other hon. Members on both sides can express their views about the matter, and so that we can go forward to Mr. Speaker's Conference, under your chairmanship, with the highest possible measure of agreement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I understand the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made his remarks, and his acknowledgement that my predecessor as Home Secretary had consultations with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). Certainly, it was not our wish that any apparent discourtesy should occur at the last moment. If I or any of my colleagues are in any way to blame, I should like to apologise. The proposals in the terms of reference contain not only all the matters we put forward but also all the additional matters which the hon. Lady put forward. All I can say on behalf of the Government is that—subject, of course, to your agreement, Mr. Speaker, and that of your conference—we should be very happy for any supplementary matters to be added to those terms of reference if that were thought desirable.
Mr. Speaker: Probably the fault is entirely mine, in that I made the statement too soon, without ascertaining that it had been agreed. I thought that it had been agreed between the two sides. Of course, I think that the terms of reference can be altered by agreement and I shall take into account what anyone may say about them. I was advised to make the statement as soon as possible so that consultations should take place about who might serve on the conference. It was thought desirable to do that while the House was still sitting. One promise I definitely make is that the conference will not meet next week.
Mr. Wilson: We had hoped that that was so, Mr. Speaker. For my part, and
976
speaking on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I see no objection to that kind of consultation going on. It is a question of the terms of reference. We need to consult a little further.
There is another matter, but not necessarily one for a ruling next week. Between now and the autumn consideration might be given to flashing the news of an important statement from the Chair around the House on the television screens, in the same way as other statements are now announced. Any tuppeny-ha'penny Minister of my party or any other party can be making a statement of more or less importance and have it announced, but some most important statements are made by the Chair and it might be convenient if the whole House had a chance to be given notice of them.
Mr. Speaker: Without agreeing with the "tuppeny ha'penny" part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I think that there is great force in his suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. Pannell: I had hoped to raise the following matter earlier, Mr. Speaker. In the announcement of business for next week by the Leader of the House we learnt that on the last day, on a very crowded occasion, there is to be a debate on the Select Committee's Report on how the next Speaker should be chosen. I do not believe that that was a matter that had to be hurried before the Summer Recess. Mr. Speaker celebrated his 68th birthday only last week, and should have another two Parliaments in front of him. I suggest that the debate could be put off until the next Session. We should give the office of the Speaker and the selection of the person to fill that office the degree of respect and leisurely appraisal that they deserve, and not be pushed along.
Mr. Speaker: On that agreeable note, I now ask the Clerk to proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. I should like to raise at the very beginning a brief point about the selection of Amendments, Mr. Speaker.
  We have all been trying to be co-operative in making this a brief and meaningful day. It might be useful if with new Clause 4 we took Amendment No. 55 as well as Amendment No. 56. I mention this before we reach that stage so that you may give the matter a little thought. New Clause 4 relates to the establishment of an advisory committee. Our main reason for tabling Amendment No. 55, to leave out Clause 22, is that the Clause means the reduction of advisory and consultative aspects by abolishing the agricultural executive committees.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the matter between now and our approaching the new Clause, so that the two may be taken together. I understand the Government's difficulties, that their briefing and papers will be prepared as two separate items, but I believe that the difficulties can be overcome, since the new Clause and the Amendments are the positive and negative side of the same advisory cherry. I think that it would
  speed up our proceedings to take them together.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): As I understand it, at present we are to take new Clause 4 and Amendment No. 56 together and to have a separate debate on Clause 22, which Amendment No. 55 would delete. But if it is the desire of the House to combine our consideration of new Clause 4, Amendment No. 56 and Amendment No. 55, I see no possible objection.
  Mr. Buchan: I accept that. Amendment No. 56 is a procedural, technical Amendment, so basically we are agreeing on the matter.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there were such a change in our order of business, I hope that would be possible to have a separate vote on Amendment No. 55, if so desired, when we reached that point.
  Mr. Speaker: I am very careful not to announce beforehand that I shall allow a separate vote on Amendments taken with others. I am afraid that if I say "Yes", that might be thought to be a precedent for other similar applications. But I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion sympathetically.

New Clause 1

  STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES
  The Ministers shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act make and lay before Parliament regulations substituting for the Slaughterhouse (Hygiene) Regulations 1958 and amendments thereto standards for hygiene and construction of slaughterhouses which shall include—

  (a) sufficiently large premises for the stabling of animals;

  (b) slaughtering premises of such a size that work can be carried out satisfactorily, and provided with a special section for slaughtering pigs;

  (c) premises for the emptying and cleansing of stomachs and intestines;

  (d) premises for dressing of guts and tripe;

  (e) separate premises for the storage of suet, and of hides, horn and hooves;

  (f) locked premises reserved for stabling sick or suspect animals, slaughtering such animals, storing of condemned meat and of seized meat;

  (g) sufficiently large refrigeration rooms;

  (h) suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service,

  979
  including a room equipped for carrying out a trichinoscopic test, when such a test is compulsory;

  (i) cloakrooms, wash basins and showers and water closets (the latter not opening directly on to the working premises) in which the wash basins must be provided with hot and cold water, with arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with hand-towels for use once only, and must be adjacent to the water closets;

  (j) arrangements so that veterinary inspection can be carried out efficiently at any time;

  (k) means of checking access to and from the slaughterhouse;

  (l) an adequate partition between the clean and the polluted section;

  (m) in premises where meat is handled:

  flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect and rot-proof, sloping slightly, with an appropriate system for running off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings;
  smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least 3 metres with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners;

  (n) adequate ventilation and steam extraction in premises where meat is dressed and handled;

  (o) in the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours;

  (p) an adequate supply, under pressure, of drinking water only;

  (q) arrangements for the provision of sufficient quantities of hot water;

  (r) arrangements for draining of residual water in accordance with hygienic requirements;

  (s) in working premises, adequate arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment;

  (t) arrangements so that, after slaughter, dressing can be carried out as far as possible on the suspended animal; where skinning is carried out on metal counters, they shall be of stainless materials and of a height such that the carcass does not touch the floor;

  (u) a network of aerial rails for the subsequent handling of the meat;

  (v) protection against insects and rodents;

  (w) tools and working materials, in particular stainless containers easy to cleanse and disinfect;

  (x) a special section for manure; and

  (y) space and arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting vehicles.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With the new Clause we are to consider Amendment No. 14, in Clause 6, page 6, line 44, after 'premises', insert:
  'and also comply with the following conditions:
  Premises for the cutting up of meat, separated from other premises by walls;
  Sufficiently large refrigeration rooms;
  Suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service;
  Cloakrooms, wash-basins and showers, and water closets, the latter not opening directly onto the working precises; the wash-basins shall be provided with hot and cold water, arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with towels for use once only; the wash-basins must be adjacent to the water-closets;
  In the butchery premises:
  flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect, and rot-proof, sloping slightly and with an appropriate system for funning off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings;
  smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least three metres, with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners;
  Cooling arrangements in the butchery premises to keep meat permanently at an internal temperature lower than or equal to +7°C;
  Adequate ventilation in the butchery premises;
  In the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours;
  An adequate supply, under pressure of drinking water only;
  Arrangements for provision of sufficient quantities of hot water;
  Arrangements for draining off residual water, in accordance with hygienic requirements;
  In butchery premises, adequate provision for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment;
  Protection against insects and rodents;
  Working equipment and tools, in particular fixed butchers' blocks, receptacles, conveyor belts and saws, of stainless material, easy to cleanse and disinfect.'
  and Amendment No. 37, in page 7, line 29, at end insert:
  (5) Before the coming into effect of any of the foregoing provisions of this section the Ministers shall consult on questions of hygiene with the heads of preventive medicine of all the medical faculties.
  Mr. Morris: These are very important Amendments. As my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said in Standing

  981
  Committee, the Government are in a contradictory position. While they passionately advocate entry to the European Economic Community, they seem strangely reluctant to come to terms with its attitudes in this field. At present, two different standards are applied to slaughterhouses in this country. One standard is for meat produced for the home market and the other is a much higher standard for meat intended for the European export market. Of some 2,000 slaughterhouses, only about 40 are approved for the export of meat to the EEC countries. Less than 30 are approved for export to West Germany, where the highest standards apply.
  It is highly significant that, although local authorities operate only around 100 slaughterhouses, approximately 30 per cent. of them are approved for the export trade to West Germany. The replacement of some of the public abattoirs by private slaughterhouses, which the Ministry appears to expect because of the change in licensing policy, could reduce the number of establishments which are up to export standard. We were entitled to expect that any change in Government policy would be designed to bring standards up to the export slaughterhouse level and not to reduce the number of slaughterhouses already providing the higher standards. There is no obvious reason why the dual standard, a lower standard for meat for home consumption and a higher one for meat exports, should be retained. Moreover, there can be no reason why the situation should be deliberately worsened by Government legislation.
  It is generally acknowledged by all hon. and right hon. Members that the new local authority abattoirs are among the best in the country. They were built and operate to the highest standards in accordance with local authority concern and responsibility for the health of their communities. Against this, there is no dispute that many private slaughterhouses comply only with the lowest standards acceptable under the regulations. The closure of high-standard public abattoirs and their replacement by private slaughterhouses of the minimum standard would be a retrograde step.
  There is no evidence that any benefits will accrue to the community because of the change in licensing policy. There is
  982
  every reason to believe that such a policy woud be detrimental to the public interest as standards are likely to fall. The elimination of dual standards, a lower one for home consumption and a higher one for export, will be further delayed. The cost of enforcing the regulations will increase with the greater number of private slaughterhouses and the closure of public slaughterhouses because of the pressure of inequitable competition. Consequently, debt charges will have to be paid out of rates for many years with no corresponding benefit.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary statement. He must know that there have been frequent inquiries into slaughterhouses, which we have all read. We all know the background. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is saying that the standards of private slaughterhouses will be lower? That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has not substantiated his case in any way. It is mischievous of him to make such a suggestion.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, but I have read it.
  Mr. Morris: We debated this matter at length in Committee. I shall, as my speech proceeds, try to show the hon. Gentleman how slaughtering standards will be placed at risk.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Nonsense.
  Mr. Morris: If we fail to sustain our argument in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments, standards will be placed at serious risk. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.
  Mr. John Mackie: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) realises that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr Scott-Hopkins) was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Slaughterhouses Act was brought in to modernise slaughterhouses and reduce the number of slaughterhouses from the high number to which they had proliferated, which had created bad slaughterhouses.
  Mr. Morris: I shall not get involved in this argument between former Ministers at Whitehall Place. I hope to show the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we agree much more with the policy which he was pursuing at the Ministry than with that now pursued by his right hon. and hon. Friends. The new abattoirs were designed on the strength of the Government policy of restricting the licensing of new slaughterhouses. It could never have been evisaged when these abattoirs were being planned that a complete reversal in policy, from restriction according to need to freedom irrespective of need, could ever take place.
  Involved in this debate are important questions of hygiene. If we look at the standards which are required in the European Economic Community, we find that they are deeply concerned to avoid threats to public health. Under the heading "Inspection of Staff", the EEC directive states:
  "Every person working in contact with meat must have a medical examination at least once a year to check whether he is a carrier of any diseases likely to be passed on to the meat".
  There is no such requirement in the British regulations. When medical examinations were introduced at the Manchester abattoir, prior to obtaining approval for the export trade, two men were found to be carriers and had to be taken off meat handling. This is a very serious matter. Without the examination, these men could have continued to handle meat for domestic consumption. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how many of the private slaughterhouses have medical examination requirements.
  It is important to emphasise the interest of the consumer in this debate. Why should the British housewife accept lower standards than the French or West German housewife? What possible argument can there be against adjusting British standards to those of the European Economic Community? We have always been prepared to praise what is good in the EEC and to question and criticise what we think is bad. We are asking the Government to be consistent. I know that Ministers feel that there should be more slaughtering in the producer areas and less in the consumer areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has pointed out, the argument
  984
  might be valid if one were thinking of driving cattle from the vastness of the American prairies to the Chicago meat processing yards. But the argument does not stand up when one is talking of moving livestock from Chorley to Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman really must be consistent. As this is the first debate of the day, we hope that he will make a constructive response to the arguments we have adduced in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments. As he knows, by 1976 we shall have to come up to EEC standards for poultry slaughtering. Red meat is much more important. Why cannot we say that we are prepared to lift our standards to the export level?
  4.30 p.m.
  The bringing of British slaughterhouses up to the higher standards in the directive is clearly an important and worthwhile step achievable within a limited period. This should have had a higher place in the Government's priorities than the proposed new legislation which, if enacted, may result in a deterioration of standards by compelling local authorities to close down or curtail their abattoir operations. I argued in Committee that Manchester's first class public abattoir was now at risk. What possible justification can there be for the threat to this and other first-class abattoirs in the public sector? The Minister's policy is one of free-for-all. He seems unconcerned about whether we reduced the public sector, notwithstanding the very high standards of many of its abattoirs.
  There was talk in Committee of allowing local authorities to increase their charges. As far as I am aware, local authorities do not wish to increase their charges. They are genuinely concerned, as the Government only pretend to be, about the battle against inflation. A great burden is being carried by the ratepayers which may well increase as a consequence of the Government's policy.
  I ask the Minister to take very seriously the point I have made about carriers of food poisoning in the employment of abattoirs in this country. Two men had to be removed from their work in the Manchester abattoir. As far as I know, the Minister can give no assurance whatever that carriers of food poisoning are not employed in some of the abattoirs

  985
  of this country. This is a further reason for my having emphasised that this is very much a consumer's debate. We are arguing the public interest against a policy which seeks to serve only private interests.
  On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I again ask the Minister to reply constructively to our submission in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments.
  Mr. Thomas Torney: I am very sorry that the Government do not seem to learn by their mistakes and that there appears to be scant regard for the interests not only of consumers but of workers in slaughterhouses.
  The Government have introduced an extremely controversial Clause dealing with slaughterhouses. I wonder how many people realise that there are different standards for the killing of cattle for human consumption. Prior to this Bill there were different standards for what people would buy in the butchers' shops and for what we were prepared to export. In other words, people overseas demand that our slaughterhouses should be so organised that they give a greater degree of protection to the meat which we export to Europe than to the meat which people buy in butchers' shops in this country. Yet the Government have chosen to ignore this factor.
  Those of us who have had to sit through the hours of debate on the European Communities Bill know that many laws in this country will have to be changed by virtue of our entry. Some of them appertain to this Bill. Clause 6 is an absolute nonsense. We had the nonsense of discussing in one room in the Committee corridor alterations in the law relating to killing cattle for human consumption, and in another room the Common Market, which could well do something different, was being discussed.
  Moreover, to add insult to injury, when we discussed Clause 6 in Committee, we were not allowed by the Chairman to raise the points with which today's new Clause 1 deals. We were not allowed by the Chairman to discuss items affecting the Common Market.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. I understand that the proceedings in Committee and the rulings of the
  986
  Chairman there are not relevant to the Report stage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Passing references to many things are allowed, but they should not be dwelt on.
  Mr. Torney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make only a passing reference. It is dangerous for us to ignore the question of entry to the Common Market and how it will affect the slaughter of cattle for human consumption, but at one time we were not allowed to discuss it in Committee. Only much later did the Chairman alter his ruling and allow us to introduce matters appertaining to the Common Market. It is all the more deplorable that we have to curb our debate in this way, because we were promised by the Chairman of the Standing Committee that we should be allowed greater time to debate this matter on Report. I am thankful that the Chair has seen fit at least to select new Clause 1 for discussion.
  For the protection of the consumer it is vital that we have slaughterhouses to standards which are at least as high as those on the Continent. However, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) did not make clear concerns the workers in the industry. I have to declare an interest here since I am sponsored by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, which is the main trade union responsible for the organisation of slaughterhouse workers. That union deplores the fact that this Bill proposes to weaken the control of local authorities over slaughtering. As my hon. Friend said, new Clause 1 seeks to bring our slaughterhouses up to the required standard of those in Common Market countries. They are standards which the Minister will have to adopt sooner or later once we are in the Common Market. It is difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman will not accept them today.
  My trade union which represents the workers in the industry agrees with the present system of local authority slaughtering. It is ludicrous now to propose a system which will encourage in all parts of the country the springing up of small, inadequately staffed and poorly organised slaughterhouses which will be a danger to the health of the people and

  987
  result in far worse conditions for those working in them.
  There is another aspect, and that is sanitary control. Anyone who knows even a little about slaughterhouses knows that it is not easy to secure a sufficient number of sanitary inspectors of meat. Local authorities have great difficulty. There is a shortage of this kind of skilled person—
  Mr. Deakins: They are not all that skilled.
  Mr. Torney: When we switch to the method envisaged in the Bill and have slaughterhouses possibly at the point of production rather than at the point of distribution, many more slaughterhouses will be spread over a much wider area, some of them in rural districts, and they will be an added weight for the local authorities' inspectors of meat. In some places, the situation is reaching breaking point already. If the Minister requires inspectors to go further afield to many more slaughterhouses, the chances of having proper inspection of the meat that we are to eat will be severely reduced, and greater stress will be placed on local authorities as a result.
  4.45 p.m.
  In addition to the workers in the industry not wishing to have this change, it is opposed by the local authorities. The great mass of local authorities provide up-to-date slaughtering methods. Most, though not all, have slaughterhouses which come up to the Continental standard which is required by new Clause 1. In effect, that is the Common Market requirement.
  Certain sections of the medical profession are opposed to the change, and I am glad to see that an Amendment has been tabled which draws attention to this point. As a result of my small interest in the subject in the Standing Committee, I have had letters from various associations connected with the medical profession. They all say that we are not making this protest strong enough, loud enough and wide-ranging enough. In other words the doctors, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are worried that this change will mean a lowering of our health standards. For all these sound and concrete reasons, even at this late
  988
  stage the Minister should postpone any further dealing with the Clause until the Common Market regulations have come fully into effect.
  I should very much like to be able to speak for as long as I did in Committee. Already the Whips are looking at me indicating that there is not much time for this debate. However, I want to make this final point.
  There has been far too little consideration, examination and consultation with those who will be affected by the proposed change in the law covering slaughterhouses. I am sure that the Minister knows that prior to the passing of the 1958 Act dealing with slaughterhouses there was an interdepartmental committee of inquiry and that prior to the passing of the 1967 Act there was the well-known Verdon-Smith Inquiry. I should like to have read the report of that inquiry, but there is not sufficient time and it is too lengthy. I should like to have read parts of it. Unfortunately, there is not even time for that. I assume that the Minister has read it or that perhaps he remembers the points that I made about it in Committee—
  Mr. Prior: I do.
  Mr. Torney: In any event, there should have been more consultation. The local authorities have told me that they were not properly consulted. I am sure that the Minister will not challenge that this time. I think that he appreciates that I was correct when I said it in Committee. My own trade union would like to have been consulted a great deal more. Without prejudice to this change in the legislation, could not the Minister put it back a little with a view to consulting more and giving it at least the same sort of study as was carried out prior to the 1958 and 1967 Acts, possibly appointing a Select Committee to do the job?
  I am convinced that some kind of inquiry of this nature is necessary, bearing in mind all that is said in new Clause 1 which in effect is a restatement of Common Market policy. After many months and long hours of debate in the course of which we were told that we had to accept Common Market policies, the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that this House should accept a Bill which is contrary to one aspect of those policies.

  989
  If it were other aspects of Common Market policy, I should be very happy. However, this is one of the few aspects of that policy which lay down more stringent regulations for the well being of workers and the health of consumers and which are better than we have at present. I do not understand the logic of the Government introducing a Bill containing a provision like this after all they have said about the urgency and advantages of our joining the Common Market.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Having listened to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) I judge myself fortunate not to have been a member of the Standing Committee; because, as the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged, he did not spare either himself or the Committee in expressing his views, nor did he spare the House this evening.
  The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) are labouring under two misapprehensions. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe opposes Clause 6 because, understandably, he is obsessed with the position of Manchester Corporation's slaughterhouse. The worry which existed in earlier years about this slaughterhouse still continues.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in addition to Manchester, other major local authorities are affected?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the place he knows and understands best—Manchester slaughterhouse, which has been one of the best municipal slaughterhouses. However, the fact that it loses about £1,000 a week must be borne in mind.
  Both hon. Members asserted that, if the proposals contained in Clause 6 are adopted, standards will decline progressively and there will be a proliferation of small slaughterhouses. When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, I, because of my previous connection with slaughterhouse policy, had misgivings about whether this was the right thing to do. However, having examined the figures and studied carefully the debates in Standing Committee and having listened to the Second Reading debate, I have concluded that what was right in
  990
  the 1950s and partially right in the 1960s is no longer right in the 1970s.
  It is essential to allow private slaughterhouses to operate. There will not be a sudden increase in the number of slaughterhouses. Since 1962 there has been a steady decrease. The Bill for which I had some responsibility in 1963 was designed to reduce the number of 4,700 to a more amenable figure. The number in fact reduced to about 1,500 to 1,700.
  When Clause 6 begins to be operated there will not be a sudden upsurge in small, backward, unhygienic, badly run slaughterhouses. It is not practical economics for private enterprise to put money into such a set-up. Those in the industry are hard-headed.
  The hon. Member for Wythenshawe pertinently asked what is to be done with municipal slaughterhouses on which a great deal of ratepayers' money has been spent and where a great deal of loan money has been used. In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the alternatives are stark. Either a monopoly is created and we have only municipal slaughterhouses and we subsidise them by ratepayers' or taxpayers' money, or municipal slaughterhouses must so arrange their charges that they can compete and become viable. If they cannot do that, they must close, and the sooner the better. If there is a demand for something different, as there will be in certain areas and as the pattern of slaughtering changes and takes place more at the point of processing, the change will take place as economic circumstances dictate and demand will be matched by supply.
  Both hon. Members made great play about the difference between our standards of hygiene and those of the Common Market. Over the past few years I have had much to do with Common Market standards of slaughtering. A few years ago we had just over 20 slaughterhouses which came up to Common Market standards. But that number has increased until now the difference between standards here and those in Europe is not all that great. Although they may not come within the letter of the law as operated in Europe, the standards of many of our slaughterhouses are as good as those required in Europe. It is only a question of certain processes being gone

  991
  through. There will be no difficulty about standards being met and after 1st January, 1973, when we join the Common Market this will not present a problem in either the public or the private sector.
  I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will persevere. There is bound to be anxiety among municipally-owned slaughterhouses, but they must put their house in order and become viable or take the obvious alternative course. I believe that the result of what my right hon. Friend is doing will be, with the change in the pattern of processing, not an increase in the number of small slaughterhouses, but an improved and better slaughtering service for small farmers.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: My principal reason for supporting the new Clause is that I am influenced by its wording. It is a catalogue of the standards of public hygiene which all reasonable people would expect to be introduced in British abattoirs. There is already an excess of slaughterhouses in Britain. What we are short of is good slaughtering facilities.
  If we had the standards laid down in new Clause 1 we would be acting in the interests of the British housewife and those who eat meat in this country. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who kindly referred to my constituency interest in this issue of public abattoirs. He will know from his period of ministerial office that in 1961 Manchester Corporation built in my constituency a new public slaughterhouse to bring public slaughtering facilities in Manchester up to the standards laid down in the new Clause. The Corporation built this abattoir at a cost of £4,160,000. At the beginning of this year Manchester ratepayers were carrying a financial burden running at the rate of £1,000 a day for the operation of this public abattoir.
  Nearly £400,000 a year is carried by the Manchester ratepayers in providing the standard of public hygiene and slaughtering facilities which the community has a right to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) comments that it is a tax on the health of
  992
  the community. I might add in parenthesis that it is not only the animals that have been gentaly led to the slaughter! I would have welcomed the Minister including some positive proposal in this Bill aimed at relieving Manchester ratepayers of the financial burden which they are obliged to carry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe drew attention to what he termed dual standards of slaughtering facilities as applied to this country and the European Community. It is, in fact, a tripartite system of standards because not only are there different standards for this country and Europe but there are also further, different standards applying to slaughtering facilities where the meat is destined for the United States. Why should the British housewife have standards lower than the West German housewife or the American housewife? How can it be justified?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where our standards are lower than those of Europe? What is he getting at?
  Mr. Morris: Perhaps I ought to clarify the position. The Manchester abattoir is one of about 30 abattoirs recognised for the export of meat to the European Communities. There are only four abattoirs in the country recognised as being able to handle meat which is to be exported to the United States.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Where do we fall down?
  Mr. Morris: It is not a question of where we fall down on any particular point; it is a matter of the comprehensive facilities available at public abattoirs, provided by municipalities. What I find disturbing is that above new Clause 1 we do not find the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We were all encouraged to see his elevation from the back benches to the Government Front Bench. However in the process we do not appear to be dealing with the same man. The hon. Member who has now ministerial responsibility for the Bill said on Second Reading, on precisely the point covered in New Clause 1,
  "I strongly believe that slaughterhouses should be up to export standard. This will be

  993
  costly, but the consumer has every right to have a high standard of hygiene, which is a matter of paramount importance."
  One can almost see him bashing the Despatch Box as he uttered those words.
  Mr. Buchan: They did not let him near it then.
  Mr. Morris: He went on:
  "I know that in my part of the country the slaughterhouses are up to standard, but I must also point out that only 60 out of the 2,000 slaughterhouses in this country are up to standard compared with those in the Community. This shows what a long way we are behind our future partners".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 82.]
  I would not suggest for a moment that this contradiction has anything to do with the position from which he spoke on 17th January and the honoured position which he now holds. But they are illogical points of view. I share the Minister's views of 17th January.
  Mr. Torney: Would my hon Friend not agree that if the difference between our slaughtering laws and the slaughtering laws of the Common Market are as minimal as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) seems to think, there should be no difficulty in the Government accepting this new Clause?
  Mr. Morris: That is a perfectly valid point. The Government have been far too complacent on this question of standards of hygiene in public slaughterhouses. I say to them bluntly that they have an obligation to the community at large with these standards. No Government can afford to be complacent where the health of the community is at risk.
  Mr. Prior: I would agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that no Government can afford to be complacent in what is an extremely important matter. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are not complacent and are seeking the whole time to improve slaughterhouses as soon as possible. We want to see this pushed on rapidly. It is for the convenience of the House as a whole if we do not have long and laboured debates on each item today. In this respect I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for keeping their remarks to a reasonable length. I do not want to criticise the hon. Member for Bradford,
  994
  South (Mr. Torney). We found him an agreeable companion in Committee, and, although we did not always agree with him, we thought that he spoke with very good humour at all times.
  If I may start by slightly twisting the tails of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is interesting to note that, whereas a good many of them could see no good in anything which the Common Market did a few weeks ago, they are now tabling this Clause which broadly lays down standards prescribed for slaughterhouses in the EEC. Obviously, they must see some good in what goes on there.
  I would make it absolutely plain that the directive on which the new Clause is based relates only to meat involved in intra-Community trade and not internal trade. So when the hon. Member for Openshaw asks why it is that British housewives have worse conditions than German or French housewives he is not stating the case. It will be generally accepted that the standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses are considerably higher than those on the Continent at the moment. To the extent that we want to participate in intra-Community trade it is necessary for our traders to ensure that meat comes from slaughterhouses which meet the EEC requirements. There is nothing new about this, because we already have to meet those requirements for meat which is exported to EEC countries, and we do so through our export-approved slaughterhouses. It is true that these slaughterhouses are limited in number, but as opportunities for exporting develop we believe that some slaughterhouse owners will find it worth their while to bring their slaughterhouses into line with the EEC requirements. As our association with the EEC becomes closer it will be more important that we should not be tied to a rigid pattern of slaughterhouse development but that our arrangements should be flexible so that what is needed can be provided where it is needed.
  Without getting involved in all the arguments we had in Committee I must explain that we are trying to allow the industry to develop in a pragmatic way without putting any one section of it into a privileged position. That seems to me to be a reasonable attitude to adopt. The hon. Members for Manchester, Openshaw and Manchester,

  995
  Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) argued that the best slaughterhouses were local authority slaughterhouses. They argued that therefore we would need them for intra-Community trade and we should not prejudice their position.
  I do not accept that the Government's proposals in the Bill will prejudice the position of local authority slaughterhouses. But apart from that let us examine the facts. Thirty-eight slaughterhouses in England and Wales are approved for export purposes, of which 25 are private and 13 are public. Therefore, 13 out of 110 public slaughterhouses are approved for the export of meat. Five of those are operated by private concerns, so that there are eight municipal slaughterhouses up to the required standard out of a total of 110. If we put the worst possible construction on the matter and assume that all these local authority slaughterhouses will cease operations entirely, eight out of 38 approved slaughterhouses would cease to operate and that eight out of 110 municipal slaughterhouses would find themselves out of business.
  Mr. Deakins: Are not the Minister's figures just a little misleading because, generally speaking, the local authority slaughterhouses, particularly those built in the last 20 years, have a very much larger capacity and throughput than private slaughterhouses. Therefore, although it is all very well to say that only eight might be forced to close down for the export trade, those eight may handle 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the total export trade.
  Mr. Prior: The percentage of meat slaughtered at municipal slaughterhouses is about 25 per cent. of the total meat slaughtered in this country. I do not have the precise figures of meat going for export which is slaughtered at municipal establishments as against those in the private sector. But it cannot be argued that any diminution of local authority slaughterhouses would prejudice the export of meat. We have to make sure that we are in the best position to take advantage of opportunities in the Community as they develop. There is nothing incompatible in the removal of ministerial approval for the granting of new licences and the fact that we shall
  996
  shortly become a member of the EEC. On the contrary I believe that the Government's proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, will considerably help to provide the flexibility we shall need for future developments.
  5.15 p.m.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the losses of some of the municipal slaughterhouses, including Manchester. He spoke about £1,000 a week, but the figure is much nearer to £1,000 a day, or more. As I understand, it is about £400,000 a year. No steps we can take would prevent that from continuing, and we must take a broad look at the future and hope that other municipalities will perhaps learn from the experience of Manchester and other municipal authorities and leave this to private enterprise, which will establish a slaughterhouse only where it thinks it can make it pay.
  The question was raised about the health of workers in slaughterhouses. This is an important point. Where slaughterhouses are up to export standard all employees have to be medically examined once a year. But under the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act, 1958, paragraph 34, which deals with personal hygiene and conduct, says:
  "as soon as any person engaged in or about any slaughterhouse in the handling of meat or the handling of blood intended for human consumption becomes aware that he is suffering from, or is a carrier of"—
  a number of diseases including typhoid fever or any—
  "staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning, he shall forthwith give notice of the fact to the occupier or person in charge of the slaughterhouse and such occupier or person in charge … shall immediately after receipt of the notice notify the medical officer of health of the district in which the slaughterhouse is situated to the same effect."
  This is a help, and, of course, even a yearly medical inspection does not cover an illness or infection picked up within the year. It is important that the paragraph relating to personal hygiene in slaughterhouses is carried out regardless of the yearly medical health check.
  No one is trying to be dogmatic about this. We debated it at great lenth in Committee and there is a division of opinion between the two sides. I believe that our proposals are a practical answer to the problems. I hope that with this

  997
  further explanation, the House will allow us to get on.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen): I raised the question of the problems of the rural areas in Committee. The Minister of State said that he understood the problems I was trying to convey to the Committee. He said:
  "I must add that I have been impressed by the point made … about possible difficulties in which rural areas might find themselves, and the Government see the case for a transitional period during which both the public and the private sector of the industry can reassess future requirements in the light of the new policy. We shall, therefore, consider putting down an Amendment on Report postponing both the removal of control over licensing and the removal of obligation on local authorities to ensure adequate slaughtering facilities in their districts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 15th February, 1972; c. 294.]
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman will find that we met that point at the end of the Committee stage by putting in the date of 1st January, 1974. This will give time for any difficulties, which we do not envisage but which were envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, to be dealt with.
  Mr. Fred Peart: I welcome the Minister's view that we should not have the long debates we had in Committee, but those debates were well worth while, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) made a powerful case in Committee, and we expected the Minister to be converted. However, he has not been.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has put succinctly the case for the new Clause and the Amendments associated with it. He rightly argued for the setting up of improved facilities to enable us to participate in the export market and to get rid of the dualism in our system. This was the view of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who is now a Minister. No doubt he will use his influence to convert the Department to his point of view—until there is a change, and then there will be a reversal of policy.
  The Minister said that there is a clear division between the two sides of the House on this matter. That was also apparent in Committee. We defend our
  998
  public abattoirs and slaughterhouses. My hon. Friends represent large cities like Manchester, Bradford and Glasgow, where local pride has enabled the citizens to build important public abattoirs which are vital to our meat industry. We pay tribute to those local authorities.
  That is not to decry private slaughterhouses. The Minister is right in his percentages. There are varying degrees of ownership, and inevitably this will be so. We are worried in case the Minister's action results in a proliferation which would in turn affect public slaughterhouse capacity, and that has been argued time and again. We are right to press the point about standards.
  The Minister has chided the Opposition for their stand on entry into the European Economic Community, but this has nothing to do with entry into the EEC. We can export meat products to the Community without being in it. I will not argue about the European Community Communities Bill. After all, I like French wine better than British wine, but that does not mean that I like the Community's agricultural policy, Mr. Pompidou's policy or our Prime Minister's policy. It is because we are seeking to export to different parts of the world that we want to improve standards. If there are improved facilities in the Community, I hope that we shall surpass them. I agree that we should not exaggerate this, and here I am near to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West.
  The National Farmers Union has ex-expressed concern about the proposal in a memorandum, and the local authorities association has stated its case repeatedly. I should like to develop a major argument about other matters which affect our public abattoirs. For example, the day will come when we shall have to take a new look at the meat inspection service operating in our abattoirs, whether private or local.
  I believe in a State veterinary service. We have a State veterinary service, and I am certain that one day it must take control over meat inspection. I am not denigrating the work done by public health inspectors and meat inspectors. They are dedicated people, and they do the work well, but ultimately we must have inspection by veterinary surgeons,

  999
  or at least the administration must be in the charge of the State veterinary service, which will be apart from the local authority organisation and responsible to the Government and the Ministry. This happens in other countries, even in Western Europe.
  We believe that we have made out our case in Committee and today. My hon. Friends have put the case fairly and constructively. We do not regard this as a party issue and we hope that there will be some give. That is why I argued on Second Reading and in Committee that before any action is taken by the Government there should be another inquiry.
  There was an interdepartmental inquiry which led to legislation. There was the Verdon-Smith inquiry, which led to the setting up of the Livestock Commission. Even the Minister of State, who was Parliamentary Secretary when the Bill was first introduced, argued that the meat industry in the last 13 years has changed considerably. It is foolish for a Government to rush in when such changes are taking place. I can understand the argument about improving our public abattoirs and our standards because of entry into the EEC and the danger to our export trade, but to rush in quickly
  when the meat industry as a whole is changing and when there are great arguments about marketing and distribution is unwise. It would be proper for the Government to have a major inquiry. I am not suggesting that such an inquiry should be like the Verdon-Smith Inquiry, but there should be an interdepartmental inquiry. It might have been proper for a Select Committee of the House to look into the matter, but I would prefer an interdepartmental inquiry which would report to the Minister.
  The Minister has not been pragmatic, as he says he is. He is good-natured enough but he has been dogmatic and has not budged. He has made a small concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), but otherwise he has been dogmatic. I have seen minutes of discussions which have taken place with the Department from which I come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman has been not pragmatic but doctrinal. For these reasons we are bound to register our protest by dividing the House.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 123.

  Division No. 333]

  AYES

  [5.30 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sulton)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Padley, Walter

  Atkinson, Norman

  John, Brynmor

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Buchan, Norman

  Jones, Barry (Flint E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kaufman, Gerald

  silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Silverman, Julius

  Cronin, John

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Latham, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lawson, George

  steel, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Leonard, Dick

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Strang, Gavin

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Torney, Tom

  Ewing, Harry

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wallace, George

  Foley, Maurice

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Michael

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Golding, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Benyon, W.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

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

  Body, Richard

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hornby, Richard

  Raison, Timothy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Redmond, Robert

  Bray, Ronald

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Brewis, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rost, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  James, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Channon, Paul

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  shelton, William (Clapham)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kilfedder, James

  Simeons Charles

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Soref, Harold

  clegg, Walter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Speed, Keith

  Cooke, Robert

  Knox, David

  stanbrook, Ivor

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sutcliffe, John

  Crouch, David

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dixon, Piers

  Luce R. N.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Drayson, G. B.

  McLaren, Martin

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mather, Carol

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wall, Patrick

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fortescue, Tim

  Moate Roger

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fowler, Norman

  Molyneaux James

  White Roger (Gravesend)

  Fry, Peter

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Wilkinson, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Morrison Charles

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Murton Oscar

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Green, Alan

  Neave, Airey

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  Normanton Tom

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Nott, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gurden, Harold

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke and

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Osborn, John

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

  DEPLOYMENT OF INSPECTORS APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE AGRICUL- TURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) ACT 1956, AND SEC- TION 3 OF THE AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) ACT 1952
  In section 10(3) of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956, for the words 'An inspector shall have power to do' there shall be substituted 'The duties of an inspector appointed under this section shall be confined to', and in section 3(3) of the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 for the words 'An inspector appointed under this Act shall have power to do' shall be substituted 'The duties of an inspector appointed under this section shall be confined to.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to move—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-
  1002
  cannon) cannot move that the Clause be read a Second time since his name is not appended to the names which appear on the Amendment Paper.
  Mr. Buchan: I formally beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient also to deal with Amendment No. 53, in the Title, line 11, leave out 'increase the penalties under' and insert 'amend'.
  Mr. Concannon: We do not wish to prolong this debate. In the time which has elapsed between Committee and Report there have been many to-ings and fro-ings between the usual channels, and also in the meantime we have received the Report by the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work. If the Minister could give an indication that the principles lying behind the new Clause and Amendment No. 53 will be contained in future legislation or will be considered in future discussions, I think perhaps we

  1003
  might be prevailed upon to withdraw the new Clause and Amendment No. 53 which goes with it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): In moving the Clause so quickly hon. Members opposite have given us time to say a few things about farm safety, a subject about which we all feel strongly. I well remember the speech made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in Committee; he obviously knows a considerable amount about safety matters in general, and certainly seems to know something about farm safety, too.
  I must point out that the Clause as drafted could prove something of a boomerang. Far from securing a separate safety inspectorate, it might deprive inspectors, however organised, of the enforcement powers which they need. I know that neither side of the House seeks to bring about such a situation. For that reason alone I shall seek to urge hon. Members opposite to withdraw the Clause.
  Several arguments have been put forward over the past weeks and months for a separate inspectorate. However, I do not think there is a case for it. If we look at the statistics we see that the non-fatal figure dropped from 14,000 in
  1958–59 to fewer than 7,000 last year. On that front there is some improvement, despite the fact that there is a great increase in mechanisation and a decline in the number of farm workers. The fatality figures show a rather different picture. The figure is still about 100 a year, so there is no room for complacency. I know only too well, coming from the South-West, where there are hills and difficult fields to deal with, that the number of accidents is a serious and sad business.
  Regarding prosecutions, there is nothing in the figures to warrant criticism of the Agricultural Departments' stewardship of their farm safety responsibilities under successive Administrations. There were 207 successful prosecutions for contraventions of the regulations in 1971. So enforcement standards are not being, and will not be, relaxed.
  This brings me to the key implication of the Clause: that safety would be en-
  1004
  hanced if we had a full-time inspectorate engaged exclusively on safety enforcement. Like the previous Administration, I question this view.
  As the House probably knows, we have 40 full-time safety specialists and about 400 inspectors who are the general purpose field officers engaged for about a third of their time on safety duties for which they have been specially trained. They are not amateurs; they are trained in this sphere. The 12 wages and safety inspectors in Scotland, nine of whom are in the field, similarly spend about a third of their time on farm safety matters.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that the interests of farm safety would be better served by a separate safety inspectorate. Without prejudice to any action which may be taken on the recently published Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work, it is only right that I should put forward the other side of the argument.
  First, if we had these specialists there would be fewer safety inspectors. I do not think that would be a good thing, realising that agriculture is so widely spread that it would be difficult if there were fewer safety inspectors. In these circumstances relations with farmers and workers, which are very important, would be more formal and the special relationship and spirit of co-operation which has grown up between most farmers and their local inspectors could be destroyed.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend address himself to the point that financial support, albeit minimal, is being withdrawn from the voluntary advisory committees? Is he aware that there is a great deal of unhappiness that that support has been withdrawn? Will he assure the House and the people concerned that the Government still support the good voluntary work that is done?
  Mr. Mills: I have heard about this problem. We have withdrawn only secretarial assistance. Our safety inspectors and the committees are still there, and we are watching what is happening under the new arrangements.
  I hope that this special relationship which has been built up between the farmers and the inspectors will never be destroyed. I know how important it is. These people know the farms. They go on to the farms to look at other things

  1005
  and can point out to a farmer in a pleasant way that something is wrong with his tractor or power take-off shaft or something like that. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if this relationship were destroyed.
  Some farms which do not have regular workers are largely outside the scope of the regulations. These farms are by no means immune from accidents. The present organisation gives our field officers an opportunity to advise on safety when visiting these farms for other purposes.
  I turn now to the Robens Report and its possible effects. It is interesting to see that the Committee says:
  "As we have seen, inspection of provisions for the safety and health of workers in agriculture presents problems of organisation arising from the fact that farming units are small, numerous and very widely scattered."
  This means it is entirely different from a factory or anything else, and we must accept that.
  "We think that the new Authority should be responsible for administering farm safety legislation and that all full time agricultural safety personnel should be brought within the unified inspectorate. The general run of safety supervision visits to farms should continue to be undertaken by the field officers of the Agriculture Departments acting for this part of their work as agents of the Authority."
  5.45 p.m.
  In other words, the Robens Committee evidently believes that the front line duties of an agricultural safety inspector are best performed under arrangements of the kind which now prevail. This is important. One may disagree with parts of the Robent Committee Report, but it is important that this front line work with this special relationship which exists between the inspectors, because of their other duties, and the farmers should continue to prevail. Lord Robens backs this up.
  I am sure the House would agree that, pending the outcome of the Government's consideration of the Robens Report, it would be unfortunate for the agricultural safety legislation to be amended in such a way as to negate one of its recommendations. For that good reason, not only because of the drafting, I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. We are in general agreement with his conclusion. However, in view of his special responsibilities and the difficult history of this matter, I would ask him to press the Government to make sure that we have an early decision on the Robens Committee Report.
  In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

  AMENDMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT 1965
  For the references in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to the sum of 'one thousand pounds' (in relation to maximum permitted individual shareholdings in an agricultural co-operative society) there shall be substituted the words 'two thousand pounds'.—[Mr. Deakins.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Deakins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new Clause it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 52, in the Title, line 3, after '1950', insert:
  'to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 in respect of agricultural co-operative societies'.
  Mr. Deakins: As this is the first time I have spoken in the debate I should declare my general interest in agricultural matters. I hope that will suffice for the rest of the afternoon and evening.
  I should like to make a few brief points on the new Clause, which deals with the maximum permitted individual shareholdings in agricultural co-operative societies.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the increasing importance of the work of agricultural co-operative societies. It is regrettable that over the last 10 years their total share of agricultural trade has tended to decline as more farmers have been banding together, not in the traditional form of agricultural co-operative societies but in group trading. While this is regrettable on a number of grounds, it has affected the competitive position of agricultural

  1007
  co-operative societies and in many cases has put them into a serious financial position.
  With that background, I think the House should recognise that, with the increasing mechanisation of and productivity in agriculture and the increasing numbers of people still leaving the land to work in industry or to retire, we have a smaller number of farmers each year. A smaller number of farmers means there are fewer people available to become members and supporters of and traders with agricultural co-operative societies.
  If the maximum permitted individual shareholding is £1,000, obviously if there are fewer people to invest in agricultural co-operative societies it is only right to try to redress the balance by increasing the maximum permitted individual shareholding in the way suggested in the Clause—namely, by doubling it to £2,000.
  As farms tend to get bigger, farmers tend to become more prosperous. Therefore, I do not think that farmers generally would object to what is suggested in the Clause. I am sure that the more efficient farmers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), would not be worried that in future, if the new Clause is accepted, they could contribute up to £2,000 for membership of an agricultural co-operative society. I am sure that the bigger, more progressive farmers appreciate the benefits which these societies can bring to the farming industry.
  Agricultural co-operative societies, unlike other trading groups in agriculture or in business life generally, depend to a disproportionate extent upon their members when it comes to raising capital for trading purposes, both working capital and fixed capital. This has always been a feature of the co-operative movement, not only in agriculture but also in the consumer co-operative movement. It is therefore only right that the House should have some regard to the fact that they ought to be able to raise more money from their members, and that we should bear in mind the constant effects of inflation. Under this Government inflation has increased rapidly, and we constantly debate it in the House.
  Inflation has an impact on agriculture, particularly on the activities of agricul-
  1008
  tural co-operative societies, and it is, therefore, only fair to say that what was worth £1,000 in 1965 is probably worth only £500 today. If, therefore, we want to restore the position—not improve it—of agricultural co-operative societies in respect of individual shareholdings to what it was when the Industrial and Provident Societies Act was passed in 1965, we should at least increase the maximum permitted shareholding from £1,000 to £2,000.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) for bringing forward the new Clause, because I always welcome the chance of saying something about agricultural co-operatives. I do not wish to boast—I have had to give it up now—but I am the only Conservative Member who has been a director of a co-operative. I therefore feel strongly about these things and I am broadly in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said.
  There are, however, one or two problems and one or two snags which are not too easy to overcome. The effect of the Clause would be to raise the limit for individual shareholdings in agricultural co-operative societies from £1,000 to £2,000, which is not an undesirable objective. In fact it is a good objective. Unfortunately, it would create discrimination between these societies and other industrial and provident societies, would complicate the administration of the rules governing all societies, and would almost certainly lead to misunderstanding and consequent injustices.
  I have declared an interest. I want to see producers' agricultural co-operatives flourish, and, therefore, I am broadly in sympathy with any proposals which might help them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting forward the Clause, but there is this real problem of co-operatives other than agricultural ones. There is the problem of defining what is an agricultural co-operative, which is not too easy, I understand, and past experience shows that it is not as simple as it might seem.
  There is also the problem of wanting to preserve the distinction between a co-operative and a private company of a non-co-operative kind. There is also the important problem of the principle of co-operatives, which is "one man one

  1009
  vote", yet major shareholders will tend in practice to carry more weight. That is another point that one has to consider.
  There is nothing to stop further amounts of loan capital being put in by a member. This can be done to help overcome a shortage of capital for expansion. Because of my connection with fairly large co-operatives, I understand the problems of finding capital. The need for expensive packhouses or storage makes it difficult to raise money, but loan capital is one way of doing it.
  Mr. Torney: The hon. Gentleman gives as a reason for not accepting the Clause the difficulty of changing the law, and he cited other co-operatives. He referred to the difficulty of distinguishing between agricultural and other co-operatives. What is wrong with extending this provision to other co-operatives?
  Mr. Mills: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I have to say, I think he will find that I go a long way towards meeting him. If we do this in this Bill, it should be extended to other co-operatives. I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to complete my speech. If he does, he will find that I cover the point.
  For the reasons which I have outlined briefly, the Government cannot accept the Clause, but we have been looking at the shareholding limits and I give the undertaking that legislation to increase them for all societies will be introduced as soon as time permits. The Government are entirely sympathetic to the aims of the Clause but, in view of the objections about other societies, and in the light of the undertaking that I have given, I hope and trust that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw it.
  Mr. Deakins: The House is grateful to the Minister for the encouraging statement in the last paragraph of his speech. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion, and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 4

  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, PROCES- SING AND DISTRIBUTION
  (1) There shall be set up an Advisory Committee on all aspects of agriculture production, marketing, processing and distribution.
  (2) The Committee shall consist of representatives of the following groups—

  (a) agriculture producers;

  (b) the agriculture trade and the food industry;

  (c) workers in agriculture and the food industry;

  (d) consumers;

  each group shall have three representatives and shall be responsible for selecting its own representatives after consultation with the Minister;
  the Committee shall have a Chairman appointed by the Minister; and the Committee shall regulate its own procedure.
  (3) The Committee shall be consulted by the Minister on all problems arising out of the implementation of the common agriculture policy of the European Economic Community in the United Kingdom.
  (4) The Committee may consider ways of improving the production, marketing and distribution of agricultural products and food within the United Kingdom and may make recommendations to the Minister.
  (5) Notwithstanding anything in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, any proposal for a change in the existing statutory arrangements or for new statutory arrangements for agricultural marketing in the United Kingdom shall be submitted to the Committee for comsideration before being embodied in legislation.—[Mr. Peart.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new Clause we are to take the following Amendments: No. 55, in page 18, line 18, leave out Clause 22.
  No. 56, in the Title, line 3, after '1950', insert:
  'to establish an advisory committee on agricultural production, marketing, processing and distribution'.
  Mr. Peart: The Clause deals with the setting up of an advisory committee on agricultural production, marketing, processing and distribution. It says that there shall be an advisory committee on all aspects of the industry. It then spells out in detail that the committee shall consist of representatives of the following groups: first, the agricultural producers, the farmers; secondly, the agriculture trade and the food industry, which is a large one; thirdly, workers in agriculture, the farm workers, and also workers in the various food trades covering the whole of the food industry; fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the consumer.

  1011
  The Clause provides that each group shall have three representatives, and shall be responsible for selecting them after consultation with the Minister.
  I shall not spell out all the words in the Clause, but we are trying to create a new advisory committee. The reason for this is that we are about to enter the EEC, or at least the Government are trying to get us in. Their Communities Bill has passed through the House. Although they drastically curtailed the rights of Members to debate the Bill, we spent at least one day discussing the CAP. The Minister need not shake his head. He knows that what I am saying is true. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who is now a Government Whip, need not indicate his dissent, either. I believe that he used to participate in our agricultural debates, and he knows that what I am saying is correct.
  There were few opportunities to debate the CAP. One day on it was not sufficient. We therefore believe that there should be an organisation which will enable producers, consumers and all sections of the food industry to be consulted by the Government. If we are to enter the EEC we have to accept the CAP. That is the price that we must pay for entry. The Government have acceded to M. Pompidou's request. The Government have given in. The Prime Minister has accepted the arrangements made by the French for their farmers. France has gained considerably in the Community discussions that we have had.
  6.0 p.m.
  We have now to accept that there is to be a common agricultural policy. As I have often described it, it is neither common nor, as yet, is it a policy. There are still great variations within the Community and there is still no free trade within the Community in agricultural goods and food products which move across the various frontiers. However, we have to accept this. We have to agree to Clause 6 of the European Communities Bill, which sets up a new type of organisation. I shall not spell it out. We debated this matter. The Minister has announced what he is to do in relation to an intervention board and the policy which will be pursued for the marketing
  1012
  of cereals and for the various grain centres in the British Isles. We have had that detail given to us. It was sprung on us at the last minute when we discussed Clause 6 of the European Communities Bill. There should have been a White Paper about it.
  Nevertheless, inevitably we shall enter the Community, in which major decisions will be taken outside this country. Whatever one's views about Community policy, whether one agrees with it or one is anti-Europe, or a sceptic like myself—"sceptic" is a good word to express my views—or whether one is like most Ministers, who are fanatical about their desire to rush into Europe, that does not matter. Inevitably, the main decisions will be taken by the Commission. There will be a Council of Ministers, however, and our Minister of Agriculture will be a member of that body. There will be a European Parliament, which as yet is only a consultative assembly which has no power to check and scrutinise the legislation in the way that we know from our parliamentary procedures. This was one of our worries and concerns during the passage of the European Communities Bill. We are afraid that there will not be adequate scrutiny of the legislation which may flow from Brussels. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows—I am sure that he will be objective about it—approximately 75 per cent. of the delegated legislation which flows from the Community is concerned with agricultural policy. It is spelt out in great detail that we have to accept the directives of the Community which in many ways will affect even the Bill we are discussing.
  We have said this time and again. We stressed it in Committee and on Second Reading. We feel that, inevitably, if we are to have a decision-making body outside this country it is important that the effects of this agricultural policy on the consumer, the producer and those who work in the industry should be adequately safeguarded. Therefore, it is right that the Department should set up some machinery which will enable the various people listed in the Clause to make their views known to our Government. This will be extremely important.
  In this modern world, there is great talk of devolution, of more responsibility

  1013
  being placed on individuals. This is a very important political matter. It is a wider matter which we could discuss at great length. I shall not pursue it too far. However, if we are to have partnership with industry and if we are to enable our ordinary citizens to feel that they are part of government, we must create a body of the kind we propose. There is a great danger that Britain will be subject to decisions of a bureaucracy without adequate parliamentary scrutiny or check. It is reasonable that in the Bill some machinery should be created which would enable the House of Commons and industry connected with agriculture and food to have their say and convey their views adequately to our Minister, who, after all, will be on the Council of Ministers and here, too, will be responsible for the new policy which will emerge in Europe.
  I should have thought that such a provision was reasonable. I am not being dogmatic. Even if we did not enter the Common Market but had to play our part in a wider community, with EFTA still and, probably, with a new association with the Six, we should inevitably have to create the sort of machinery we have proposed in the Clause.
  Another specific reason for the Clause is that the Bill contains various Clauses which destroy the committees which exist in Britatin. For example, Clause 19 deals with Section 78(1) of the Agriculture Act, 1947. That Act contains arrangements for the setting up of a body to furnish information to an agricultural advisory committee relating to statistics and the information necessary for those in the industry, because this is vital to the industry and the Government.
  We also had, for example, our annual discussion during the price review procedures. This is to go. I do not know for what reason. When we enter the Community, we shall be subject to a directive which will say to Britain that she must set up a new advisory committee. There will be an advisory committee which will collect information necessary for the Commission to make decisions and for the new price procedures which will arise in the new Community. These price review procedures will not be the same as those we have at present, which flowed from the 1947 Act. Some of our farmers believe that
  1014
  the situation will be the same. I think that they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The sort of review which we have been used to will go and the procedure will be quite different when we finally accept the common agricultural policy. Indeed, the intervention board, which fundamentally acts as an agent for the Commission in relation to prices and marketing issues which affect cereals—a very large section of our farming industry—will make a new kind of procedure inevitable in Europe. Many sincere farmers are worried about this and feel that there will not be the meaningful consultations that we have now through our review procedures. This will be a pity. If price decisions are made in Europe and elsewhere, we shall have to have discussions.
  The procedures have been spelt out in the Treaty of Accession. Hon. Members know full well what they mean, so I shall not go into detail. On page 124 of the Treaty of Accession, Part I, there is a declaration which deals with the system for fixing Community farm prices. It is there spelt out. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of the Community delegation, made a statement on the system for fixing Community farm prices. In reply, on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation the Chancellor of the Duchy recorded his agreement with the statement of the Community, and said that he was certain that it was the intention to have effective and meaningful contacts in particular with producer organisations operating at Community level. He went on to spell out in detail the sort of machinery which will exist. This machinery will be quite different. That is why we are anxious to preserve that consultation at a United Kingdom level with our producers, farmworkers, consumers and others in the industry.
  Moreover, in the Community there is a whole series of committees dealing with the industry. A whole list of committees dealing with agriculture is given in Annex IX of the Treaty of Accession, which sets out the committees referred to in Article 148(2) of the Act of Accession.
  There are the Joint Advisory Committee on Social Questions relating to Paid Agricultural Workers; the Joint Advisory Committee on Social Questions in the Sea-fishing Industry, which in a way is

  1015
  associated with agriculture; the special Transport Committee; and the Advisory Committees on Milk and Milk Products; on Pigmeat; on Beef and Veal; on Poultrymeat and Eggs; and on Cereals, of which there is a Specialist Rice Section. Although we do not grow rice here, we consume it. There are also Advisory Committees on Oils and Fats; on Sugar, which will no doubt cover problems affecting our sugar-beet industry; on Fruit and Vegetables; and on Wine-growing. In view of what I said earlier, we know that we have our own home-grown wine industry. There is an Advisory Committee on Live Plants. We shall have many advisory committees when we enter Europe. I have not mentioned all those which are listed, but I must mention the last two, which are very important: the Advisory Committee on Questions of Agricultural Structure Policy and the Advisory Committee on Social Questions relating to Farmers.
  That means a great deal of work for the Department and various other people who will have to be found to man the committees, which I assume will sit in Brussels and will be in touch with the Commission and the bureaucracy there. They will no doubt report to the Council of Ministers, whose views will perhaps filter down through our British representatives on the committees to the Minister here. Would not it be far better if we created the sort of committee spelt out in detail in our Amendment and the Clause?
  The Government are ending for ever the main legislation which has been enshrined in two major Acts, the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957. The first was a Labour Government's and the second was a Conservative Government's Act. They set the pattern for our whole administrative policy for the industry in the post-war period. The 1947 Act created a partnership in the industry. In it we spelt out how the industry should be consulted. The machinery set up then is to go. The county agricultural executive committees are to be destroyed. There is vague talk about regional panels, but the machinery will not be of the same type. The farming community will need something. Whatever we may have said about the county committees, they represented a type of machinery which
  1016
  enabled the producers—the farmer and the farmworker—to make their views known directly to the Minister and to help the Minister administer policy.
  The machinery was unique, envied by agriculturists all over the world. It is now to go. The details of its ending are spelt out in various Clauses. I have mentioned Clause 19, but the main Clause in question is Clause 22, which abolishes agricultural executive committees, and even the bee committees. How doctrinaire can the Minister be when he deals specifically with those committees in a Bill like this? The Clause also abolishes agricultural wages committees in Scotland.
  In order to embrace a new policy, the Community policy, we are to have a levy system and a managed market. We are to destroy an administrative structure which has enabled the farmer to give advice to the Government. We are also to destroy advisory committees, which have worked well. We are to destroy a system which has been an example to Europe and far beyond.
  6.15 p.m.
  That is why I feel very strongly about the matter. It will be a tragedy if we do not have the meaningful co-operation that we have had at a county level over the years under successive Governments. Sometimes those county committees would meet at Whitehall Place. Together, their representatives from England and Wales and their chairmen and vice-chairmen would express their views on a price review, or a major aspect of policy, to the Minister. Here was a means whereby, apart from producer representations through the price review or through the officials at Agriculture House, the leaders of the National Farmers Union rightly consulted Ministers from time to time on many major matters. Here was a way in which at county level, the grass roots of the industry, we could have the views of the men in the areas.
  The committees were comprised of ministerial nominees together with three direct representatives from the NFU, two representatives of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and two representatives from the Country Landowners' Association. They performed a remarkable job.

  1017
  There is another reason why many hon. Members who have been interested in safety matters will be concerned about what the Minister is doing. I refer to the large number of county safety committees, which I believe will inevitably be cut out and become defunct. If the executive committee goes, county safety committees could be affected. I know that the NUAAW is worried about this. It knows that many of the county committees had a staff which serviced the safety committees. I should like to know whether the abolition of county committees can affect the safety committees. Who will administer some of the services which are essential to their work? It would be a tragedy if the safety committees went.
  However, the Minister is anxious to get ahead with his policy, anxious to rush into Europe, anxious to have the Bill, anxious to destroy a system which has worked, anxious to end the advisory committees which were set up under previous legislation. It is a tragedy.
  That is why we have moved the Clause. We have sought to create a new type of machinery which would enable us to have a discussion through the representatives of the agriculture producers, workers in the agriculture trade and the food industry, workers in agriculture and the food industry and the consumers. They could all have their views made known to an advisory committee, which in turn advised the Minister. I do not think that this would mean a vast bureaucracy or that it would cost much. We have spelt out the numbers, saying that each group should have three representatives. The cost would be a small price to pay for co-operation, and I believe that it would be sensible to pay it. The Minister has claimed that he is cutting down administrative costs. One of his justifications for the Bill was the argument that he had to make cuts in services.
  It is for that reason that we are making a strong and I hope a powerful case for the Clause. I hope that we shall receive a constructive reply. This is one of the most important measures which we shall debate this evening. Inevitably that is so because of the reasons which I have mentioned and because the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill is ending a committee system which has worked and has given positive advice
  1018
  in the long run to the Minister of State, which is so essential.
  We are now going into a larger European organisation which will for obvious reasons be much more remote from Whitehall. Therefore, the industry is bound to feel that in the end there must be proper consultation. For that reason I know it will support the Clause.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I am prepared to accept that we must look to the common agricultural policy as being Britain's future agricultural policy. Much as we may deplore it, we must come to terms with the fact that in future our agricultural discussions will be in the context of the CAP.
  I find it irritating in the course of these discussions, and particularly in the course of the arguments, on the European Communities Bill, to hear right hon. and hon. Members opposite pretend that the CAP is something which will benefit us. Perhaps there are some arguments in favour of entry into the Community, but the one thing on which we shall lose on every count is the CAP. It will be a total disaster for this country. It would help our discussions a great deal if hon. Members who are in favour of entry into the Community were prepared to accept that. No one in their senses can possibly regard a policy which forces up food prices, and requires us to spend hundreds of millions of pounds from our balance of payments surplus to achieve it, as one which makes sense for this country.
  The committee which we propose in the new Clause would not have any significant effect on the major planks of the CAP. No one is suggesting that the committee would influence the level of prices decided in Brussels. No one is suggesting that the committee would influence the hundreds of millions of pounds which the British people must pay into the central agricultural fund. A whole host of regulations and a massive bureacracy will be applied to this country, and they should be discussed openly. Members of the proposed committee would be able to create a dialogue which would be reported in the mass media.
  I am sure that no one would deny the tremendous variations and differences between agriculture in this country and

  1019
  parts of the Community. The matters which the committee could usefully discuss would be in addition to a whole host of minor regulations. The committee could discuss more important things, such as the regulations which will affect the Milk Marketing Board and the likely changes which will have to be made in the board's policies. Surely it would be useful if such policies could be openly discussed by the committee—for example, the proposal to introduce sheep regulations. There is a good deal of discussion about that matter and the farmers' unions are not sure whether they should be in favour of the regulation. An organisation of this type could perform a useful role in seeking to evaluate the effect which the Commission's proposals would have on different sections of agriculture in this country.
  The issue which is most frequently raised is our marginal and hill farms. As we know, the Community is looking at the possibility of introducing new measures and proposals for it. Would it not make sense that, in addition to the discussions which we have in Parliament which are restricted, we should have a body of this nature, composed of people who are respected throughout all sections of the agricultural industry, who could freely discuss the effects which the regulations would have on agriculture? Such a body could support the Minister in his representations in Brussels. It would be to his advantage to be able to quote the conclusions and deliberations of the committee when he is arguing forcibly that we must have certain modifications to the proposals which the Commission may bring forward to meet the interests of our agricultural industry.
  My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with the degree to which the Government are sweeping away the agricultural executives and other bodies which enabled people in the industry to participate in the application of agricultural policy. Although not all the agricultural executives in Scotland, for instance, were working excellently, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would point out that some of the Scottish executives were doing a useful job. Much of the discussions which took place in the executives were reported in the newspapers and provided a valuable
  1020
  source of information. The question of what land should go for urban development and other issues were discussed by the executives and help was given as a result of the attention which the executives directed to various matters.
  This all falls into a pattern. We are seeing a massive cut back, a sweeping away of existing bodies whereby people in the industry, as opposed to civil servants, have been able to participate in some sort of quasi-official way in the application of policy. The committee would reverse that trend. It would offset the fact that we are sweeping away all these bodies. At the same time as the Government are ending participation in that direction, they are massively increasing the number of civil servants in agriculture. It is true that the Minister of State has managed to make a few cuts and that one or two advisers have been paid off, but in their place we shall recruit an army of civil servants which will do nothing positive.
  Mr. John Brewis Mr. John Brewis (Galloway) indicated dissent—
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he saying that no additional civil servants will be recruited? Is he saying that the other officers throughout the country will not require the recruitment of additional civil servants? The fact is that an army of new civil servants is being recruited to do nothing positive. It will not enable the industry to be more efficient, like the advisory service does, but will simply operate the whole paraphernalia of regulations and the absurd method of forcing up agricultural prices to bring us into line with the Common Market prices.
  6.30 p.m.
  It is sad that we seem to be getting into a situation in which the Minister and Whitehall are not prepared to listen on any scale to the views of the industry. They are anxious to dispense with as many as possible of the bodies which enable people in the industry to put their view and to have a dialogue which is reported in the agricultural Press. We are seeing the philosophy that the man in Whitehall knows best—and if he does not know best, the man in Brussels will not.

  1021
  The advisory committee we propose would to some extent offset this philosophy. It would give the people in the agricultural industry a degree of confidence, some reassurance that they would have a forum in which their views could be thrashed out, that there would not be simply discussions through representatives of the farmers talking to Ministers and COPA and Community officials behind closed doors. They would see the advisory committee as a genuine forum for representatives of the industry to express their views and attitudes about the effects which Community policy will have on the British aspects of Community agriculture, and they could do so without inhibition.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the new Clause serious consideration and draw back from his appalling view that all these bodies should he swept away and that the whole thing should be administered by civil servants in Whitehall, Reading and Brussels.
  Mr. Torney: I am not an agricultural expert by any means and would bow to the greater knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I understand that he is a farmer and he should therefore know something about it. But I do not think that one needs to be an expert to see the evidence before one's eyes. That evidence shows that there have been great improvements in agriculture in recent years, certainly since the operation of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The growth in the efficiency and success of British agriculture in these last 25 years is due in no small measure to that Act.
  Sections 71 and 72 of the Act set up the county agricultural executive committees and new Clause 4 seeks to embody in this Bill some similar form of consultation. The Act laid down that the agricultural executive committees would be established
  "…with the duty of promoting agricultural development and efficiency …"
  The Preamble to the Act said that it was also to promote the efficiency and stability of the industry. Just as Sections 71 and 72 of the Act were concerned with the efficiency and stability of the industry in 1947, so such concern for the efficiency and stability of the industry is just as necessary, if not more so, in
  1022
  1972 and onwards. I was not impressed in Standing Committee by the reasons which the Government advanced for the repeal of Sections 71 and 72. I was not convinced by their rather flimsy arguments that these committees are no longer required.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has stated the need not only to maintain the efficiency and stability of British agriculture by the maintenance of the highest possible level of consultation with producers, workers and consumers. He has pointed to the shackles which our entry into the European Economic Community will place upon us because of the weakness of some sections of the agricultural industry on the Continent to which we are to conform, and about all because of the complete abolition of democracy as we know it today through our not being allowed to have consultations of any kind. Because of these factors, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is an even greater need to maintain the watchdog Sections of the 1947 Act.
  New Clause 4 should be accepted by the Government in order that in these times of trying stress for all our industry, particularly agriculture, we are still able to maintain the high form of consultation we have had in the past. If the Government refuse to accept the new Clause, I hope that they will tell us exactly what they intend to do, bearing in mind our entry into the EEC, to ensure the highest possible level of consultation with all sections of the agricultural industry—employers, workers and consumers—as envisaged by the 1947 Act.
  Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) is a little optimistic if he hopes that the Government will accept new Clause 4. They were generous about new Clause 3, although they did not accept it. They said that they would be bringing in legislation to deal with the matter it raised. If we have the same sort of assurance on new Clause 4, we might feel that that is the sort of safeguard we are looking for, even though the Government cannot accept the wording of new Clause 4.
  New Clause 4 and Amendment No. 55 go together. We are not merely suggesting that a new advisory committee should

  1023
  be set up for the agricultural industry to replace county agricultural executive committees. We are suggesting—and I hope that we shall be able to show our feelings in the Division Lobby—that county agricultural executive committees should not be abolished and that in addition there should be set up this new advisory committee.
  We regard county agricultural executive comittees in particular as being a major means, certainly since the war, whereby the Ministry has been able to keep in touch with grass roots opinion in agriculture. I stress "grass roots" because, of course, there are always consultations between Whitehall and Agriculture House, the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. But important as these latter consultations are, they are no substitute for on-the-ground contact between representatives of the farming community and their own members in the districts, acting as a channel of communication to the officers of the Ministry in the regions.
  Furthermore, we are much concerned that the consultation should not be confined to consultation with farmers. Agriculture will face changing circumstances over the next decade or so, some of them induced by the Government, and some which would have happened in any event, under a Labour or a Conservative Government. In such changing circumstances, any Government ought to broaden the area of consultation, for this is, after all, not just an agriculture industry, important though that is, but is also a food industry, with many other interests at stake in the future well being of agriculture itself.
  Subsection (2) of new Clause 4 proposes that the new advisory committee should cover not only farmers but workers in the agriculture and food industries. The workers do not at present get a look in on any advisory bodies dealing with agricultural matters. Also, we propose that consumers should be brought into proper consultation. At present, consumers are lucky if they have representation on any of the statutory bodies. There may be one consumer representative on one of the marketing boards, perhaps—I think that there is a consumer advisory committee within the Meat and Livestock Marketing Com-
  1024
  mission set-up—but consumer representation at that sort of level has not been particularly effective in protecting consumer interests. If British agriculture is to prosper in the future in the way it has undoubtedly prospered since 1947 and the great Tom Williams Act of that year, we must have much more consultation with and regard for consumer interests as well as for the interests of agricultural producers.
  There is a fourth category covered by subsection (2), namely, the other industries, many of them great industries employing many thousands of people, who are dependent on the well being of agriculture itself. I refer not only to the meat trade but to the cereals trade, the seeds trade and the many other trades supplying requisites of one kind or another to farmers which ought to have a voice when agricultural policy matters are being decided.
  It was always a matter of regret to me before I came to the House that our Price Review procedure had not been reformed for a number of years and that it was still very much a matter of bargaining between the Government and the leadership of the National Farmers' Union, not taking into account all the other interests in and dependent upon the agriculture and food industries which were nevertheless directly affected in their well being by the Price Review.
  The period of change through which we are likely to go will be induced not only by the disastrous common agricultural policy which we shall have to adopt for the few years while we are in the Common Market but it will be the result of changes in the functions of many of the groups and bodies at present working in agriculture. I think, in particular, of the changing rôle of agricultural cooperative societies and non-agricultural groups of traders making efforts to secure better terms for their products. The marketing boards are having to adapt to the new situation brought about partly by the present Government and partly by the general rise in food prices resulting in some measure from world factors and in some measure from the Government's general economic policy.
  It is vital that there be an advisory committee which will pay regard to the future pattern of marketing boards in this country. The Minister owes the

  1025
  House and the country an explanation in this respect, because his attitude to marketing boards is dubious and devious, to put it mildly. I am sure that, unofficially, he is telling the leadership of the NFU, particularly in England and Wales, that it should lay off all the talk about new marketing boards for meat and cereals because he is a bit worried about the general marketing board picture.
  I am sure that that is his attitude, and I have wondered why he adopts that line, for there is great grass-roots pressure from farmers to have more statutory marketing arrangements for cereals and meat, which are, after all, responsible for about 40 per cent. or more of total farm sales in this country. In considering the future of cereals and meat, we should have regard to the grass-roots demand being expressed by farmers for strengthened statutory marketing organisations.
  Perhaps the Minister does not like marketing boards, though I think that hardly possible because anyone who has any connection with agriculture must appreciate the great work which they have done since the 1930s. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has some doubt whether new marketing boards would be acceptable to the Common Market authorities. If that is the reason for his rather devious attitude on the matter, it must give us cause for concern, since we have been proceeding quietly on the assumption that the position of our existing marketing boards would be satisfactory to the EEC and that no real changes in functions or powers would be required.
  6.45 p.m.
  If the EEC is saying, "We do not like your marketing boards system and we would not agree to any new ones", that would put the futre of our existing boards in jeopardy. The House ought to be worried about that, and it is a matter with which our proposed advisory committee could well concern itself.
  The new Clause would, for the first time, recognise the importance of the consumer in agricultural matters. Good though our agricultural policy has been since 1947, and good though it has been that our Minister of Agriculture has always—or nearly always—been Minister of Food as well, the fact remains that we have neglected the interests of the
  1026
  consumer, and at no time more so than in recent years, with the rises in food prices. For that reason, if for no other, it is vital that there should be some such advisory committee as the new Clause would establish.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me in this debate. After last night's performance, I thought there was some danger that my recess would begin rather early. But the patience of the Chair is immense, and for my small peace offering I undertake to be very brief on this occasion.
  New Clause 4 is of immense importance to the farming community in the context of the Common Market. I should say at the outset, however, that there are certain aspects of the new Clause about which I am not altogether happy. As one who believes in devolution of authority and in allowing people—in the present Government's phrase—to stand on their own feet and to get on with their own tasks in life, I am not altogether happy at the proposal that representatives from each group would be appointed after consultation with the Minister. Equally, I am not quite happy at the idea that the chairman of the new advisory committee should be appointed by the Minister.
  I can well understand the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in framing the new Clause in this way, since he hopes one day to be Minister himself and he wants to be involved in the administration of the advisory committee. For my part, however, I should argue forcefully that there is need for a great devolution of authority in this respect, and the proposed advisory committee could have been used as a step in that direction.
  In my view, advisory committees on a regional basis could be even more effective than a national advisory committee. The problems of agriculture in Wales, in Scotland and in East Anglia, for example, differ considerably, as do the problems of West Wales from those in Glamorganshire. I feel, therefore, that regional advisory committees could have led to a more effective analysis of the situation. But, be that as it may, this is a step in the right direction.
  Each group which would be represented on the advisory committee is

  1027
  directly involved in and affected by the implementation of the common agricultural policy. There is great concern about various aspects of the CAP among British farmers, consumers have a direct interest in the way prices will increase, and so on. It will be no good the Minister saying that this is just another advisory committee in a long line of such committees over the years, and we shall now have a new set-up. Indeed, we shall have a new set-up, but it will be highly undemocratic. It will be exceptionally bureaucratic, something we have never experienced in agriculture since the war. What will happen next year will be a new departure. We shall have a bureaucratic system and considerably less democratic control.
  I turn to the question of the agricultural executive committees. In Committee the Minister of State said that there were 800 people involved in such committees. According to him, the work which they were doing was not of immense significance. Yet he went on to talk about the advice which they gave in difficult grant and subsidy cases and the borderline cases which often arose on the hills and uplands. They advise the Minister whether he should allow late claims in cases of hardship.
  For 25 years the county committees have performed an important task. At times they have been appeal bodies to which farmers, feeling aggrieved about the decisions of the Minister, could go either through their union or directly to the chairman of the committee and ask for a review or examination of the case. The value of this procedure was that the farmer knew that his case would be reexamined, not by officials, but by other farmers. If a hill farmer genuinely believed that he was entitled to the hill sheep or cow subsidy and the Department and the local official said that he did not fall within the regulations, a panel would be set up, together with a farmer who was a member of the county committee, to examine the situation.
  The Minister will have to give better excuses than that we shall save £150,000 every year as a result of abolishing the agricultural executive committees. The liaison officer to whom farmers could go direct was the contact with the Minister. The danger of what is proposed in the
  1028
  Bill and of what will happen when we enter the Common Market is that consultation and contact will be lost, and people will feel that they do not matter and that decisions may be taken without their control or without their being asked for their opinion.
  The Minister will have to adduce far better arguments than those which were adduced in Committee. To talk about saving £150,000 and, at the same time, to devote hundreds of millions of pounds across the exchanges to the common agricultural policy and French farmers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State gets excited when we talk about the French farmers, so I had better leave the matter there.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A saving of £150,000 may be unimportant to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), but to the ordinary people and taxpayers of this country any saving is worth while. The hon. Gentleman's attitude is typical of that of his party when it was in office. It had no care for the taxpayers' money; it was there to spend and to run through the fingers of the Government. Precisely the same attitude has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those who at a future election will have to bear in mind that the Labour Party aspires to government will remember the speech of the hon. Gentleman and his lack of husbandry of the resources of the country.
  This debate has demonstrated three things. First, we have been entertained yet again to a classic demonstration of the Euro-phobia of the Labour Party. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) continually refers to my right hon. Friend the Minister and others among my colleagues as Euro-fanatics. The Labour Party aspires to be an international party. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, it teetered on the brink of the Common Market, but it had neither the courage nor the resolution to continue with its policy. No one more than the right hon. Gentleman has gone back on almost everything which was said and written about Europe when the Labour Party was in office. Such speeches as we have heard today, and lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, which

  1029
  we had so often in the debates on the Common Market, come ill from the Opposition.
  Secondly, the Labour Party has demonstrated yet again that it never moves with the times. What was good enough for the right hon. Member for Workington in 1947 is good enough for him today. Although the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) may be unable to do his mathematics properly, I believe that, 25 years on, we must adjust and adapt our policies to the new situation and not maintain them exactly as they are. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was the one hon. Member opposite who at least paid lip service to the possibility of reforms and he was prepared to countenance them, no matter how dogmatic—and he is dogmatic—and traditionalist the right hon. Member for Workington may be. We have had a demonstration, not only of Euro-phobia, but of conservatism of the most reactionary sort from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Peart: I was trying to demonstrate that the 1947 Act, later amended by the 1957 Act and subsequent legislation which I had the honour to pilot through the House, was far superior to anything which had emerged from Brussels. Even Dr. Mansholt, the German Foreign Minister recently and Ministers in this country know full well in their hearts that inevitably the common agricultural policy will have to be altered and will have to come nearer to our system.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What conceit! The 1947 and 1957 Acts are good, and I should be the first to pay tribute to the benefits which they have brought to farming. But we on this side of the House are not content with what is good. We believe in excellence and improvement. We do not sit back on our laurels, as the right hon. Gentleman does, feeling content with what we have. We are prepared to look at the legislation and structure of government and to improve it. The right hon. Gentleman, by his intervention, has demonstrated how much of a conservative he is.
  The third main point which this debate has demonstrated is that the right hon. Gentleman in particular but hon. Members opposite in general have not only
  1030
  completely ignored what was said in Committee and failed to read the reports of the Committee proceedings but have failed to understand what we are doing and why.
  The first point that I make in dealing with the matters raised in the debate is that what we propose in the Bill about the agricultural executive committees has nothing to do with Europe, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out. As we said in Committee, this has been done for its own reasons, and I shall give them in a moment—
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  No Motion being made thereon, further Proceeding stood adjourned pursuant to Standing Order No. 190 (Procedure at time of Private Business) till Tuesday next.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Postponed Proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I want to return to the substance of the Amendment and the new Clause. It is important to differentiate between the two main lines which have run through the debate. The first, which concerns Amendment No. 55, is why we are removing the agricultural executive committees. In this connection, I have to repeat some of the arguments that I put forward in Committee. If they did not go home then, they may tonight. I shall then turn to the more specific aspects of the new Clause.
  I must join the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite in paying tribute to the useful work that the agricultural executive committees have done over the years. At the same time, unlike right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

  1031
  opposite, we on this side move with the times. We are prepared to recognise that the work of those committees has been progressively reduced over the years to the point where the present committee system cannot be justified in the modern situation.
  It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend announced in January last year that he proposed to replace the county agricultural executive committees in England and Wales by small regional panels. Since then the committees have been extremely co-operative in our various plans and in identifying potential activities. The committee system included 58 county agricultural executive committees, their sub-committees and their district committees—more than 300 bodies in all. We think that this is too expensive and elaborate for the, few remaining tasks. Similarly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in January his intention to abolish the 11 agricultural executive committees and their sub-committees in Scotland and, over the period since then, their work has been concentrated on their essential statutory tasks.
  The county agricultural executive committees in England and Wales had important and extensive statutory and executive functions for many years after they were first set up. They supervised bad farmers. They arbitrated between landlord and tenant. They administered a wide range of services. They paid grants and subsidies to farmers. But now they exercise none of those functions. Their main rôle is to provide a two-way channel of communication between the Government and the grassroots of the agriculture industry.
  I agree with right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite about the importance of this two-way communication of ideas and other links between the Government and the industry. However, it is our view that the regional panels that we propose to set up will carry out these functions and the other main task which is that of advising Ministers on farmers' representations against decisions by officials in grant or subsidy cases most effectively This will be more in keeping with the present needs of the industry, and that is the main reason why we feel that there is no
  1032
  need to keep the county agricultural executive committees in existence in future.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that two-way contact is important. At the same time in Wales he is disbanding 12 committees and putting two in their place.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have to see whether the job can be done as well by the two panels. We have some experience of this in Scotland. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) knows that we have our Winter Keep Consultative Panel, and the hon. Gentleman is always ready to point out what good and valuable work it does. This is one panel for the whole of Scotland, though of course it has its sub-panels. However it looks not only at problems concerning the winter keep scheme and classification. It also provides a great deal of useful information. It is intended in Scotland that the advisory and review functions of the old agricultural executive committees shall be taken over by a new panel to be known as the Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel which will be an expanded form of our present Winter Keep Consultative Panel.
  Our view is that there is insufficient essential work for these committees to do. In the circumstances we feel that it would be wrong to continue the present committee structure. We are anxious to bring the committees to an end and to set up the new panels as soon as possible. By doing this we shall be making worthwhile savings in public funds. At the same time we shall be making worthwhile savings in the time of a number of very busy people. It would be both wrong and wasteful to keep these committees in existence. This important consultative work on which the party opposite places great emphasis can be done equally well by the new panels, without keeping a top heavy structure like the agricultural executive committees.
  I turn now to the new Clause.
  Mr. Peart: About time.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman wished to know our arguments about the executive committees. I assume that he wanted me to answer his questions.

  1033
  The new Clause deals with effective consultation. I cannot accept nor can I recommend the House to accept that the right way of achieving effective consultation is to create by Statute an advisory committee, with the obligation to consult it on the issues listed in the Clause.
  I summarise my arguments under three heads. First, to formalise consultation in the hard and fast statutory way laid down in the new Clause would be bound to make consultation slower and more rigid. It would create delay in the implementation of common policy, and this could be damaging to the interests of our own producers and traders and of our consumers. If the Clause were enacted, it would be likely that consultations with the advisory committee would tend to become a very ineffective substitute for the present consultations that we have with the unions, trade associations and other bodies.
  The second main objection to the Clause concerns the range of the problems about which the committee would advise the Government. It is so wide that the committee could not include those with specialist knowledge and, therefore, its function would be in the broadest general advisory sense. I do not believe that it could achieve fully the objectives which hon. Members would like it to achieve. The Clause would oblige the Minister to consult this body on all problems arising on the implementation of the common agricultural policy, including, presumably, specialised problems of certain commodities. This would introduce rigidity and delays.
  Third—this is the most important point—if the new Clause were enacted it would import into the existing procedures under the Agricultural Marketing Acts a new requirement to consult the advisory committee to suggest this ignores the fact that these procedures are designed to ensure that all interests have an opportunity to express their views on the introduction of a marketing scheme or on changes in the marketing scheme and to have those views independently assessed. I am not convinced that an additional stage is necessary in these procedures.
  We are being realistic in what we are doing about the functions of the agricultural executive committees. We are approaching their major function of con-
  1034
  sultation in a much more sensible way which will give just as good value through the panels.
  Although I sympathise with the view of hon. Members opposite that consultation is important at all stages, I believe that it would produce rigidities and delays because of the width of the area they are trying to cover. The new Clause is unnecessary, because the procedure is laid down under the Act for consultation and changes. I reject entirely the Euro-phobia of hon. Members opposite and I cannot advise the House to accept either the new Clause or the Amendment.
  Mr. Buchan: It is a sad day for the House. After the co-operation and wisdom we experienced in Committee, we should have had a rather more forthcoming attitude from the Minister. I intend no disrespect to the junior Minister when I say that this debate should have been replied to by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Minister, who at a moment's notice can announce the setting up of new intervention boards, should have been here to defend this aspect of his policy, because this goes to the heart of what he is doing to our agricultural background and policy. It should not have been left to the junior Minister to reply to this debate. The hon. Gentleman should not have been persuaded to put a squib at his back and start off with those pyrotechnics, because this is a serious issue.
  The arguments presented by the Under-Secretary were not only superficial. He said that he respects our motives. I did not respect the bases of his argument. I believe that they are phoney and that he knows that they are phoney. In saying that I do not intend to engage in pyrotechnics across the Dispatch Box.
  The Under-Secretary gave us that nonsense about saving £150,000 on the present structure. This is the Government who will cost us about £450 million across the exchanges by the time they come to the end of their policy and who, in the pursuance of their European adventure, will take £500 million out of the pockets of the lowest quarter of the people. The poorest quarter will pay. Half of it will be given to the Common Market farmers and half will be transferred to the wealthy in Britain in the form of tax cuts.

  1035
  As the Government are saying to the poorest of the British people that they can afford an enormous amount of extra money to pay for the Government's Common Market agricultural policy, we should not be told that the whole of our consultative processes are being scrapped to save £150,000.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that I require no lecture from him on what is phoney? Nor should he lecture a Government who in their two years in office have reduced taxation by £3,000 million a year.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not care greatly whether the hon. Gentleman wants to get lectures. He needs them. I shall deal with the question of taxation, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that. If I had raised it, I should doubtless have been ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The second piece of nonsense we had from the Under-Secretary was that this is somehow linked with our Euro-phobia. On the contrary, the whole background and basis of the scrapping of the consultative classes is the Common Market adventure. The change to the panels is tied up with the so-called Common Market's consultative measures. In our debates on the European Communities Bill we considered what was regarded as consultation and negotiation and the Solicitor-General nipped in rather like the Official Solicitor—and tried to defend—not very successfully—the consultative processes of the Common Market.
  The Under-Secretary's third argument was that we did not move with the times. This was from a Government who are hooking and linking our agricultural policy on to the near mediæval peasant economy of Western Europe. Britain's agricultural economy and structure, dating very largely from the 1947 Act, is a century ahead of the organisation and structure in the Common Market, but that is what the Government are trying to take us back to. For some reason, hon. Members opposite think that movement is progress; but movement is not always progress. People can move backwards.
  Then the Under-Secretary said that we are ignoring all that was said in Com-
  1036
  mittee. On the contrary, we understand very clearly from what was said in Committee the need for us to table, not only the defensive Amendment No. 55, but also the new Clause to establish an advisory committee.
  The rejection of our proposal is based on the incredible argument of rigidity, delay and formalisation. The Government reject an advisory board on the ground that it would be rigid, but they are writing into our agricultural system an Intervention Board which will be responsible for consultation with no one. It will have the task of directly implementing within Britain the policy of the Common Market. It will be rigid and formalised and acting upon decisions and price levels arrived at, not in Britain, but in Brussels. Therefore, the Government should not talk to us about rigidity and inflexibility.
  The right hon. Gentleman announced the Intervention Board in reply to an Amendment. It should have been introduced in a White Paper which described at length its functions. The Government, who talk glibly about saving the taxpayers' money, then set up a board which they say candidly will be dealing with large sums of money and affecting the activities of a great many people.
  We believe that when it deals with large sums of money and affects the lives of the people then we have the right to have a say. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept this, but this is what we are trying to achieve. They should not bring forward this kind of argument and ask a junior Minister to present it. The Government say that the advisory board we propose is too wide and would have insufficient knowledge. Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of a staff of experts to advise an advisory board? Why not draw upon that? Is it because he is putting so many civil servants into the intervention Board that there will be none left? Someone asked earlier about the numbers involved in the board. We have been told that there will be 200 in the board headquarters at Reading alone. This is another bureaucracy. They should not come forward to us with nonsense about inflexibility and bureaucracy because it is they who are introducing this—a Government who were elected to cut back the Civil Service.
  Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He would know, if he had done his homework, that the abolition of the deficiency payments scheme over the next two three or four years will more than release enough members of the "bureaucracy" as he calls it to run any Intervention Board.
  Mr. Buchan: I am not particularly concerned about that. It seems as though the Government are spending half their time cutting down the numbers of people doing useful work and replacing them with people doing bureaucratic, statistical work. Cut back on the advisory service, on all those things that help production and replace it with the Intervention Board, is what the right hon. Gentleman says. If he regards that as being to his credit, I am happy that he should have it.
  There are other reasons why we should have this advisory board. Above all there is the consumer interest. We got very short shrift in some of our earlier comments about the rôle of the co-operative movement. What we hope is that when the Government accept this board, after they had been convinced by my speech, they will pay some attention to the cooperative movement which has given so much advice to consumers.
  I must stress the question of prices. We are in grave danger of handing over our own faltering means of preventing price increases to an outside body in the Common Market. It is important to understand what is happening here. The background is that between May and June this year the retail food price index jumped by 1·7 points. That was one of the highest rises ever, indeed it has only once been exceeded and that was last year when the rise was 2·6 points. That is the record of this Government. In 1970 the increase was 0·9, a third of what it was last year. The year before that it actually went down. Let us have no more nonsense
  from the Government, when we discuss the emergency powers next Tuesday, saying that they intend to hold down prices. They had better get a system to do it, because we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman.
  We remember what he said. We remember his policy. It was clearly enunciated.
  Mr. Torney: "At a stroke".
  Mr. Buchan: Not just "At a stroke". That was his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister did not mean that. I remember what the right hon. Gentleman said in a debate with me some years ago. He said that:
  "The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or fishing industries."
  This is why they want to cut out consultation. They want to wipe that out altogether. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "If we did that, we would get competition working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
  The man who comes to this Dispatch Box every few weeks to say how he is trying to keep down the price of food is a high-price theorist. He believes that the people of this country have been molly-coddled. This is why we need the new Clause, that is why we need to establish this kind of advisory board and that is why we need to restore consultative conditions—because we have to defend both the industry and the ordinary people against the bureaucratic, inflexible, rigid and doctrinaire policy of the Tory Party.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 116.

  Division No. 334.]

  AYES

  [7.30 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foley, Maurice

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Foot, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cronin, John

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Deakins, Eric

  Harper, Joseph

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Dormand. J. D.

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch, F'bury)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Horam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Strang, Gavin

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Moyle, Roland

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kerr, Russell

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Lamond, James

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Tinn, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Palmer, Arthur

  Torney, Tom

  Lawson, George

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Wallace, George

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Whitlock, William

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mackie, John

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mendelson, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  Millan, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stallard, A. W.

  NOES

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Benyon, W.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Percival, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bray, Ronald

  Holland, Philip

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

  Brewis, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Redmond, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Reed, Laurance Bolton, E.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rost, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

  Clegg, Walter

  Kilfedder, James

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Simeons, Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Costain, A. P.

  Knox, David

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Crouch, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Crowder, F. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sutcliffe, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dixon, Piers

  Longden, Gilbert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Drayson. G. B.

  McLaren, Martin

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Emery Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wall, Patrick

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fowler, Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fox, Marcus

  Molyneaux, James

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Money, Ernle

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Wilkinson, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Morrison, Charles

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Green, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  Neave, Airey

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Normanton, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Nott, John

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Gurden, Harold

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Mr. Michael Jopling.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

  GRANTS UNDER SECTION 61 OF AGRICUL- TURE ACT 1967 FOR CO-OPERATIVE SLAUGHTERHOUSES
  '(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactments, grants may be made under section 61(1) of the Agriculture Act 1967 for the purposes of co-operation in providing slaughterhouse facilities for the preparation and marketing of livestock.
  (2) Section 62(1) of the said Act shall be amended by adding at the end of that subsection the words "and the slaughtering, pre-
  1040
  paration and marketing of livestock"'—[Mr. Mackie.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I shall try to move it as briefly as I can, and in so doing I refer to the argument which arose in the last debate, which in some ways affects what I shall say. We know that the Government want to save the taxpayer money and that they have put a lot of money into the economy. But that money has caused prices to rise considerably. It has probably caused

  1041
  more inflation than anything else and no one has benefited.
  I move the Clause in the interests of the consumer, who has paid for the saving in taxation. On-cost figures for beef in this country between the time when it leaves the farm and reaches the shops average about 50 per cent. or more. I am not suggesting that this has anything to do with the Common Market but I have figures from various places in Europe which show that their on-costs for meat were about 30 per cent. or a little more. This was mainly achieved by farmers' co-operatives selling their produce direct from the farm to the shop. The Clause will bring similar advantages to British farmers. If Government grants given through the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation were extended to the provision of slaughterhouse facilities it would lead to the provision of more of those facilities. I would like co-operatives to be able to hire those facilities.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that if the end price is good enough farmers will be able to look after themselves, or that if it is a good thing for farmers to do they should do it without a grant. The Minister has said this repeatedly in debates; I think I have fairly paraphrased what he said. Many of the advances in farming since he became a farmer, and certainly in my lifetime, have happened because of the attraction of grants. There have been improvements in drainage, ploughing up, farm buildings and so on, and, however prosperous the farmer, none of this would have been done without the attraction of the grant. Maybe it could be attributed to psychology, but if the Clause were carried it would help not only the farmer but the consumer, too.
  When we established the Central Council we gave grants towards the preparation and marketing of many farm products. This included grain, peas and potatoes. I cannot see that the preparation of those commodities is very much different from the slaughtering of meat. The slaughtering of meat, particularly beef, should come under the aegis of the Central Council, and the Minister should give it funds to do so.
  Mr. Prior: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Enfield, East
  1042
  (Mr. Mackie) has said. I do not want it to be thought that, in making the remarks I have made in the past and will probably make in the future about the need for the industry to look to the end price for its return, I do not think there are various facets of agriculture, fisheries and other industries in which subsidies or grants have an important part to play. In the last two years I have shown that I regard some grants as being important for the life of the industry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned drainage grants, cattle grant schemes, and so on, and these I have fully supported. I have also supported the making of grants for co-operative enterprises amongst groups of farmers.
  The new Clause would place beyond doubt the power of Ministers to provide by a scheme for grants to be paid on co-operative slaughterhouses. Anything which helps to reduce the on-cost between the farm gate and the housewife's table should be encouraged, and for this reason I set up two years ago a committee under Sir James Barker to inquire into the whole system of contract farming. The committee has now reported to me. The report is being printed and it will be available towards the end of September. I have also been considering what steps the Government should take in their marketing policy and how this review will fit in with the policies being considered for greater producer co-operation in the Community.
  The hon. Gentleman is asking for an extension in a scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government and was originally intended to help farmers to co-operate in activities which are normally carried out on the farm itself. Many of the vegetable co-operatives which have been set up are either on the farm or very close to the farm, generally where the products are used and where the co-operative benefits a small group of farms.
  The European Community has before it a draft regulation dealing with assistance to producer groups, and the activities of groups which would qualify for aid if the draft regulation came into force concern the production and marketing of members' produce. Most are activities normally associated with farming, but there are some exceptions, including the

  1043
  provision and operation of slaughterhouses to deal with members' livestock. The document is only a draft, and we shall be fully consulted on it. I would much prefer to wait and see the form that the regulation will take before proceeding further with this idea.
  I am not unsympathetic towards the case which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward; it is worth considering. But I want to get it right in the context of Sir James Barker's report, in the context of the proposals we are considering for marketing generally and in the context of the Community's draft regulation. For that reason I do not wish to proceed with the idea at the moment, but I think the House will want me to look favourably at the whole question of producer co-operation and not necessarily to restrict it as it is being restricted now.
  That is as far as I can go today, but I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an indication that we are, broadly speaking, sympathetic to his case.
  Mr. Mackie: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, he has never been afraid to give us an idea of the content of reports—for instance, the price review—before they are published. Would he like to say what is in Sir James Barker's report?
  Mr. Prior: That would be improper. As I have told the House in a Written Answer, it is a useful report, but it needs to be seen in conjunction with other ideas which I hope to put forward by the time we return to Parliament after the recess.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Clause has been ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). As always, his case was well documented and persuasive. He argued that the Amendment was important to producers and consumers alike, and that argument has been accepted by the Minister, whose response has not been unreasonable.
  The Clause and the Amendment provide an opportunity for us to pay a well deserved tribute to Sir Roger Falk and his colleagues at the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation. With more help from the
  1044
  Government the central council could have made more progress, and it is sad that producer co-operation has not received the impetus it deserves.
  My views were explained at some length in an article which I contributed to the Business News section of The Times, in which I explained how, with the encouragement of the central council, farms in England and Scotland were being brought together. I gave examples of producer co-operation linking farms in the two parts of the country. I received several inquiries from West Germany after my article appeared. My correspondents felt that what the central council was doing was extremely important and could be of considerable value in West Germany.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take seriously the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. All on this side of the House feel that producer co-operation should now be given a new impetus. I recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) saying that he took greater pride in having set up the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation than in anything else he did as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that his initiative in setting up the central council will be seen in years ahead as an important achievement in our agricultural industry.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look sympathetically and constructively at the points raised in the debate. With the assurance that he has given, I feel sure that my hon. Friend will wish to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Mackie: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps some of his hon. and right hon. Friends will not so warmly welcome his remarks about the linking with Common Market countries.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  ERADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS
  Mr. Prior: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 5, leave out Clause 1.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 3 in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
  () An animal slaughtered pursuant to the next following subsection shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section 17 (compensation) as having been slaughtered under that section and for the purposes of sections 19(5), (6) and (7) of the said Act of 1950 (ancillary provisions as to slaughter and compensation) as having been slaughtered under that Act at the direction of the Minister.
  No. 31, in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
  (7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis.
  (8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcases or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcases or products.
  No. 32, in the Title, line 2, after 'animals', insert:
  'to provide for industrial injury benefits to be payable to persons affected by brucellosis'.
  Mr. Prior: I do not know in what way the House would like me to deal with the other Amendments which are taken with my Amendment No. 47 since they are Amendments to a Clause which I am proposing to remove from the Bill. Perhaps I shall be allowed to answer any points which arise in this discussion by making a short speech at the end of the debate, if that is in order.
  I am sometimes accused by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) of being dogmatic. Yet here I am coming to the House and asking hon. Members to remove a Clause of the Bill which the Government thought was essential for the brucellosis scheme and which received a general welcome at that time. There-
  1046
  fore, I owe the House an apology for what perhaps might be considered to have been a waste of the valuable time of the House. I also owe the House a full explanation why we have taken this step.
  The original compensation terms for compulsory eradication of brucellosis included the payment of replacement grants on slaughtered reactors and incentives on beef and milk from the time of the first test until one year after accreditation. In addition, the owner was given the responsibility of disposing of reactors, but retained the carcase realisation price. Although these terms were not to be applied compulsorily until November of this year, they were in the meantime offered on a voluntary basis to owners in the first eradication areas. We agreed with the Farmers' Unions in March, 1971, that the operation of the scheme during this "voluntary year" would be reviewed in 1972, with particular reference to its impact on heavily infected herds.
  We carried out this review in the spring. In the course of that review it became clear to us that, particularly in view of the substantial increase in cattle prices during the second half of 1971, the existing compulsory terms needed revision and that owners of the more heavily infected herds had suffered significant losses. Nowhere was this more marked than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend sitting in on this debate. His constituents assembled in unaccustomed crowds to protest at the inequities of the Government scheme, and we tried to meet his criticisms. The terms also tended to operate inequitably between owners of herds of different types and breeds. The Farmers' Unions had made it plain to us that they felt that the fairest way to compensate herd owners whose stocks are slaughtered compulsorily is to relate compensation to the value of the animals concerned.
  We therefore decided, after consultation with the unions, to replace the existing terms by a new scheme, which I announced on 19th May. This scheme will provide for the payment of compensation for reactors at the full market value during the pre-accreditation period, subject to a limit of £240 per animal. Valuations will be agreed with the owner or, in the absence of agreement, by an

  1047
  independent valuer, and will be based on the non-accredited market value of the animal. In accredited herds—that is to say, herds which have become brucellosis-free—compensation for reactors will be paid at 75 per cent. of market value, but in these cases the animals will be valued as accredited animals and will be subject to a maximum payment of £180 per animal. The Government will take possession of the reactors, arrange for their slaughter and retain the carcase realisation price.
  Under these new arrangements, the powers which Ministers would be given under Clause 1 of this Bill are no longer necessary. We shall not need to require owners to dispose of reactors, except by agreement under the voluntary incentives scheme, nor shall we need powers to pay compensation in a form unrelated to market value. Instead, we shall simply be acting in the future under the existing slaughter and compensation powers contained in Sections 17 and 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act and will be making the necessary orders later this year. Rather than put legislation on the Statute Book which will not be required, we have therefore decided to delete Clause 1.
  I should make it clear that this in no way affects the pace of our eradication programme. My right hon. Friend and I have already announced the areas in Great Britain into which eradication will extend up to the end of 1973 and those further areas in which a start is likely some time in 1974 or 1975.
  My right hon. Friend and I feel that we now have a scheme which is fair and which will be accepted as such by the industry as a whole. We are encouraged in this by the generous welcome and support which the National Farmers Unions have given to the new arrangements. Indeed, it would be impossible to eradicate this disease unless we were assured of the wholehearted co-operation of the industry in this most difficult of tasks.
  In withdrawing this Clause, I apologise again to the House for having put hon. Members to the trouble of the long discussion which took place on an earlier occasion. I am grateful for all the trouble hon. Members took in the debate to let me know their views on what has
  1048
  been perhaps an unsuccessful but genuine attempt to provide a new form of compensation, as a result of which we have found that we have now to go back to the original idea.
  Mr. Mackie: We are indebted to the Minister for his explanation of the deletion of Clause 1. He has explained the matter very fully, and it is an excellent scheme.
  The only point of criticism—and I must declare my interest in this subject because I have an accredited herd—is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has provided for any system which will keep observation on values. The value of cattle has jumped to an alarming extent. Since the right hon. Gentleman made the valuation in May, the price of beef has risen by £20 to £50. Therefore, some system is needed to look at the situation as a whole, especially as we are so near to approaching Common Market values. The right hon. Gentleman will need to look at this matter again if he wants to be fair to the agricultural community.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The Minister is to be congratulated on putting into being a better system than the one which was originally proposed. He should not give the credit only to hon. Members on his own side of the House, since we have impressed on him the need to change the scheme if he is to get closer co-operation. The Farmbers' Unions in Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire—and I am speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan)—have pressed the Minister on this matter. I remember attending one meeting at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire and I pressed for a closer alliance and the payment of more realistic compensation.
  The Minister knows that Carmarthenshire and West Wales are heavily involved in the present scheme. I pay tribute to the farmers of West Wales for their great co-operation since they have again led the way. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the situation over TB-testing in which the farmers of West Wales and Carmarthenshire were the pioneers of that scheme back in the late 1940s.
  8.0 p.m.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about

  1049
  keeping an eye on the market value of accredited herds. The NFU in Carmarthenshire wrote to me about this matter on 11th February, 1972. The Minister of State had this document during the meeting we had with him. The document states:
  "Accredited animals have been known to reach £250 in local marts and it is very difficult to get anything for under £200."
  That was in February, not May.
  I do not wish the Minister to detract from what he is proposing, but we must keep an eye on the market value of accredited herds. To fix a figure for May, 1972, when, according to the NFU in my county, it was out of date on 11th February, 1972, and to stick to that figure continuously for a year or so would bring us back to the scheme which operated before these proposals. The full compensation criterion would diminish if we stuck to what the Minister has proposed of £240 as the full market value for accredited herds with reactors at 75 per cent. of the market value with a limit of £180. If the Minister will look at this matter over the coming months and can then show that some relationship exists between market value and compensation, I am sure that the Farmers Unions in Wales would welcome the proposal.
  Mr. Peart: I welcome the Minister's approach to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about being chastised for being dogmatic. I recall that he sometimes accused me of being dogmatic. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman said that he was pragmatic.
  The Minister is right to come to the House and frankly admit that he does not need the Clause. We had a long debate on this matter in Committee. I would have participated in the debate, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right and only action. After all, he has consulted the industry and looked into the matter very carefully. I welcomed the Minister's initial moves and am proud of the fact—I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, that I am not being conceited when I claim credit—that I started the voluntary scheme. I am glad the Minister has built on it. I hope that he achieves success.
  We want to eradicate brucellosis. I have here an article from Community
  1050
  Medicine of 21st July, 1972, which deals with a brucellosis outbreak in Peeblesshire which has affected five families of human beings. Therefore, it is an important matter for the community.
  My hon. Friends have put points to the Minister concerning compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has made his case. We were to have a discussion on our Amendment No. 31 to Clause 1 which relates to compensation for people connected with the industry. Amendment No. 31 seeks, in page 2, line 39, at the end to insert the following:
  (7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis.
  (8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcasses or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcasses or products.
  We were thinking particularly of the veterinary worker, the slaughterhouse worker, the laboratory worker and, of course, the farm worker who is in daily contact with the herds. We believe that this would have been a useful addition to the Clause. Even though the Minister is withdrawing the Clause, I am sure that he will note the points we have made and bear them in mind. After all, the right hon. Gentleman may bring in a regulation concerning this matter.
  I wish the Minister well with his scheme. I know that he will have the co-operation of the whole industry. I therefore advise my hon. Friends to accept the Minister's view.
  Mr. Prior: With the permission of the House I should like to reply briefly.
  On the right hon. Gentleman's last point dealing with Amendment No. 31, that brucellosis should be a prescribed industrial disease, I should point out that this has now taken place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has accepted the recommendation of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that brucellosis should be prescribed as an industrial disease for the

  1051
  occupations mentioned in the Amendment. The necessary regulations have recently been laid before the House and came into operation on 31st July. To that extent that point is covered.
  Concerning values, we have agreed with the NFU to periodical reviews. It seems that the NFU will not be slow to put before us its views on when values should be reviewed. The success of the incentive scheme has been such that the reservoir of brucella-free cattle has not been building up sufficiently fast for those herds which need replacement. In some parts of the country the premium on accredited stock is quite considerable. While I am not suggesting that we shall have to slow down the scheme in any way, I think we must watch that we do not get accredited cattle values going through the roof.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Only two days ago my right hon. Friend's Ministry was able to issue an optimistic and encouraging statement about the latest returns, which showed that there was a considerable increase in the breeding herd. Does he know what proportion of the increase is in the accredited herds?
  Mr. Prior: No. Our figures on the census returns are not accurate enough to tell us that. I should think that it is particularly in the accredited herds that expansion will come because farmers will recognise that the premium paid on their stock is considerable. Certainly many farmers are increasing the size of their accredited herds considerably. None of us likes the high prices we have had, but they are an indication of the demand for stock and, as such, are to be welcomed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) pointed out, the number of heifers in calf is up by 12 per cent. on a year ago and the number of beef heifers in calf is up by the fantastic amount of 52 per cent. on a year ago. That indicates that the industry is certainly expanding very rapidly.
  I should refer to the voluntary incentive scheme. Just over two years ago about 15,000 herds were taking part in the voluntary accreditation scheme. Since that time the figure has increased to 65,000 herds. To go up from 15,000 to
  1052
  65,000 in two years is a phenomenal rate of increase. It means that at least half the herds in the country are either accredited already or in the process of becoming accredited. We are getting on pretty well.
  I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members for the way in which they have accepted the Amendment and assuring them that we shall be keeping a careful watch on prices. No doubt the NFU will be in touch with us. I am glad that the Amendment has been as well received in Wales as in Westmorland.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  CONTROL OF ZOONOSES
  Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 3, line 10, at end insert:
  () For the purpose of preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases and related health risks to persons involved in agriculture and the food processing industries the Minister shall establish a national advisory committee representing the medical and veterinary professions, farmers, landowners, farmworkers and the food processing trade empowered to undertake:

  (a) research into zoonoses, and

  (b) the preparation of recommendations to the Minister on matters of prevention, control and eradication.—[Mr. Buchan]

  Mr. Strang: Hon. Members will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) was particularly interested in this question and there was a debate whether brucellosis was covered by the Clause. As has been said, when we talk about zoonotic diseases we are talking about important diseases which affect livestock, such as brucellosis, anthrax and Newcastle disease, and I do not think that anyone would want to minimise the serious effects which these diseases have on humans who are unfortunate enough to contract them.
  Linked with this problem is the question of the use of antibiotics on livestock. While on a narrow definition one could perhaps not look upon this as a zoonotic disease it is, nevertheless, a similar problem, in that applying antibiotics on a substantial scale to livestock means that the micro-organisms in the livestock develop immunity to them.

  1053
  These are then transferred to human beings dealing with the livestock, and the immunity of the micro-organisms which have been so transferred can then be transferred to the micro-organisms which may have developed in humans as a disease and antibiotics are no longer effective. To that extent the problem is similar to that of zoonotic diseases.
  It is worth mentioning that a number of hon. Members, including myself and, more recently, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), have questioned the Minister about the importation of meat from countries which are able to use antibiotics on a scale which is prohibited here. The Minister has replied that although some of the meat coming into the country is produced in this way, it is only a small amount. I wonder what method the Minister uses to assess the amount. I wonder whether he is satisfied with the present situation. Should not we seek to ban the importation of meat which we suspect may be produced in this way? I wonder what the position will be when we enter the EEC? We have a much more strict approach to the question than do the Community countries and I hope that their standards will be raised to come into line with ours, rather than that ours are lowered in order to harmonise with the Community.
  Mr. Deakins: Wishful thinking.
  Mr. Strang: My hon. Friends who put down the Amendment thought that in order to deal with the importation of cattle given antibiotics and to deal also with the wider question of zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis and the problems facing those who have to deal with livestock it would be useful to set up a committee of this nature, and I hope that the Minister will make some conciliatory and sympathetic noises.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put forward the case for the Amendment. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I did not realise that he intended to raise the matter of antibiotics as I did not think, strictly, that it was covered by the Amendment. However, I have taken note of what he said, and if anything in particular requires action I shall consider taking it.
  1054
  The Amendment is concerned with zoonoses. We fully accept that there should be administrative machinery to investigate the risk to health of persons engaged in agriculture and the food processing industries from zoonotic diseases and for instituting suitable precautions where necessary. We do not, however, see the need to establish new machinery for this purpose, as there are already arrangements for considering occupational health problems, from whatever cause they arise, including those which might be associated with zoonoses.
  We have to recognise that although the disease or infection may be carried through from live animals, from carcases or from animal products, the risks to which farm workers are subjected are different from those which affect people in the food-processing industries. This is largely because of the different environments in which the two kinds of workers operate, and therefore we have to look at the two problems separately.
  Looking first at the problem as it affects agricultural workers, I can tell the House that we have recently reconstituted a working group which is charged with responsibility for investigating problems of the working environment. The group will function in much the same way as the national advisory committee provided for in the Amendment and will bring together representatives of various interests concerned with whatever problems are being examined.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for occupational health in all factories and other premises covered by the Factories Acts including those in the food processing industries, and the Industrial Health Advisory Committee largely fulfils the role of the committee proposed in the Amendment and could consider the problems associated with zoonoses.
  I hope that the House will not think that I am being difficult or obstructive over this genuine Amendment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's desire to see that the problems of zoonoses and the risks to people employed in agriculture and the food-processing industries are properly dealt with. I share the aim of the hon. Gentleman, but I am satisfied that the existing machinery is adequate

  1055
  to do this job. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Buchan: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'or to animals affected with it'.
  I think that it may be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): If that is agreeable to the House, so be it.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  This is a fairly technical Amendment. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable the relevant powers of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 to be used in respect of any disease of or any organism carried in an animal designated under subsection (1) as constituting a risk to public health.
  Since the Committee stage we have been advised that subsection (2)(a) as drafted could possibly imply that the powers in the 1950 Act may be used only in relation to animals actually affected with a designated disease, and not to other animals which are suspected of being affected. Similarly, subsection (2)(b) could carry the same implication as regards animal carriers of designated organisms. Under the Diseases of Animals Act we are able, when necessary, to deal with animals that are affected with disease as well as with those suspected of being affected with disease. It is essential to cover both these categories of animal when the Act is used in relation to Clause 2. Therefore, the Amendments simply omit the words which would carry the implication we are anxious to avoid.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 20, leave out:
  'and to an animal in which it is present'.
  No. 8, in page 3, line 22, leave out:
  'and the animal were affected with that disease'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 9

  AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line, 38, at end insert:
  (3A) The said Act of 1931 shall have effect subject to the provisions of Schedule (Licensing of bulls) to this Act, being provisions amending and modifying that Act in various respects and enabling its operation to be suspended by order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendment No. 27 and sub-Amendment (a) thereto.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to comment on the sub-Amendment, although in winding up the debate I should be pleased to answer any points raised.
  These Amendments are concerned with bull licensing, a topic which occupied us for a considerable period in Committee and provided a great deal of interest and division, and which, for the first time in the Committee, cut totally across party lines. We had very full and interesting debates in Committee, which I have heard commented upon favourably outside the House by people who have said that there were Members of the House, in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who have a knowledge of these things and who are able to speak on these technical matters with considerable authority.
  However, at the end of the day in Committee, I am glad to say that the majority view, which was not reflected everywhere, was that the broad principles on which we intend to found future bull licensing are right. I think I am correct in summarising that the Committee accepted that until the more scientific methods of selection which are now widely used in the pig industry are generally used in the cattle industry, it would be desirable to continue licensing control to ensure that only bulls which are of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy are used for breeding.
  The Amendments do not affect those broad principles, but they give effect to a very important aspect of the Government's

  1057
  overall policy—that the Government should not provide services which can be provided by outside sources. In this instance, the Government have accepted the view of the veterinary profession that designated private veterinary surgeons in large animal practices can satisfactorily carry out bull licensing inspections. The Amendments will make this possible.
  It may be helpful to the House if I explain some of the background, and I apologise in advance because this will necessarily be at some length. It may also help those outside the House who are interested in these matters.
  The outline of the new system which we are to adopt for the licensing of bulls was determined at a meeting between agriculture Ministers and representatives of the industry and the veterinary profession held last August, when there was agreement in principle on arrangements under which the agriculture Departments would issue licences on the basis of a veterinary certificate to be obtained by the owner of the bull. Since last August, further meetings have been held with the profession and the industry to agree the details of the new arrangements. The new Schedule which is introduced by the new subsection (3A) to Clause 9 gives effect to those agreed arrangements.
  The principal effect of the new Schedule is to enable agriculture Ministers to grant or to refuse to grant a licence on consideration of a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon accredited for this purpose, by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. The certificate which is provided by the veterinary surgeon will indicate whether the bull answers to the requirements of the 1931 Act—in other words, whether on examination it proved to be of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was very concerned that the number of veterinary surgeons accredited to carry out bull licensing inspections should not be too restricted. I am glad to be able to say that the criteria which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association have laid down for their panel will mean that about 1,000 veterinary practices will be eligible. I understand that the veterinary profession
  1058
  has in mind a standard charge for a bull licensing inspection, and this will probably be £7 per bull.
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman says that 1,000 will be eligible. Will he state the total number of practices, so that we have some idea of the proportion of veterinary surgeons involved?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot give the figure off hand, but I hope that by the end of the debate I shall be able to answer that question.
  Continuing with the question of the cost of the licences, the profession has in mind a standard charge of £7. Additionally, the agriculture Departments will need to charge a licence application fee of about £1, possibly somewhat more, to cover their administrative and enforcement costs. The combined cost of a veterinary inspection and licence will be about £8. That is appreciably more than the present fee of £2·75, but, as we have made clear to the House in the past, the present fee is nowhere near in line with present costs. It would, indeed, have to be raised probably to significantly more than £8 if present bull licensing arrangements were to be continued.
  In our consultations with the veterinary profession and the industry, they made it very clear to us that they were concerned—the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was particularly involved with this point—lest a bull which had been turned down as unsuitable for licence by one veterinary practice might be submitted to another practice which was unaware of the fact that the bull had already been inspected for licensing purposes. To avoid such an abuse the last part of the Schedule provides that a veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull for licensing purposes must mark the bull to show that he has inspected it. Ministers are given power to refuse to grant a licence if the bull has not been so marked or if it has been inspected or marked by a different veterinary surgeon on a previous occasion. These are additional matters on which the veterinary surgeon will have to certify over and above the suitability of the bull for licence.
  The House would not expect me to go into greater detail on these matters at

  1059
  this stage. However, the form of the application and veterinary certificate, the design of the mark and the manner of marking will be prescribed and set out in regulations which will be subject to scrutiny in Parliament.
  I turn to the question of appeals, another matter which concerned certain hon. Members in Committee. At present a bull owner aggrieved by the rejection of a bull for licence has a right of appeal to an independent referee selected from a panel which consists, in the words of the 1931 Act,
  "of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult."
  I know from what was said in Committee and elsewhere that the House will want appeal provisions to continue. As initial licensing inspections are to be carried out by veterinary surgeons, it would be appropriate for referees to be appointed in future on the recommendation of the veterinary profession. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule makes that possible.
  The third paragraph of the Schedule gives the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting separately or jointly, the power to suspend bull licensing. I must emphasise that these are reserve powers and that the Government do not contemplate using them without good reason. However, the House would obviously like to know the kind of circumstances in which they might be deployed. The time may well come when the cattle industry reaches the position that the pig industry has already attained, in which scientific data and methods are generally available for the selection of sires. But I do not think the time has yet come. That was the whole burden of my argument in Committee, when I even called in aid the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who counselled us not to be too hasty.
  8.30 p.m.
  Meanwhile, the new licensing regime represents in effect a voluntary agreement between the Government, the industry and the veterinary profession. My colleagues and I are very anxious to see the new arrangements given a fair wind. However, in the event that at a later stage either the industry or the profession
  1060
  finds reason to seek their discontinuance, we would not feel it right to hold them to them. In such a situation we could not be expected, nor would we be prepared, to re-erect our own licensing system. It is primarily with that sort of situation in mind that we have thought it right and necessary to take the reserve power to put licensing in suspense.
  With my knowledge of the industry and of many of the scientific arguments rightly advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I commend the Amendments to the House and hope that they will be accepted. They embody proposals which have been worked out after considerable trouble in consultation with the industry and the veterinary profession, to whom they are broadly acceptable. They will permit a large measure of Government disengagement from bull licensing whilst they still allow statutory licensing control to continue.
  I hope that with those few words the House will approve the Amendment.
  Mr. Strang: I thank the Minister for the very helpful way in which he moved the Amendment. All of us who took part in the Committee debates appreciate the way in which he has genuinely tried to respond to the points put to him by a number of hon. Members on both sides.
  The hon. Gentleman started by expressing the main reason why the Government believe that it is right to retain bull licensing. He repeated his argument that it was right because the cattle industry was not so far advanced in performance testing and other scientific methods. He is aware that I totally reject that argument, and am opposed to bull licensing.
  I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here himself, because I am sure that most people believe that he, too, would like to have scrapped bull licensing along with boar licensing. The Under-Secretary is shaking his head, which provokes me into telling the House that it has been suggested to me that that well-known agricultural expert, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) played an important rôle in the retention of bull licensing. But that is enough of that.

  1061
  I want to deal seriously with some of the detailed points that the Minister has put to us in such a friendly manner. I should like a little more information on precisely how the certification system will operate. The Minister said that the certificate would contain information which corresponded to Section 2 of the 1931 Act, and he gave three criteria listed in that Act. But I should be interested to know whether, for example, the word "conformation" will appear on the certificate. Presumably it will. Will the veterinary surgeon have to give a score for conformation, or will it be a pass or a fail? Will that be the way in which all these criteria will be decided? Will the certificate be in a form in which the veterinary surgeon will say that the bull is not defective or inferior, and not apparently affected with a contagious or infectious disease which renders it unsuitable for breeding purposes? Or will the veterinary surgeon simply give some assessment and conclude with whether he recommends that it be licensed? It is not clear whether the veterinary surgeon has to come down one way or the other, although I assume that is what is intended, and that the certificate, when it is received by the Ministry, will simply state whether the veterinary surgeon recommends that the bull receives a licence.
  It seems that the Ministry will not be obliged to accept the veterinary surgeon's verdict on the certificate. I am not suggesting that the Minister is likely not to accept the certificates on a large scale. Obviously the Minister's officials will not have time to look at the bulls. The whole point is that it should be done by veterinary surgeons. However, am I right in thinking that the Minister has the power not to accept the verdict on the certificate? It is a legal point, but it is worth placing on the record. If that is the situation, then I welcome it, although I should not expect the power to be used very often. The Minister is more likely to pass a bull which has been turned down than to turn one down which has been passed by a veterinary surgeon. Perhaps that is optimistic, but I hope that things are changing in Ministry circles.
  I now turn to the number of veterinary surgeons who will be eligible to inspect bulls with a view to giving licences. The Minister said that 1,000 veterinary sur-
  1062
  geons would be so licensed. I should be grateful if he could give the House an indication of the proportion of veterinary practices which will be able to operate under the system. The Minister is obviously under the impression that 1,000 is a large number. However, I should have been disappointed if the number had been any less. When one splits up that figure there will be 100 or 200 in Scotland and the others will be distributed on a county basis. It will not be such a large number of veterinary practices.
  Will the local veterinary practice be able to inspect the bulls within the practice? Will the veterinary surgeon who goes regularly to a farm for a variety of reasons be able to inspect that farmer's bull? I hope that he would be able to do so. I know that it is not always desirable to have such inspections. However, when I used to inspect potatoes as a student, it was always desirable to inspect locally. I hope that the system will be sufficiently flexible so that a farmer can have his bull inspected by his own veterinary surgeon.
  I come now to the question of appeal. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that because veterinary surgeons were doing the inspections it was right that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should nominate the members on the appeal panel. Our sub-Amendment (a) is to the effect that the British Society of Animal Production should be required to nominate referees along with the Royal College and the cattle breeding societies. As I said in Committee, there is a good case for arguing that on the appeal committee there should be an animal geneticist. I am sure that many geneticists will agree that veterinary surgeons are not really geared to deal with this kind of geneticism, with the questions it raises of the genetic improvement of livestock populations. I hope that it will be possible to have some members other than veterinary surgeons on the appeal committee. For example, supposing there is a bull with a very high performance which nevetherless does not conform with the inspection requirements. An agricultural scientist would probably point out to the committee that the bull's very high performance should be taken into account and that it should be prepared to take a little less account of conformation.

  1063
  In the new Schedule, the Minister takes power to suspend the operation of the 1931 Act. I was quite encouraged by the careful manner in which he chose his words. It seems to me that he is acknowledging that it may not be very long before he feels it appropriate to end bull licensing. I am not asking him to agree with that now but the tone of his remarks was that we have bull licensing in the meantime for the reasons he has given but that when the Meat and Livestock Commission and the other organisations are successful in having more tests and when more farmers are aware of the importance of rearing and using progeny-tested animals he will look carefully at the possibility of suspending the operation of the licensing system.
  There are additional points that one can make on this matter but I recognise that it is a specialised subject and that other hon. Members want to discuss other parts of the Bill, so I will conclude with the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the points I have put.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Under-Secretary of State was much less brash and combative in moving the Amendment. The quiet rational approach suits him much better than the noise and rancour of his earlier speech. He was refreshingly reasonable and even constructive. As he said, there was very good debate when we discussed licensing in Committee. Many of us feel that the Committee was at its best in dealing with this part of the Bill. Fortunately, our debates in Committee have had a positive result. I argued in Committee that the Government's proposals were not satisfactory from the viewpoint of some important interests. My principal concern was to ensure full consultation with the veterinary profession and other interested bodies.
  I serve on the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as representative of the Privy Council. I serve also on the Royal College's Parliamentary Committee. This gives me a deep personal interest in the administration of the Government's proposals. I warmly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has now consulted the Royal College, the British Veterinary Association, the National Cattle Breeders' Association as well as the National Farmers' Union
  1064
  and the Milk Marketing Board since last July.
  8.45 p.m.
  Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote the way I put the matter in Committee:
  "Where the industry and the veterinary profession appear to find the Ministry as yet unable to meet their viewpoint is in regard to the proposal that, whenever a veterinary surgeon enters a farm to inspect a bull, he should mark it in such a way as to indicate that an inspection has taken place … the marking of bulls to show that they have been inspected would make it difficult for the farmer, after the bull had failed at such an inspection, either to move it on to another farm in another area with a view to trying his luck with a second veterinary surgeon, or simply to unload it on to the market in the hope that it will be bought by some unsuspecting farmer who would not know that it had failed an inspection".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H. 14th March, 1972; c. 582–3.]
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to this point in his opening speech.
  At one time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) sought to improve the advisory services available to the Minister by creating an independent advisory service under the late Professor Fraser. The body set up by my right hon. Friend has now been disbanded, yet the wisdom of his initiative is widely acknowleged throughout the industry.
  While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to the points which he made in Committee, I ask him again to reflect on the decision to disband the advisory service instituted by my right hon. Friend. At this point, however, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I welcome the Minister's Amendment.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for the way in which he has welcomed the Amendment. I think that we have reached a sensible arrangement which meets the practicalities of the problems which were raised in Committee, and raised also by farmers, by the cattle breeders and by the veterinary profession.
  I am grateful, also, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his remarks and the constructive approach of his speech. He asked about the form of certificate and, in effect, wanted to know

  1065
  what matters would be taken into account. The British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have produced a joint memorandum which will be used as a guide for the veterinary examination of bulls for licensing. I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of that guide. Rather than weary the House at this stage by going into it, I think it more appropriate to let the hon. Gentleman see the sort of factors which will be in the mind of the veterinary surgeons concerned.
  Next, the hon. Gentleman asked about the number of eligible practices. So far as my information goes, the 1,000 eligible practices to which I referred represent about one-quarter of all veterinary practices, though the House will have in mind that when one speaks of all practices that includes small animal practices which deal only with cats, dogs, canaries and the like. I am sorry that I cannot be more definite at the moment than that. Perhaps the more realistic way of answering the hon. Gentleman's question is to say that all practices with not less than five years' experience on cattle work will be eligible.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister would have power to override the veterinary certificate. Legally, he would, but we do not envisage any general use of that power, though it would be available if it had to be used in an exceptional circumstance.
  Could a farmer use his own veterinary practice? Yes, if it is an eligible practice, and he chooses to apply, he could use his own veterinary practice.
  I turn to the point of substance in the hon. Gentleman's remarks; namely, sub-Amendment (a) to the Government's Amendment No. 27, which concerns the appointment of refrees. If a bull owner is aggrieved by the refusal to grant a licence, he may ask for a referee's inspection, and the referee can either uphold the decision not to grant a licence or decide that the bull is of licensable standard. Either way his decision is binding on both the Minister and the appellant. Referees will be appointed from a panel maintained by the Minister. The Amendment which the House has just approved will enable persons to be appointed to this panel after consultation with the veterinary profession.
  1066
  Sub-Amendment (a) would enable referees to be appointed on the recommendation of the British Society of Animal Production. The hon. Member has made it clear that its main purpose is to secure the inclusion of animal geneticists on the panel. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment because there are important and genuine objections to it. First, if the scheme is to work we must assure consistency of treatment between one case and another. This would not be secured if some appeals were heard by veterinary surgeons and others by geneticists. If that happened, differing standards would be in force and this could only lead to doubt and confusion. Secondly, there should be consistency of treatment between the initial inspection and the appeal. This would not be secured if the initial inspection were carried out—as it will be in all cases—by a veterinary surgeon but the appeal inspection were carried out by a geneticist. This again would create uncertainty for bull owners.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind a compromise—for example, that appeals might be decided by a veterinary surgeon and a geneticist acting jointly. I will not go into what would happen if they were to disagree; there might be an appeal from an appeal, which would be awkward. There is a more conclusive objection; namely, cost. The fees we charge must cover the full cost of the work, and if appeals were to be heard by more than one referee there would be a risk of owners being deterred by the cost from invoking the appeal procedure. This is a risk which we should not incur.
  The criteria against which bulls will have to be considered for licence are concerned with conformation or with health. I have mentioned the technical guidelines which will assist veterinary surgeons in making evaluations of bulls. These have been worked out by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Insofar as some knowledge of genetics will be required, this is a science in which all veterinary surgeons have received training, and, what is perhaps just as important, their day-to-day experience gives them a very thorough understanding and grasp of the subject. That is certainly my experience of working with the veterinary profession.

  1067
  The veterinary surgeons to be appointed to the panel of referees will all be men of considerable experience and high standing in their profession. I have every confidence that they will be able to deal both knowledgeably and impartially with the cases referred to them, not only on the general standards of conformation and health but when genetic considerations must be taken into account.
  I respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, but I hope that his fears will be allayed by the standard of the veterinary surgeons who will be acting as referees. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his sub-Amendment.
  There is one final point. The hon Member for Edinburgh, East, slightly teasingly, asked when we shall exercise these reserve powers, and he more or less implied "the sooner, the better." I have made no secret of my own position. I believe that when proper scientific standards are established and when they can be applied generally, as they are already in the pig industry, that is an indication of the stage at which we can consider reviewing the situation. We have not yet reached that stage.
  I approach this matter in a realistic and practical manner. The scope for the development of performance testing is almost unlimited in the cattle industry. The more that the cattle industry takes this up, the sooner that the practical difficulties can be overcome and the sooner a system of proper scientific testing can be adopted. Many individual breeders have taken it up. I recognise that there are obstacles and difficultes. But I am convinced that it can only be to the benefit of our cattle industry and its improvement. It is because we have not reached that stage that we put forward these proposals.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

  GRANTS FOR FARM IMPROVEMENTS
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 36, leave out 'seventy-five' and insert 'eighty'.
  This Amendment seeks to increase the ceiling of grants for farm improvements from £175 million to £180 million. We
  1068
  know what is happening to the improvement scheme. However, we are also concerned with what happens to the £ in the meantime. The rate of inflation that we have faced over the last year has been high. Since the Committee stage of this Bill we have had the floating of the £. As a result we wonder whether it is right to set the ceiling at £175 million.
  We are dealing not with expenditure but with the controlled ceiling over expenditure. In any event, if the actual expenditure went up, I take it that the Government would have to find means of dealing with it. There is no reason why they should not err on the safe side by moving the ceiling to £180 million. It seems to be the logical thing to do.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The effect of the Amendment is to increase the ceiling on the amount of grant under the farm improvement schemes from £175 million to £180 million. Our latest reassessment of the position in the light of the most up-to-date information available gives us no reason to believe that the margin afforded by the increased figure of £175 million will prove inadequate. However, since there cannot be absolute certainty about the matter and since acceptance of the proposed figure of £180 million will not affect the amount of grant which will be paid, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
  I might say that I was a little worried that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) might embark on a course which would have embarrassed me in accepting the Amendment. However, he did not. I accept the Amendment, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

  INCREASE IN ADVANCES TO AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 14, line 39, leave out 'five' and insert 'eight'.
  I have a consequential Amendment—No. 36—to increase the total guarantee fund to £20 million.
  In Standing Committee we argued that the amounts specified in several parts of

  1069
  the Bill had been invalidated by inflation. There has been much more inflation since the completion of the Committee stage. Such has been the fall in the value of money that the right hon. Gentleman must re-consider his arithmetic. It should not be necessary for this side of the House to press the need for a revision of the figure in the Clause.
  The debate provides us with a timely opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd. I was with some of its leaders recently and was deeply impressed by the work they are doing for the industry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, with rising values many farms are now under-mortgaged. It is essential to the future of the industry as a whole that the AMC should have sufficient advances. My right hon. and hon. Friends hope that the Government will see the need for an upward revision of the figure of £17 million.
  Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has again had his little say about inflation.
  We join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute he paid to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited. The AMC does a very good job. The recent changes made by it have been very helpful.
  The hon. Gentleman proposes that the limit on total Government advances to the AMC be raised from £17 million to £20 million. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the AMC to continue operating on the present funding basis for about a further five years rather than about three years. However, the difference between the two proposals is not of great significance. We believe that cover for three years would be adequate in the circumstances. I emphasise "in the circumstances", because in that time we shall be able to assess more precisely the amount and type of credit arrangements which will be best to suit the agricultural industry in the longer term. They need to be assessed and examined carefully.
  When we came to power my right hon. Friend took the initiative in considering the industry's capital requirements and set up the committee under Professor Wilson to look into the whole matter of capital credit in agriculture. This was a
  1070
  wise step, and we await with great interest the report of the committee.
  Our going into Europe will have an effect on the situation. Therefore, we do not want to look too far ahead. It is right that we should be fairly conservative and careful—not too rigid—for there will be great changes in the years ahead and it is important to wait and see. We believe that we have got it about right.
  The accounts for the AMC for the year ending 31st March which have just been published show an increase in reserves of £1·5 million. This will provide additional backing, and further debentures of at least £20 million could now be issued without the need for further Government help. In effect, it is expected that, at the present rate of demand, a £5 million increase is likely to be sufficient to meet the demand for rather more than four years. So the gap between us has narrowed considerably. It was three years, and now because of these reserves it is only four years.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: This sounds more like a Treasury brief.
  Mr. Mills: The hon. Member may have his fun. It is not a Treasury brief, I can assure him. It is a brief from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is right that he should look at this fairly carefully, particularly at future requirements and the effect of the Wilson Report. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take this matter further in view of what I have said.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 15

  INCREASE OF FINES
  Mr. Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 15, line 2, leave out 'one' and insert 'two'.
  In Committee we promised to take a fresh look at this and we have done so. When this Clause was discussed in Committee hon. Members on both sides questioned the adequacy of merely doubling the present maximum penalty for safety contraventions to the level of £100 which is now in the Bill. Perhaps I could have the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was

  1071
  about to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman is always doing that to us. I want to pay tribute to the reasonable and powerful way in which hon. Members opposite argued the case for the higher figure. They convinced us that we ought to take further counsel with those organisations interested in farming safety, and we have done so. We have acted.
  We have consulted the NFU, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the National Agricultural Machinery Dealers' Association, ROSPA and the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is a fairly comprehensive review. We thought it right to send to each the full text of our debate so that they were aware of the nature and strength of the feelings of hon. Members on this subject, which is an important subject.
  A word now about these consultations, because they obviously bear on the question before the House, which is whether the maximum penalties should be increased to £300 as suggested by hon. Members opposite or whether they should be £200 as the Government suggest. We consulted these organisations on the size of the penalties and there was not, as can be imagined, complete agreement among them. These differences, like those in our own debate, cut across sectional lines. There were different views between those representing farming employers and contracting employers and between those representing agricultural workers on either side of the border.
  Briefly, a small minority favoured going as far as £300 or even £400. The majority, including those concerned exclusively with safety, questioned the wisdom of going beyond £100, while others believed that a further increase to £200 would be about right. What was perhaps more important was that no real case emerged for any form of differential penalties, for example between farmers and workers or between categories of offences. The House may agree with what appears to be a fairly general view among those we consulted, that these are matters that should be best left to the magistrates, and I hope that hon. Members will agree.
  Nor was there any body of opinion which even suggested that there was anything to be gained by making analogies
  1072
  with maximum penalties in other forms of safety legislation. Quite the reverse. It was widely and strongly held that there were special circumstances in agriculture which precluded any meaningful comparison of this kind. In any case, the other safety statutes are of varying vintage and on money values we should not be comparing like with like. The Government have accepted this view.
  From our discussions and from our further examination of the problem the Government have concluded that the principle of a still higher maximum penalty as argued in Committee is right. Hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and several others argued this forcefully.
  There are two main reasons for the Government now proposing a further increase to £200, which is four times the present figure, as against the figure of £300 suggested by the Opposition. There would be an adverse effect from having too high a penalty. The Government are impressed by the weight of opinion from many quarters that safety observance on the farm, while calling for severe measures against culpable offences, must be built largely around instinctive acceptance of precautions which flows from education and advice widely and readily given. Education rather than severe penalties is the key to achieving greater safety, and the education must be developed and distributed.
  Very real anxiety was expressed to us lest swingeing penalties might prove counter-productive by putting undue emphasis on punishment in a sector where the results we all wish to achieve depend so heavily upon interest and understanding. It is a question of pitching at the right level, and we believe that that level is £200.
  The Robens Committee Report on Safety and Health at Work cannot be ignored. It was referred to in Committee and we indicated that any conclusions we reached about the nature and level of penalties would have to be reviewed in the light of that committee's work. The committee has recommended that maximum penalties for safety offences should be increased but it has also proposed fundamental and far-reaching changes in the Government's whole

  1073
  approach to the safety of employed persons. The hon. Member for Mansfield is nodding his head, so at least he agrees with us on this. The committee considered that criminal proceedings were inappropriate for the generality of offences which arise in safety at work legislation and that they should be reserved for infringements of a flagrant, wilful or reckless nature with higher penalties for repeated offences.
  This, with other recommendations in the report, calls for much consultation and discussion and I do not want to prejudice the outcome of those discussions tonight. However, it is clear that the level of penalty that we are discussing can be looked at again in the context of the Government's conclusions emerging from the study of the report. We are therefore prepared to look at this again and we hope that that will satisfy the Opposition.
  There is a point about uniformity of penalties. Efforts have been made to get some sort of uniformity and standard fines of £20, £50, £100, £200 and £400. The Opposition's suggestion of £300 would not fit into this, and I am sure the House would wish to carry out recommendations on uniformity of penalties.
  In the circumstances I hope that hon. Members will see in the Government Amendment a genuine effort to meet the conditions and wishes of hon. Members in Committee and that the Opposition will withdraw their alternative of an in-between penalty, because it is out of step with the desirable form of rationalisation to which I am sure we all subscribe.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Concannon: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reasonable way in which he has outlined the Government's position. My hon. Friends and I agree with almost every word he said. Amendment No. 20 was put down as an insurance Amendment. At one time we thought the Bill would have been passed before the report of the Robens Committee was published, but, unfortunately, that has not happened. We reduced the figure in our original Amendment from £400 to £300—what is known as "an old Chinese bargain" in the trade union world.
  1074
  As I said at the time, the Standing Committee demonstrated committee work at its best, and what has happened today confirms this. The Robens Report has unheld our arguments in Committee on workers' participation, safety education, and so on. We shall have to come back to the Robens Report during the next Session.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment, which we are pleased to accept.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  ABOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES IN SCOTLAND
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 6, at end insert:
  '; and a committee of representatives of farmworkers and farmers, chaired by a representative of the Secretary of State, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State to advise him on the discharge of these functions and to advise him on the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board."
  In your absence, Mr. Speaker, we have been proceeding with all sweetness and light—although I am sure that is not connected with your absence. I hope that we may get the same kind of response on this Amendment, at least from the junior Ministers opposite.
  We discussed in Committee aspects of the abolition of the wages committee, and we are no longer seeking to reverse that decision because it would be improper for us to do so. Wages committees perform an important limited function in Scotland. Their functions are now to be taken over by the Secretary of State, and I regret that.
  I had expected the Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and I shall not necessarily be able to do so in the same depth as he would have done. If we are wiping out the agricultural executive committees, it is singularly inappropriate at the same time to wipe out the wages committees. One of their vestigial duties was to look into the question of disabled workers and the rates payable to them.
  We have been told that the reason for the abolition of the wages committees is

  1075
  to improve administrative efficiency. We cannot accept this as a reason. We do not put efficiency ahead of grass roots contacts and consultations. We must remember that we are dealing with a sensitive area. In 1961 there was a gap of £4 between the wages of industrial workers and those of agricultural workers; in 1971 the gap increased to around £10. There is roughly a third difference between the average industrial wage and the average agricultural wage, despite the fact that the output per farm worker increased by 7 per cent. over the last year, which was roughly double the increase in productivity to be found in industry.
  Agricultural workers, who comprise 2·6 per cent. of the nation's labour force, contribute some 3 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product. We are therefore dealing with men who feel very sensitive about anything which will tend to remove their ability to join in committees with the rest of the industry so that they may bring pressure to bear. Therefore, we are seeking to amend this provision.
  We have accepted with regret the fact that the wages committees are to go, but if these functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State there must be some democratic involvement in decisions by the Secretary of State. It cannot be left merely to executive decision.
  We suggest that the new committees should be composed of both farmers and farm workers and that they should advise the Secretary of State on how to carry out the functions of the wages committee and other functions of that wages board. This is not a major demand, but seeks to replace an element of consultation and involvement in industry which is now being wiped out—in my view, stupidly wiped out—by the Government. Therefore, we hope that the Government will accept our fairly modest proposal.
  Mr. Strang: I wish to confine my remarks to the work of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. I contend that that board, like its counterpart in England and Wales, has been an absolute disaster. More than any other body it must carry the responsibility for the intoler-
  1076
  ably low standard of living to which the farm worker has been subjected. There are exceptions, but the gap between farm workers and the average urban worker is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said, about £10.
  It is no answer to say that farm workers receive certain "perks" which make up for the difference. The report issued by the National Board for Prices and Incomes went into this matter in great detail and decided that these "perks" in no way compensate the farm worker for having to endure such a large difference in rates. It is absurd to suggest, for example, that a tied cottage is comparable with a council house in a village or nearby town. The tied cottage is part of the farm worker's job, and if he loses his job he loses his house. Furthermore, because the man lives in a tied cottage, his employers often are able to make demands which they would not be in a position to make if the man were living in his own accommodation.
  I am not suggesting that all farmers are bad employers. On the contrary, some are very good. My point is that we have a wages board because farm workers do not constitute a section of the work force which has enormous bargaining power. They are not able to come out on strike as easily as other workers, because they are fragmented in terms of perhaps one or two farm workers on different holdings. We have a wages board to remedy that situation, but it has completely failed.
  I realise that the Government are unlikely to accept the Amendment. However, if they see it as their responsibility to ensure that farmers have money to invest and receive reasonable incomes, they should accept the responsibility for seeing that farm workers also receive reasonable incomes. That means that something must be done about the wages board. It is intolerable that it should carry on as it does and reflect to such a large extent the attitude of the employers but not that of the farm workers regarding their wages and living standards compared with other sections of the community.
  We have the ironic situation of farmers writing to the Farmers Weekly complaining that the wages board is fixing farm workers' wages too low and of branches

  1077
  of the NFU taking up this cue. There is no more dismal commentary on the Agricultural Wages Board than that.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I reject totally some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). I realise that from time to time complaints can be, and are, made about the level of farm workers' wages, and so on. However, the attack which the hon. Gentleman made on the Agricultural Wages Board, which is composed of representatives of both the workers and the employers and independent members, is totally unwarranted. That is not the substance of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the wages board is not justified by the facts. Neither is the impression he gives in speaking to this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the industry in giving the impression—I do not know whether he intended it—that almost everyone in the industry is earning the minimum wage. That is the impression which will go out from what he said. Members of Parliament are responsible not only for the precise words they utter but for the impressions they give. We should bear in mind that a large number of people in the industry are not on the minimum wage level.
  Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary is being grossly unfair to the way my hon. Friend has handled the wages question over the last few months. In dealing with the comparative figures for wages between agricultural and industrial workers, my hon. Friend was referring not to minimum wages but to average earnings. Therefore, my hon. Friend was absolutely right, as I was earlier. It is most unjust of the hon. Gentleman to bring in this rather rancorous note at this stage of our proceedings when we are trying to conduct them calmly and quickly.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is no more unfair than making an attack on the wages board, which is unable to defend itself. It is up to those of us who are responsible to make sure the record is put straight. That is all I am endeavouring to do in dealing with that point. Criticisms may be made of the wages board in certain respects, but generally it works well. Responsible people serve on it.
  1078
  Clause 23 abolishes the district agricultural wages committees in Scotland. We have proposed their abolition because, as we explained in Committee—I do not intend to go into the arguments again tonight—we believe that the need for their continuance has diminished to the point where their limited functions could easily be encompassed in the less cumbersome machinery within the Department. The Clause makes no change whatever in the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Amendment seeks to create an advisory committee to give advice to the Secretary of State not only about the discharge of the functions set out in the Clause but also about the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Indeed, it goes far beyond the limited scope of the Clause. I see no reason for disturbing the present machinery of wage fixing in agriculture, a procedure which is well established and respected by both sides of the industry.
  The Board, which is an independent statutory body, provides an efficient means of establishing minimum rates for workers in an industry as fragmented as this industry is. The board is representative of both sides of industry. It has a balance of independent members, and successive Governments have been careful to maintain the independent and impartiality of their nominees. The chairman has always been a highly praised member of the legal profession, and in Scotland he happens to be the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  The fact to which the hon. Gentleman should pay attention is that neither the workers' nor the employers' side has shown any wish to change the composition of the board. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by the creation of an advisory committee similar to that of the board which would advise on the working of the board. This could only undermine the board's standing and effectiveness in the discharge of its statutory functions.
  In so far as the purpose of the advisory committee is to help the Secretary of State in administering the former functions of the agricultural wages committees, I cannot see any justification for it

  1079
  on that ground either, because the remaining functions of these committees—I dealt with this in detail in Committee and I do not want to go over it again tonight—are to be transferred to the Secretary of State, and the administrative procedures have been agreed by both sides of industry.
  Essentially what is at issue tonight is the consideration of applications by individuals for exempt terms from statutory wage levels in respect of handicapped workers, because that is the one thing that is left. I hope that I may reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him that before a decision is reached in an individual case, should difficulties arise my Department will convene a panel locally, representative of both sides, to consider the case. I give that assurance, and I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will see that the advisory committee which he is suggesting will not be necessary. In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 28
  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 20, line 40, after '11', insert '12'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
New Schedule

  LICENCING OF BULLS
  Determination of applications for licences on basis of certificates of suitability
  1.—(1) Regulations under section 11 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931 may require an application for a licence under that Act in respect of a bull to be accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form containing—

  (a) the prescribed particulars as to the suitability of the bull for a licence under that Act; and

  (b) such other particulars as may be prescribed,

  being a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon who is a member of a panel appointed for the purposes of this Schedule by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association acting jointly; and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, decide whether or not to refuse to grant the licence on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2(2) of
  1080
  that Act on a consideration of the certificate and without himself causing the bull to be inspected.
  (2) A veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull with a view to the issue of a certificate for the purposes of an application for a licence under the said Act of 1931 shall mark the bull with a prescribed mark in the prescribed manner.
  (3) The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under the said Act of 1931 in respect of a bull—

  (a) if he is not satisfied that the bull has been marked in accordance with the sub-paragraph (2) above on the occasion of its inspection by the veterinary surgeon who issued the certificate accompanying the application or

  (b) if it appears to him that, before that inspection, the bull had already been inspected for the purposes of an application under that Act by a different veterinary surgeon or been marked in accordance with that sub-paragraph.

  (4) In this paragraph 'the Minister' and 'prescribed' have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1931 but no regulations shall be made prescribing a mark or manner of marking for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above except on the joint recommendation of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
  Appeal referees
  2. In section 5(2) of the said Act of 1931 (which provides for a panel of referees appointed on the recommendation of agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies) for the words 'and cattle-breeding societies' there shall be substituted the words 'cattle-breeding societies and associations of veterinary surgeons'.
  Power to suspend operation of Act
  3.—(1) The relevant Minister may by order suspend the operation of the said Act of 1931 from such date as may be specified in the order until such later date as may be specified in that order or in a further order under this paragraph; and—

  (a) if the Act is so suspended—

  (i) any licence, permit, notice or regulations in force, or application pending, under that Act on the date of suspension shall lapse;

  (ii) the suspension shall not affect the taking or continuance of proceedings in respect of any offence committed, or liability for costs under section 6 of that Act incurred, before that date;

  (b) if the suspension comes to an end the Act shall operate as if references in it to 'the appointed day' were references to such day after the ending of the suspension as the relevant Minister may by order appoint and as if the definition of that expression in section 13 of that Act were omitted.

  (2) Any order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such

  1081
  order made otherwise than under subparagraph (1)(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (3) In this paragraph 'the relevant Minister' means—

  (a) in the case of an order applying only to England and Wales, the Minister;

  (b) in the case of an order applying only to Scotland, the Secretary of State;

  (c) in the case of an order applying to England, Wales and Scotland, the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 2

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1928 TO 1954
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 22, line 40 leave out 'subsections (3), (5) and' and insert:
  'subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards, and subsection'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Schedule 5

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 26, in page 29, line 45 leave out 'subsections (3), (5) and' and insert:
  'subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards; and subsection'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  [Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified]
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Prior: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think that there will be many who will disagree when I say that the Bill has been carefully and, I think, considerably examined by the House. We spent the best part of fifty hours in Standing Committee discussing the 28 Clauses and five Schedules, and we have spent just about another six hours on the Bill today. I think that we now have a better Bill, and I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the part that they have played in making it so.
  1082
  We have had some interesting debates. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) is not with us now, but he has other business to attend to. The major part of our time has been devoted to slaughterhouses, and the hon. Gentleman played a major part in dealing with them. We also discussed sire licensing and the provisions to abolish AECs, and I shall come to deal with much of this shortly.
  I should not be in order now in referring to the eradication of brucellosis because the Clause has been withdrawn from the Bill. But I am grateful to the House for the way in which it has accepted the reason why I felt able to withdraw the Clause.
  Turning to the question of slaughterhouse policy, which is dealt with in Clauses 6 and 7, these Clauses certainly qualify as the most controversial Clauses in the Bill. They were most thoroughly debated. We spent six sittings in Committee dealing with them. Yet I fear that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about the objective of the Clauses. I should like, therefore, to emphasise once again that they do not affect hygiene standards. On the contrary, they have the effect that no licence should be granted or renewed unless the requirements of the regulations are fully complied with; and they are not expected to lead to any proliferation of slaughterhouses. Their objective is to remove a control which has proved to be ineffective in its operation and to create conditions which will ensure that in the future, which no one can properly predict, we shall get slaughterhouses of the kind we need, where we need them.
  In Clause 9 we are seeking to reduce Government intervention in matters concerned with livestock improvement and to give breeders greater freedom to exercise their own judgment. Our proposals have been worked out after full and prolonged consultation with the industry and veterinary profession and are broadly acceptable to them. The Clause abolishes boar licensing but retains bull licensing in a modified form. This has been criticised as illogical. But in fact it is a rational and pragmatic decision based on the different stages of development reached by the pig and cattle industries. Selection of sires on the basis of performance and progeny testing is widely

  1083
  accepted and used in boar breeding but is not nearly so widely in use in the cattle industry. So it is wise to continue with safeguards against unsuitable bulls until the more scientific methods now widely used in boar breeding are also generally used in the cattle industry. Meantime, the bull licensing arrangements are simplified so as to give breeders a wider freedom of choice, and Government intervention will be reduced by the provisions which enable inspections to be carried out in future not by Government officials but by veterinary surgeons in private practice who have been accredited for this purpose by their professional bodies.
  The Clause also removes the restriction on imports of breeding animals which have hitherto been permitted only for "exhibition or other exceptional purposes". Of course, the veterinary controls over imports will continue to be enforced in their full rigour, and inevitably this will limit the number of breeding animals which can be imported. But the industry itself will be responsible for advising us on priorities through an independent industry-based panel which the Royal Agricultural Societies have recently established for that purpose.
  I now turn to Clause 22. Since their inception the Agricultural Executive Committees have done a tremendous amount of useful work. Although their functions have progressively diminished over the years, I agree very much with all that has been said today and in the past about their contribution to the system of two-way communications between Ministers and the grass roots of the industry. So I should like to assure the House that, in making our arrangements for the new panels that will be set up following the abolition of the AECs, we have fully recognised the need for Ministers to keep in close touch with the views of all sides of the industry as part of the consultative process. I am satisfied that the panels will carry out this task effectively, and at only a fraction of the cost of maintaining the existing committee structure.
  It is always difficult to know whether it is right to abolish a certain state of affairs which has existed for a long while. We were finding that the powers of the AECs were diminishing and the job that
  1084
  the AECs had to do was becoming very much a diminishing rôle. I believe that the regional panels, with the chairmen of the panels who are really acting as my liaison officers, will be able to perform an extremely useful job, and this in no way detracts from the very great work done by the old War Agricultural Committees and then the Agricultural Executive Committees which took their place.
  Finally, a word about farm safety and one of the four new Clauses. We have had two extremely interesting debates on Clause 15, which increases the maximum fine for breaches of farm safety. I whole-heartedly endorse the remarks made by many hon. Members stressing the importance of continuous vigilance against accidents on the farm. In particular, the more complicated farm machinery becomes, the more potentially dangerous it is. Looking back over the past 10 years, we see that a great deal of progress has been made in this respect. The Government are concerned that there should be full understanding, acceptance—and above all observance—of the safety regulations.
  There is one other matter I should like to mention, the measures for dealing with grey squirrels and coypus, which I believe will be a significant step forward in saving our hardwood trees and the river banks drainage systems in East Anglia from further damage. Doing something to help our hardwood trees is particularly important for environmental and amenity reasons, but is even more important with the ravages of Dutch elm disease. We shall not permit the use of any poison in any area until we have discussed our proposals with conservation and animal protection interests, and until their use has been cleared by our expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides and other Toxic Chemicals.
  Both Houses will have opportunities to consider our proposals in detail. I hope to be bringing our proposals for grey squirrels forward for consideration early in the next Session, but we have more field experiments to do before we shall be ready with suggestions for coypu.
  This is not perhaps the most controversial Bill of this Session, although at times it has had its moments of controversy, but it is a useful Bill. It contains

  1085
  a number of small measures but measures which are important to an industry to which everyone in the House pays a warm tribute. I am grateful to the House for the support it has given it and the care with which the Bill has been discussed. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Peart: We shall not oppose the Bill's Third Reading. We have had Divisions earlier, and our point of view has been adequately represented by my colleagues. Conservative hon. Members accused my hon. Friends and me of delaying the Bill unnecessarily in Committee. They said that we were filibustering. I do not think that that was so. In fact, we encouraged progress on the Bill.
  I rather liked a remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Incidentally, may I say that I did not mean to be churlish when I forgot to mention him earlier. I wish him well in his new position. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to say this, and he knows that I mean it sincerely. However, I was rather amused when he said that he believed the Opposition were making a mistake. He said:
  "They can discuss these things fully at a later date, but let us get on with the urgent business that is required by the consumer, by agriculture and by animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 27th January, 1972; c. 13.]
  —in that order. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice.
  I once had an injustice done to me by the previous Parliamentary Secretary, who has now been promoted. Winding up a debate on agriculture not long ago, he quoted from a speech of mine, but it was not a single quotation. He joined up extracts, which gave a different sense to what I said. That was a very dirty trick—and I mean that. For example, I talked about the Ministry's needing to have control at Department level in the Scottish and Welsh Offices. I said that I would like to consider that carefully, because we must be cautious, but that we must be adventurous about new breeds. That was quite different to the quotation that he read out. I am sure the present Parliamentary Secretary will never do a trick like that.
  It is true that we have had a long debate on the matter. It was the first
  1086
  time for 20 years that such a Bill had been introduced into the Lords. I made the point on Second Reading that the Government were in difficulty with their legislative programme. The delay which has occurred over the Bill has been due to that difficulty, and that is why we are debating the Bill in August. The Bill should have been completed a long time ago. It is the fault not of the Opposition but of the inefficiency of the management of Government business. I am not blaming the Department as it is a matter outside its control. However, I am sure that my point of view is understood.
  I recognise that there have been controversial aspects of the Bill. We have carefully scrutinised the Bill in Committee and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends Members for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) and Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) who sat on the Committee. They made some very effective speeches, and Ministers and hon. Members opposite were generous in their praise of their constructive approach when we sought to discuss the Bill in detail.
  I have listened to many agricultural debates in the House since 1945. I must say that the skills and abilities of my hon. Friends show that we have one of the best teams I can remember. I am thinking not about myself but about my hon. Friends' contributions. It is good for agriculture because a strong Opposition is vital for the wellbeing of the industry. I held that view when I was a Minister. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also played an effective rôle when he was in Opposition. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon go back to that rôle.
  It is true that there has been controversy over slaughterhouse policy. I am sorry that we have not been able to convince the Minister, even at this late hour, that there should have been an inquiry. The Minister has argued the case against an inquiry. He has stood by what he has decided and not budged an inch. On the other hand, he had made concessions here and there on brucellosis. We recognise

  1087
  it was right for him to go to the House and withdraw the Clause. We were accused in Committee of delaying this part of the Bill, but we now see that that was not so.
  I am sorry that we have destroyed the county committees. I feel passionate about them. The Under-Secretary of State accused me of being a Conservative and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West of being an Anarchist. I regard the hon. Gentleman as a Tory Anarchist. He is not a Conservative in the best sense of traditionalism. However, I am a conservative Socialist, and I am not afraid to admit it.
  The EEC Bill will affect this Bill. I dealt with that matter when we discussed the county committees and the need to have adequate advisory services whereby Ministers would be able to know what is happening in the industry. It is important that the consumer and those in the industry who contribute to the work and development of the industry should have their views known by the Minister and those who make decisions. Even though it is not in the Bill, and I appreciate I will be out of order if I develop it too far, inevitably looming over these matters is our entry into Europe. Our decisions could be taken out of the hands of the House by the bureaucracy in Brussels. If I feel worried about that as a parliamentarian it is because I desire to protect British parliamentary traditions and, above all, to make sure that British farming is not harmed by people outside this country.
  I welcome parts of the Bill such as the Clause on amalgamations. I welcome the improvement grants which are examples of policies which we pursued when we were in Government. Reference was made to the central council dealing in co-operation. That was one of the finest Measures any Government have introduced. I know that that desire for increased co-operation is so important, especially if we have to go into Europe.
  We shall not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We have made our position clear on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We have been constructive because we, as much as the Government, believe that agriculture is an important industry which affects the well-
  1088
  being of the nation and, therefore, has to be safeguarded and developed further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GAS BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Clause 2

  PRINCIPAL DUTIES AND POWERS OF CORPORATION
  Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "including".
  9.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 10, after "provision" insert "power".
  Mr. Emery: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by paying tribute to a Member of another place who played a prominent part in the passage of this Bill there, and whose speech on the Bill there was interrupted by his collapse, which was followed by his death. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith—Charles Smith as he was—had a distinguished career concerned with the Post Office, with Parliament and with many good works, and his loss at a very early age is something which I am sure the whole House deeply regrets.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Emery: Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are intended solely to make the Bill more readily understandable. I was myself satisfied that Clause 2(2) as drafted carried out the intention that the specific powers of the Gas Corporation, listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (h), were only particular examples of the corporation's general power to carry on any activities
  "…requisite, advantageous or convenient … for or in connection with the discharge of …"

  1089
  its primary duty, and that these were not independent powers. However, following reconsideration of the wording, which I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on Report, and although I still think that our intention would have been satisfied by the original wording, as I have no pride of authorship I have concluded that his suggestion would make it beyond any doubt clear—hence these Amendments.
  Mr. Eric Varley: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the tribute he made to our late noble Friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith. We all mourn his sad passing. He carried the full burden for the Opposition of the Gas Bill in the House of Lords and did an excellent job. I feel his loss a great deal personally because I was appointed as a Minister to the Ministry of Technology on the very same day as he was. I extend on behalf of the Opposition our sympathy to Lady Delacourt-Smith and rest of the family.
  We support the Amendments. We think that they help to clear the matter and represent a modest improvement. I should imagine that they are also welcomed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet).
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I cannot allow the occasion to pass without expressing gratitude to the Minister for listening to the arguments which I adduced at an earlier stage and for making these modifications. We now have clearly prescribed the limits within which it will be "requisite, advantageous or convenient", in the words of the sub-section, for the Gas Corporation to carry on activities. The intention is made clear that the corporation should not go into petro-chemicals unless a very clear view is formed about it. The matter is now beyond doubt, and I thank the Minister for his concession.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 4, after "gas" insert "or".
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 4 in page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to "manufacture" in line 6 and insert "(iii)".
  Mr. Emery: In our earlier proceedings, arguments were advanced for removing the prohibition on manufacture by the Gas Corporation of gas fittings for export. Although I gave no undertaking, I thought it worth whole that the matter should be looked at again, since, obviously, in this instance, if there were any production made specifically for the home market in which there was, perhaps, some over-run which could be sold abroad, one should see that that could be done.
  It seemed to me, therefore, that it made sense to acknowledge that the different points and arguments which had been put tipped the balance, I thought it right that that possibility should not be frustrated by the wording of the Bill, and that such manufacture could be carried out, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
  These Amendments are the outcome of that decision, and I hope that they commend themselves to the House.
  Mr. Varley: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. The Amendments make a modest improvement in the Bill, and in that sense we welcome them.
  When the Bill left this place, the circumstances in which fittings manufactured by the Gas Corporation could reasonably be exported were unclear, and the wording of the Bill, in our opinion, was much too rigid. As we now understand it, the corporation would only need the Secretary of State's consent to manufacture for export if it considered it to be requisite, advantageous or convenient, to use the words of subsection (2) and if it deliberately set up a line of manufacture of fittings for export.
  As we have said before, there is now a world-wide interest in the expanding British gas industry, particularly through the Gas Council's international consultancy service, which could lead to a great demand for British gas technology. In these circumstances, the manufacture of fittings, apparatus and appliances for export could be of immense advantage

  1091
  to the corporation and to the country. If that should happen—we hope it will—it would be our hope that the Secretary of State would gladly give his consent to the corporation so that it could go ahead and manufacture for export.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

  APPLICATION OF PIPE-LINES ACT 1962
  Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 33, line 35, after "above" insert:
  "but subject to subsection (3) below".
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 6, in page 33, line 44, at end insert:
  "(3) The application by virtue of subsection (2) above of the said section 27(1) and the said section 31(1) to a particular part of any pipe-line shall be dependent upon there having been previously deposited with every local authority in whose area the part lies, either by the Corporation or, before the appointed day, by the Gas Council or an Area Board, a map, on a scale not less than 1 in 10,560, showing the route taken by the part.
  A local authority holding a map relating to a pipe-line vested in the Corporation shall keep the map at their offices, and shall secure that it is open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times free of charge.
  In this subsection "local authority" means—

  (a) in England and Wales, the council of a county, county borough or county district, the Greater London Council, the council of a London borough, and the Common Council of the City of London, and

  (b) in Scotland, a town or county council."

  Mr. Emery: Clause 39(2) applies to gas industry pipelines certain provisions of the Pipe-lines Act which are designed to protect pipelines laid according to the terms of that Act from damage which could possibly arise from the erection of buildings or the deposit of materials too close to the pipeline. The Amendments recognise that in certain circumstances this could create difficulty.
  Lords Amendment No. 6 is designed to help those concerned to find out
  1092
  whether a gas pipeline crosses any piece of land by encouraging the deposit of maps with local authorities. I am glad to be able to say that the lines of these Amendments have been the subject of consultation with the local authority associations, which have agreed with them, and I hope that the House will now agree to accept them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Gas Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

  GAS BILL
  Lords Amendments again considered.
Clause 40

  MEANING OF "OPERATIONAL LAND" IN PLANNING ACTS
  Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 34, line 2, leave out from "section" to "which" in line 3 and insert:
  "212 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972".
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment reflects the passage through Parliament recently of a Bill consolidating Scottish town and country planning legislation which is intended to come into force well before the appointed day under the Bill. We are therefore coming into line with that legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

  THE CONSUMERS' BODIES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 49, line 27, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 29 and insert:
  "There shall be paid such pensions, or arrangements shall be made for the payment

  1093
  of such pensions, to or in respect of persons who are or have been in receipt of remuneration under sub-paragraph (1) above as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service determine; and if a person in receipt of remuneration under that sub-paragraph ceases to hold the office by virtue of which he receives it".
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It will, I think, be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 50, line 11, leave out "the said paragraph 2" and insert "those paragraphs".
  These Amendments conveniently go together, because the second is consequential on the first. The Amendment makes it possible for the chairmen of the national and regional gas consumers' councils, if paid, to receive a pension in accordance with the determination of the Secretary of State made with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service. At present the chairmen of the gas consultative councils could be paid a pension because they are ex officio part-time members of the area gas board.
  However, it has not been general policy to pay pensions to part-time members of the public boards, and no pensions have been paid to part-time members of gas boards. It is now thought desirable not to let the possibility disappear. In other words, if we did not have these Amendments the possibility which exists under the present legislation would not be possible under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  The Government have no intention of altering the present situation whereby no pensions are paid to these part-time men and women who give great service to the community in serving as chairmen of what will be the consumers councils. However, it seemed to me absurd that we should not have the power to do so if their rôle changed in future or if circumstances altered. Without such a power, new legislation would have had to be introduced. This seemed to me to be a weakness in the Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not think that their Lordships gave as much attention to consumer questions as we did in Committee and on Report. We on this side believe that the consumer councils were extremely important bodies and were likely, under the new structure
  1094
  of the industry, to be more important in future, particularly perhaps the new National Consumers' Council for the gas industry.
  We argued in Committee that the chairman of the National Consumers' Council should be an outstanding individual with a status equal to that of members of the Gas Corporation. We believe that he should be strong enough and determined enough to stand up to the Gas Corporation. I went as far as to say that if salaries were being paid his salary should be no less than the salary of an ordinary member of the corporation.
  In the event of the chairman of the consumers' council being displaced from office, the Bill provides, at the discretion of the Minister, that compensation may be paid him. That is reasonable, and I suppose that it is equally reasonable in some circumstances that there should be a provision in the legislation for a pension to be paid him. I concede that for the chairman of the national council, but I am not so sure that that is a good principle to follow in respect of the chairmen of the regional consumers' councils.
  I do not think that one can be against this permissive power being included. However, in Committee we argued that the chairmen of the consultative councils should be elected. We felt that this would give them democratic authority and make them directly responsible to local public opinion. Clearly, in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for a pension even to be considered. I am still of the opinion that we do not want any interlocking of the fortunes of the chairmen of consumers' councils and those of the industry. If we provide pensions for them they will be confirmed in their standing in the industry and, in some circumstances, it might be difficult to get rid of them.
  While we do not object to this power being in the legislation, in view of our earlier argument that the chairmen of consumers' councils should be responsible to their local consumers, we doubt whether we should make their lives so comfortable that they can look forward to pensions.
  With those reflections, we raise no objection to the Amendment.
  Mr. Emery: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might deal with one point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer).
  Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to be under your chairmanship in the Chamber on what for me is the first time?
  I go along with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central to some extent in that I do not see any position in which the chairman of a consumers' council would be pensioned. I agree that there is more argument for the chairman of the national consumers' council than there is for the chairmen of the area consumers' councils. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I thought that he would wish to know that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: No. 9, in page 50, line 11, leave out "the said paragraph 2" and insert "those paragraphs".

Schedule 4

  GAS SUPPLY CODE
  Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 51, line 18, at end insert:
  "() The powers of the Corporation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall include power to erect in any street one or more structures for housing pressure governors, but only with the consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, of the highway authority or other person having the control or management of the street.
  Any question whether or not consent to the erection of such a structure is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by arbitration; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the withholding of consent shall, to the extent that it is based on the ground that the structure ought to be erected elsewhere than in a street, be treated as unreasonable if the Corporation show either that there is no reasonably practicable alternative to erecting it in a street, or that all such alternatives would, on the balance of probabilities, involve greater danger to life or property."
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It implements an undertaking that I gave in Committee when the Opposition moved an Amendment to permit the Gas Corporation to erect in streets structures for housing pressure governors, otherwise known as governor kiosks.
  1096
  Pressure governors are apparatus for regulating the flow and reducing the pressure of gas, especially to the low pressures appropriate for final distribution or supply to the consumer. They are essential in regulating from main line supply to consumer supply. A considerable number of governors have already been installed by the gas industry, and a number of these structures have been erected. However, some doubt has arisen as to the industry's power to erect these structures in streets, and clarification is desirable. This is what the Amendment secures. I am grateful to the Opposition for the discussion they inspired in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7

  SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 80, line 9, at end insert:
  Compulsory purchase
  Anything done before the appointed day for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the compulsory purchase of land, or rights over land, by the Gas Council or an Area Board under section 11 of the Gas Act 1948 shall have effect as from that day as if done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the compulsory purchase of the land or rights in question by the Corporation under Schedule 2 to this Act
  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It makes obvious sense to consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 11 is a transitional Amendment to ensure that the Gas Corporation, once it is in existence, does not have to waste everybody's time and effort by re-starting proceedings on any compulsory purchase order made by its predecessor and not confirmed before the appointed day.
  The second Amendment is a saving provision in connection with pensions and is for the protection of individuals.
  The third Amendment is also a saving provision which ensures the terms on which certain persons holding British gas stock are not affected by the repeal of the 1948 Act.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8

  REPEALS
  Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 85, line 11, at end insert:

  14 Geo. 6. C. 39.

  The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.

  In Schedule 5, the entries relating to the Gas Act 1948.

  Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  I suggest that we discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
  Before explaining briefly the purpose of the Amendments, may I again, as I did on Third Reading and in Committee,
  1098
  thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for the very thorough manner in which the Bill has been gone through and improved because of our deliberations. I pay tribute particularly to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who have played a leading part from the Opposition Front Bench in the passage of the Bill.
  These Amendments, as is obvious from the face of them, tidy up the references to gas in previous legislation. This makes it slightly easier for anybody who is trying to consult that legislation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

TUBE INVESTMENTS, WALSALL (PLANT CLOSURE)
10.13 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: Just over a month ago, on 28th June, a bombshell exploded in Walsall when an announcement was made that Tube Investments' stainless tubes plant would be shut down and 1,400 men would be made redundant.
This is the most serious blow to Walsall for 50 years. It has created a shock wave, not only in Walsall, but throughout the West Midlands, because everybody thought that Tube Investments' plant was an example of up-to-date plant in a sophisticated industry which would have a great future.
The fact that the directors of Tube Investments have decided to close this modern plant sends a fear around the West Midlands, because there are now so many other plants which are not so modern, which are not in such sophisticated industries, and which could be "for the chop" if the chop is applied to Tube Investments' plant in Walsall.
As I say, this will produce 1,400 redundancies itself, but the effect does not stop there, because many sub-contractors supply these works. If the works are closed and no alternative employment is found, the earning capacity will be so reduced that it will have consequential effects on employment in Walsall. It is reliably estimated that the extra redundancies created could well be as many as 1,000. This gives a total redundancy figure of up to 2,400 as a result of the plant being closed. Already unemployment in and around Walsall is extremely serious and numbers about 5,200 in the town and district. The effect of the closure could increase redundancy by about 50 per cent., and in anybody's language that is a serious position. The effect on the town will be so great that Walsall Town Council is united in its opposition to the closure, and that opposition includes both political parties represented on the council.
1100
At a protest demonstration held by the workers a few weeks ago the deputy mayor himself marched through the town and the mayor attended a protest meeting. I am very sad to hear tonight that the mayor, Alderman Wilkins, has just died, and I wish to express my condolences to his family. It was a very fine gesture for the mayor to attend the demonstration although his health was not 100 per cent. perfect at the time. The mayor's action had the full support of his colleagues because they knew how great the impact of the closure would be on the town. The council has requested the Secretary of State to receive a deputation, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce tonight that his right hon. Friend has agreed to do so.
What are the ostensible reasons for the decision to close the plant? The company says it is because of foreign competition and the lack of orders. Frankly, these excuses are the typical refuge of a badly run concern. The recent devaluation of the pound should help a great deal in the fight against foreign competition. Walsall prices should now be lower and more competitive than those of Stuttgart or Stockholm. Confidence in the management of the Walsall Tube Investments' plant would be much undermined by a full page advertisement which was placed by the company in the Walsall Observer a week or so ago. A director of the firm, Mr. Frost, heads his advertisement:
"Our aim is to reduce risk to jobs."
What a facile statement to make when it is clear in the sixth sentence of the announcement that the decision to close the works will not be reversed. Reduce the risk to jobs, indeed. His statement is cold comfort to 1,400 men when it is clear from the text that there are only 150 jobs in the other Tube Investments plant and therefore very few of the redundant men can expect to get jobs in other parts of the company.
An analysis of the official statement by the company throws doubts on the decision of the directors themselves that the viability of the plant is supposed to be in doubt. Figures filed by the company make clear that Tube Investments, Walsall, made a net profit of £274,000

1101
in 1969, a return on investment of 8·3 per cent. In 1970 the net profit was £170,000, a return of 4·4 per cent.
Indeed, the parent company makes a substantial return. In 1970 and 1971 the total profit of Tube Investments was £13 million and £10 million respectively, a handsome return of 14·8 per cent. and 13·6 per cent. Compared with the results of other industrial combines, that is very good. Therefore, we can imagine that Tube Investments is in a good position to carry its Walsall plant through perhaps an awkward time, particularly as it has invested nearly £2 million in the plant during the past two years. It is now saying that in 1971 the Walsall plant made a loss of £122,000, or £65,000 after a tax credit from the year before. But in that year the depreciation figure was increased by £110,000 and the audit fee by £36,000, a total increase of £146,000. If the accountants had made some adjustments of those two flexible figures, the results could easily have been shown as a surplus.
Now we come to the current year. The celebrated "Reduce risk to jobs" Mr. Frost says that the loss will be £400,000, but that figure could be as artificial as the 1971 result. What is the allowance for depreciation in it? What are the prices charged for inter-company transactions? The results of the firm must depend to some extent on what is charged to other parts of the Tube Investments group. Mr. Frost cannot expect the workers of this factory to be fobbed off with excuses. Even if his prognostications are correct, and there is a loss of £400,000 a year, this is only the second year of the loss, and with a modern up-to-date plant like that one could expect that Tube Investments would keep it going until it could get to grips with the problems of demand.
I turn now to a most serious allegation which is being made by responsible trade union officials. This concerns the long-length seamless tube capacity of the plant, which is the only one in the United Kingdom capable of making the special tubes required for the nuclear power industry. It is not only the best plant in Europe but perhaps the best in the world for producing such tubes. It is
1102
being suggested that under arrangements for the future of atomic energy a deal has been made and the plant has been shut down so that the business can be transferred to the French in return for concessions to British industry. I do not know whether the allegation is true or false, but the Government must make their position clear tonight in answer to the rumours which are creating such concern. The Government must also say what is their policy for the future of the process plant industry in Britain, because Tube Investments, Walsall, has depended on process plant.
Even more important, what are the Government doing about the power plant orders now required for the CEGB? In particular, what are they doing about the future of the nuclear power industry in Britain? I know that the problems are complex, but uncertainty is playing into the hands of our competitors, particularly the Americans. This country's investment in nuclear power technology is second-to-none in the world. We have a wonderful opportunity not only to build nuclear power plants which could meet our own power requirements in Britain but, if we make the right decisions now, we can organise our industry to take advantage of the increasing demand abroad for nuclear power plants.
I recognise that the performance so far has been disappointing. There has been no lack of trying, but now we are reaching the position where our experience is beginning to pay off. The Central Electricity Generating Board has acknowledged that the cost of producing electrical power from nuclear plant in Britain is now less than the cost of many other alternative forms of power. With the increased price of oil and the increased price of fuel generally, it will be more economic to install nuclear power plants than conventional power stations. The opportunity is, therefore, there to have a viable nuclear power industry in Britain, and to use it as the springboard for sales abroad. This will give us as taxpayers an opportunity to get a return on the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that we have put into the industry.
The lack of decision by the Government on the future of the nuclear power

1103
industry is having a direct effect on the situation of components suppliers like Tube Investments at Walsall and it is therefore relevant that this issue should be raised in the debate tonight. An early decision by the Government is necessary; this delay is intolerable. The Vinter Committee, which has been studying the nuclear power industry, was set up as long ago as spring 1971, and it presented its report to the Secretary of State early this year. What have the Government been doing with the report?
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House tonight that an announcement will be made about the Government's policy for the future of the nuclear power industry in Britain before we rise for the recess. Industry generally is anxious for their decision, and Tube Investments at Walsall is directly concerned. A clear announcement before next week could help to avert the closure of this plant, and an order for a nuclear power plant before we rise for the recess would also help to ensure that Tube Investments at Walsall does not close.
To their credit, the Government have intervened to secure employment on Clydeside following the collapse of UCS. They have even gone to the extent of bringing in an American firm, with an inducement of over £6 million. The Government have intervened in the Rolls-Royce situation to save jobs in Derby. I want the Minister and the Government to understand that in the minds of Walsall people Tube Investments is as important to Walsall as is UCS to Clydeside and Rolls-Royce to Derby.
The Government are responsible for producing the economic malaise which is creating so much unemployment, lack of investment and lack of job opportunities. In particular areas where the effects of unemployment are so serious and where there are major shutdowns the Government have acted, and I implore the Government to act in this case, as they have elsewhere, before disaster strikes. I want them to act to help to save the jobs of 1,400 skilled men in Walsall.
10.28 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: We are grateful to the right hon.
1104
Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for bringing up this subject for debate. I am sure his interest will be extremely well received by his future constituents, as it is by me. But we have to remember that we are not addressing ourselves to the management of Tube Investments but to the Minister, and it is to the Minister that I wish to address my remarks.
I have no brief for Tube Investments, but I cannot believe that after an investment of £1¾ million less than two years ago it has abandoned that investment overnight for other than strictly commercial reasons. In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I am aware that the British Steel Corporation is facing exactly the same problems at the tube factory in Newport.
Speaking without any deep knowledge, I suspect that there is considerable over-capacity for the production of steel tube in this country and, unfortunately, the workers in that industry are now having to face this horrible situation. It is a horrible situation. I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. According to my calculation, Walsall has an unemployment rate of 4·7 at the moment. That is above the average for the rest of the Midlands and above the average for the country. If we add these further figure the total will be 7 per cent. In the whole 18 years in which I have represented Walsall, we have never had such a situation. This is a crisis situation which must be dealt with on a crisis basis.
We are addressing ourselves to the Minister. What can he do? First, there are about 80 apprentices included in these 1,400 people. Obviously it is necessary that their training should be continued in other forms. I hope that the Ministry is paying special attention to that. Secondly, I believe that Tube Investments have indicated that they could absorb 150 to 200 from Walsall in other activities. If there can be encouragement to local industry, particularly by more generous provision of industrial development certificates in Willenhall, Walsall and Darlston, that would be generally welcome and would bring extra local employment. Thirdly, the Industry Bill is not yet on the Statute Book, but I believe that the Minister will have powers

1105
under that Measure to deal with an area of specially high unemployment, which will be the position of Walsall very shortly.
These are all matters which require the direct attention of the Minister. He cannot allow the House to rise for the holiday with the thought that we are to have an unemployment rate of 7 per cent. in a town which is the workshop of the West Midlands. For one of the great workshops of England, an unemployment rate of 7 per cent. would be very painful and would reflect deeply on the Government. I hope and believe that the Minister has constructive suggestions to put before us. I must tell him that unless he has it will be a grave disappointment to members of his party from whom over the years he has had unflinching support.
Finally, I join with the right hon. Member for Wednesbury in paying tribute to the Mayor of Walsall, a very distinguished citizen, whose death I join in lamenting.
10.34 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): In the short time I have to reply to this debate, I start by expressing the Government's regret at the sudden death of the Mayor of Walsall. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish that the condolences of the House should be expressed to his wife and family in this considerable tragedy.
I of course realise the concern of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) over this problem. The closure has been described as a tragedy, but tragedy has been defined as conflict of right with right. It is right that, as far as possible, people should be spared the upheaval and anxiety that redundancy and possible unemployment would bring. But it is no less right that companies should operate efficiently and make such changes in their operation as may from time to time seem necessary. It is right that companies should be able to rationalise their production so that they
1106
can produce and compete because if they do not take those steps nothing can keep them in business.
I do not regard myself in any way as an advocate or an apologist for Tube Investments. The management has made certain decisions and it is their right to do so; in fact, their job to do so. However, since the consequences of these decisions affect a large number of people, I thought it right to discuss the overall problem with the senior management, and this I did on Tuesday. I can announce that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealing with industrial development will be seeing a deputation. I am not certain of the date, but I believe it will be 16th August.
Let me now, in what I hope will be a reasonable speech, take to task the right hon. Gentleman for one specific statement which he made. He said that if this plant closes other plants in the West Midlands will be for the chop. I must point out to him in all seriousness that that is a dangerous and damaging statement. It is not inclined to assist investment coming into the West Midlands or to Walsall. I think that he will perhaps regret that statement and its overall implication.
Mr. Stonehouse: What I was doing was bringing to the attention of the House the fears which are being expressed in the area.
Mr. Emery: What I am saying is that by repeating that the right hon. Gentleman himself, with his very considerable prestige as a Privy Councillor, lends weight to the statement, and I would hope that he would stop its circulation, because it is, as I said, dangerous and damaging.
I would meet one of the right hon. Gentleman's other requests immediately, and that is to confirm from the Government's point of view that there is no truth in the view which is being expressed that a deal has been done or carried through that because of nuclear decisions or for other reasons certain production should be transferred from Walsall to the French or to Europe. I think it is important that that should be known at this moment.

1107
The announcement on 29th June that the works was to close certainly came as a shock, but it could not as has been suggested by certain people have come as a complete surprise, certainly not to the workers' representatives. Since the early months of this year the management has said in its periodical meetings with trade unionists and with the shop stewards that the trading position was difficult and that the future of the factory was by no means assured. The management has carried on consultations at those meetings with union representatives. Unhappily the decision has now had to be made to close.
It has been suggested that the Government should in some way step in to prevent the closure from happening. The Government have no powers, and I do not believe that they should have powers, to dictate to industry to carry out work in a particular place, or to demand that unprofitable plant should be kept in operation. It is dictators who dictate, not this Government. The Government have no intention of seeking powers of that sort over industry, or of seeking powers over individuals to compel them to work for one firm rather than another or in one town rather than another.
Another suggestion, on the face of it more reasonable, is that the Government should consider what orders could be placed for work concerned with nuclear energy or what help might be given in other ways under the Industry Bill. I should point out that special tubing for nuclear power use is only part of the capacity of the Walsall works and T.I's plans for relocating work at Chesterfield and Blaenrhondda represent no more than a marginal reduction in overall capacity.
The management is anxious that the run-down of the Plant, if it must come, should be carried through in an orderly fashion. Everyone would be the gainer by that. The Department of Employment's services can be brought into play to help all those affected to find new jobs suitable to their needs. Opportunities to transfer to other plants within the Tube Investments Group can be made available. I would refer to the point
1108
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and say that the figure of 150 is an under-estimate of jobs which should be retained. The figure presented to me was that TI would provide 400 jobs within its own organisation if it had to carry through the rundown.
All the time, the management must keep a sharp eye open for opportunities to dispose of the site and buildings as a going operation. At any time an opportunity to sell could arise, in part or as a whole, as an operating works or for adaptation or redevelopment. Any of these possibilities—they are no more than possibilities, but they must not be dismissed on that account—could create new prospects. The Government would wish to give their assistance if a scheme on those lines could be worked out.
I do not belittle the very real anxieties and worries of the people affected by the proposed closure. I was unemployed for a time, and I realise what it means to pound the pavement, the frustration, the terrifying feeling that this has, especially for family men with their commitments. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to use their considerable influence to ensure that those understandable anxieties do not find an outlet in a blank refusal to co-operate for the common good. If change is coming it is better to go along with it than to stand and be overwhelmed by it.
Walsall has much to offer an incoming industrialist, not least a labour force which is skilful, intelligent and adaptable. Those qualities are a tremendous selling point for Walsall. It would be a thousand pities if those were to be marred by a lack of co-operation, since that would most likely deter any industrialist who might be considering a location in Walsall.
I leave the management's authority to say that even at this late stage, after this debate, they are prepared to consider any proposals from the unions for continuing activities in the works. I hope that possibility will be explored fully.
If closure still appears the only answer, there will be full co-operation in ensuring that it takes place with the

1109
minimum of personal distress. I hope my appeal will be properly taken at the conclusion of this debate.
Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister comment on the Vinter Report? When is it likely to be released?
Mr. Emery: This is not a debate on the Vinter Committee—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Purchase (Troubled Areas)
  House Purchase (Troubled Areas)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
  IRA Victims (Post Mortems)
  IRA Victims (Post Mortems)
  Rates Relief Scheme
  Rates Relief Scheme
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
  Manufacturing Industries (Employment)
  Manufacturing Industries (Employment)
  Special Powers Act
  Special Powers Act
  Employment (Discrimination)
  Employment (Discrimination)
  Political Parties (Meetings with Ministers)
  Political Parties (Meetings with Ministers)
  Community Projects
  Community Projects
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  IRA (Meetings with Ministers)
  IRA (Meetings with Ministers)
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
  Incidents (Armagh)
  Incidents (Armagh)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Probation and After-care
  Probation and After-care
  Magee University
  Magee University
  Royal Victoria Hospital (Nurses)
  Royal Victoria Hospital (Nurses)
  Referendum
  Referendum
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Tree Planting Year
  Tree Planting Year
  Language Schools
  Language Schools
  Secondary School Building (Northamptonshire)
  Secondary School Building (Northamptonshire)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Voluntary Award Schools (London)
  Voluntary Award Schools (London)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Civilian Industrial Drivers (Earnings)
  Civilian Industrial Drivers (Earnings)
  Royal Air Force, Lindholme
  Royal Air Force, Lindholme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Real Estate Fund Company of America
  Real Estate Fund Company of America
  Parking Offences
  Parking Offences
  Taxis (London)
  Taxis (London)
  Coroners (Jurisdiction of Parliamentary Commissioner)
  Coroners (Jurisdiction of Parliamentary Commissioner)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Theft Act (Section 16)
  Theft Act (Section 16)
  Mr. Ronald Larby
  Mr. Ronald Larby
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill
  Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill
  Gold
  Gold
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  TREASON
  TREASON
SCOTLAND
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ministers (Attendance)
  Ministers (Attendance)
WALES
  Chester Southerly Bypass
  Chester Southerly Bypass
  House Building
  House Building
  Morbidity
  Morbidity
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Health Department (Staff)
  Health Department (Staff)
  Health Research
  Health Research
  Consultants Health Service Patients)
  Consultants Health Service Patients)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Finance Act
  Housing Finance Act
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Mr. A. R. Maxwell (Compensation Claim)
  Mr. A. R. Maxwell (Compensation Claim)
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Car Oil (Disposal)
  Car Oil (Disposal)
  House of Commons (Car Park)
  House of Commons (Car Park)
  Listed Building Control (Infringements)
  Listed Building Control (Infringements)
  Transport Licensing (Minimum Fares)
  Transport Licensing (Minimum Fares)
  Bus and Coach Services (Licensing)
  Bus and Coach Services (Licensing)
  School Buses (Road Accidents)
  School Buses (Road Accidents)
  Train Crews (Radio Link)
  Train Crews (Radio Link)
  Malton Bypass
  Malton Bypass
  Market Weighton Bypass
  Market Weighton Bypass
  York Bypass
  York Bypass
  Driffield Bypass
  Driffield Bypass
  Tadcaster Bypass
  Tadcaster Bypass
  M62 (East Riding)
  M62 (East Riding)
  Central Line (Epping-Ongar)
  Central Line (Epping-Ongar)
  Surface Mineral Workings
  Surface Mineral Workings
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancies (Manchester)
  Redundancies (Manchester)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Disabled Persons (Services)
  Disabled Persons (Services)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Manchester Travel-to-Work Area
  Manchester Travel-to-Work Area
  Electricity and Gas (Connection Charges)
  Electricity and Gas (Connection Charges)
  South African Imports
  South African Imports
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licence Fee (Old Persons' Homes)
  Television Licence Fee (Old Persons' Homes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  North Atlantic Fishing Fleets
  North Atlantic Fishing Fleets
  Fish Catch (Icelandic Waters)
  Fish Catch (Icelandic Waters)
  Beer
  Beer
  Whales
  Whales
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Elderly Persons (Television Licences)
  Elderly Persons (Television Licences)
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Friends of Hospitals
  Friends of Hospitals
  Fire Precautions (Hospitals)
  Fire Precautions (Hospitals)
  Blind Persons (Mobility Training)
  Blind Persons (Mobility Training)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Benefits (Research)
  Benefits (Research)
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (INVESTMENT AND MANPOWER)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (INVESTMENT AND MANPOWER)
  POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME
  POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  CANCER
  CANCER
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  JAPAN (EXPORTS)
  JAPAN (EXPORTS)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Commonwealth Emigrants
  Commonwealth Emigrants

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith—Took the Oath.

SEABED CONFERENCE
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 progress has been made at the Seabed Conference at Geneva in the preparation of a draft treaty for next year's international conference.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, preparations for the International Conference on the Law of the Sea due to be held next year have been slow. However the United Nations Seabed Committee has made some progress on an international Seabed Convention.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that rather indefinite Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that one cannot deal with this matter by interrogation? Further, is the noble Baroness aware that I have put down a Starred Question only because of the unpopularity of Unstarred Questions? Will Her Majesty's Government consider, when they are preparing this international draft, the advantages and disadvantages of three alternative methods: first, control by multi-national companies which within three years can go to a depth of 3,000 metres; secondly, control by nation-States, which would be a new form of colonialism; and, thirdly, control by an international authority which could use these resources for the benefit of all peoples?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question amply justifies what he said at the start of his remarks: it is a very difficult subject to discuss by question and answer. But on his specific question as to whether one would consider three different forms for the control of the seabed: multi-national companies, nation-States or an international authority, that is just the kind of question which is being considered now and which, because of its difficulty, is taking so long to resolve.

OVERLOADING OF LORRIES
3.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: 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 further steps they are taking to enforce the law and prevent overloaded lorries being used on the road.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are much concerned about the problem of overloaded lorries. In January of this year my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries implemented statutory provisions under which enforcement officers may prohibit the movement of vehicles overloaded to the point of danger. Earlier this week the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 came into force. This closes loopholes which have hitherto prevented our laws being enforced on foreign vehicles in this country. More weighbridges are being provided and further measures are being considered.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him why he thinks it is that Nottinghamshire had 22 per cent. of the total convictions in 1972 for overloaded lorries, when they have only 0·8 per cent. of the road system? Does the noble Lord think that if Nottinghamshire can enforce law, other counties also could do it?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for

453
giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the activities of the Deparament's Nottinghamshire staff. They work very closely with the police, and statistics the noble Lord mentioned include the Department's effort in this direction.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us some idea of the Government's intentions about the appointment of more inspectors or interrogators, as distinct from the police?—because at the present moment the police check, of necessity, can only be a very casual one. This evil is growing to an alarming degree, and talk has been going on for quite a long time about the appointment of law enforcement officers. I do not like too many law enforcement officers, but I think that this is a matter of some importance.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Department's staff has been increased from 181 to 195, and it may be increased further.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that almost daily we receive reports of gas mains and water mains bursting, with consequent great interruption of traffic? Does he not think that the presence of so many of these heavy lorry-loads on the roads has something to do with that?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's question and I will certainly look into it.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord praised Nottinghamshire. May I ask whether the reason for their success is the fact that they have an unfair proportion of enforcement officers? If not, what is the reason for success in this particular county? Further, does the noble Lord not agree that all the rest of the country is suffering from the fact that we see so much of this overloading, particularly at this time of the year, when there are loads of bales of hay and straw which are dangerously loaded and not properly secured?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Nottinghamshire is figuring largely in this exchange because it was featured in the article in the magazine, Drive.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the general public have concluded that a mockery is being
454
made of the police authorities throughout the country who are dealing with the problem of overloaded lorries? Many of the police authorities are not up to their full establishment, and they do not know what to do to attract more people into their service in order to get up to their full establishment.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that while I can speak directly for the Department's own staff, the police authorities and the weights and measures inspectors used for these enforcement purposes are employed by the local authorities. It is a matter for them to judge the priority that enforcement work must take.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that the police are already heavily overloaded, that they are asked to keep a check on fumes from lorries, on the overloading of lorries, and on the testing of brakes of lorries, and when they have so many other wide responsibilities in the field of crime, is it not unrealistic to continue piling responsibility on to the police? Would the Minister consider alternative methods of carrying out these inspections and bringing these lorries under proper control?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, certainly. In addition to the measures that I have mentioned, we are considering further moves. We are of course aware of the need to avoid distracting the police from other pressing duties.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the maximum penalty for overloading a lorry?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; not without notice.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a responsible estimate of the proportion of overloaded vehicles on the roads is one in ten? Is the Minister also aware that, of the deaths occurring to occupants of cars and light vans, at least half are caused by those vehicles coming into collision with lorries?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, it is only too easy to arrive at conclusions of that kind as a result of reading the article in Drive. But in fact the heavy lorry accident rate is the

455
lowest for any category of vehicle. It is not that 10 per cent. of all lorries are overloaded, but that 10 per cent. of all lorries checked are found to be overloaded. Lorries are not checked unless, first of all, there is a suspicion that they are overloaded.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for pressing my question again? This matter of the appointment of additional investigating or interrogating officers has been under discussion for a great number of years. Is the Minister able to indicate when he hopes to be able to make a statement giving some indication of the number that he ultimately aims at, in order to reach a satisfactory solution to this problem?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I did not just say that we were considering an increase. I said that we had increased the staff from 181 to 195. We may increase it further.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the complaints to which we have listened—and they are justifiable complaints—are nothing to what we shall have when we go into the Common Market, and have harmonisation of our road transport with the Continental vehicles?

PARKING FACILITIES IN THE WEST END
3.17 p.m.
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 what is their attitude towards the construction of an underground car park adjoining the new Green Park Underground station.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend has no plans to build such a car park.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether, while the Government have declared themselves against an underground car park under St. James's Park and under Kensington Gardens, they
456
can be equally forthcoming on the subject of Green Park?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should not have thought it was possible to be any more forthcoming than I have just been. My right honourable friend has no plans to build such a car park.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that something ought to be done to relieve the congestion at present caused by motor coaches all the way down Constitution Hill and along the Mall? Could not something also be done to encourage motor drivers to leave their cars in the West End and travel to the City by public transport?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is now raising much wider issues. I agree that there is certainly scope for looking into all these matters, and I can confirm that they are being looked into.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will look into the question of constructing underground car parks—if we must have them—under open spaces where there are no trees? Will the Government study what has been done in Paris?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question on the matter of Green Park? Can the noble Lord explain the immense works that are going on there with bulldozers, and much else, at Green Park well behind the extended Tube station? Is that anything to do with a projected car park?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I have said, there is no plan to build a car park there. The work to which the noble Baroness has referred is in connection with the construction of the Fleet Line.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether it is intended to restore Green Park to its original attractive appearance, and when this is likely to be completed?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the London Transport Executive are likely to require the site until 1976. Certainly, as soon as they have finished with it the Park will be restored.

PEST CONTROL AND CROPS DAMAGE
LORD HAWKE: 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 in view of the harassment of horticulturists by ever increasing swarms of pigeons, rabbits, bullfinches, grey squirrels and, in some parts of England, deer, they will consider the reintroduction of anti-pest schemes.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is the responsibility of occupiers, including horticulturists, to take their own control measures against pests on their land. The agricultural Ministers have enforcement powers under Part V of the Agriculture Act 1947 and these are exercised as appropriate. I should point out, however, that reports which my right honourable friend receives regularly from all parts of the country do not lead to the conclusion which my noble friend's Question implies.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which is flatly in contradiction of my own experience. Am I right in thinking that a number of years ago rabbits were alleged to do £50 million-worth of damage to agriculture? At to-day's prices that would be well over £100 million. Am I not also right in thinking that squirrels are doing great damage to all the plantations in the country; that bullfinches are ruining plant and apple orchards so that some growers are grubbing them up; that many farmers are giving up growing brassicas because of the plague of pigeons, and that the Forestry Commission has only one deer clear to cover the whole of the South of England?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not sure that I could confirm all the matters about which my noble friend has asked. I would only tell him that I accept that in some parts of the country there are problems; but my right honourable friend's Department carries out surveys and has come to the conclusion that, on the whole, there is not a great increase in the number of these animals. I would confirm that before 1954 about 94 per
458
cent. of all farms had rabbits, that now only about 60 percent. Have rabbits and that only 2 percent. are badly infested with them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us would prefer to have a swarm of pigeons, a bunch of rabbits, bullfinches taking the top off the milk and grey squirrels, than to have lorries which we cannot control? If we are going to listen to every egghead who, with his mortar and pestle, is producing poisons in the countryside, this country will be denuded of some of the lovely things which God has created. I would rather be in a country where bullfinches sang and where it may have cost nothing to keep them. The ox that treadeth his corn should not have a muzzle.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the answer to that rather depends whose corn he is treading.
LORD HALE: My Lords, may I declare a personal interest in this matter, because since I have been here grey squirrels have been occupying my home for longer periods than I have? Is the noble Earl aware that when Her Majesty's then advisers elevated the civic rat catcher to a distinguished rodent officer they forgot to tell him what a rodent was? The grey squirrel is a rodent. Might not a little information be helpful to those of us who are suffering what is a real and difficult plague?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as my original Answer indicated, it is the responsibility of occupiers to take their own control measures. If I found my house occupied by grey squirrels, as the noble Lord does, I would take measures to try to get rid of them.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Earl assure us that whatever his noble friend has said about the rabbit he will never tolerate the reintroduction of the control of rabbits by myxomatosis?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in fact, myxomatosis is the cause of the greatest control of rabbits at the moment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that on the occasion

459
when there was a bounty (I cannot remember whether it was on pigeons or squirrels) the Chief Scientific Adviser of the Forestry Commission and of the Nature Conservancy said that it was as effective as erecting a six-inch high sea wall round Britain to keep out the sea?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was not aware that that statement was made. I do not think it concurs with the advice that I am given with regard to the control of squirrels.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the very high cost of the materials that may be used to deter animals from nibbling at vegetation and also of the high cost of cartridges? Would he look into this?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, yes, I am aware of the high cost of both these deterrents. Some time ago Her Majesty's Government used to subsidise the cost of cartridges for the destruction of wood pigeons, but it has been considered more appropriate that this cost should be borne by the occupiers themselves rather than subsidised by the taxpayer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that if Her Majesty's Government were to introduce pests officers, and if we were to have hordes of pests officers as we had at one time, they would be likely to become just as great pests as the pests they were supposed to limit?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I do not think this would have the desired effect.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
3.26 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, by arrangement with the Leader of the House may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships to make a brief personal statement? In the course of the recent debate on the Common Market reference was made to a confrontation between the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and myself at the London School of Economics a few years ago. On that occasion there was an allegation that a meeting was being packed. In the course of my observations during the
460
debate I ventured to associate the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with the packing of the meeting. That was a most improper observation. The noble Lord was in no way associated with the allegation or what may have happened, and I ask leave to withdraw unreservedly the imputation.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is expected that with the leave of your Lordships' House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the Proclamation of a State of Emergency.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Short title and interpretation]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("taken with") and insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: This would appear at first sight to be merely a drafting change perhaps devoid of any real importance. In the context in which the words appear a change of that sort does to some extent impinge upon principle and is of some importance for the reasons which I would now venture to give. Clause 2, by a process that your Lordships may wish to investigate in rather more detail later in our proceedings, makes auto-

461
matically part of the law of England the actual wording of a great many Treaties. From the time that this Bill becomes law—as I hope it will—the words in those Treaties to which Clause 2 appertains will be as much a part of the law of England as any Finance Act, Bill of Rights or any other Act. That being the effect of Clause 2 it becomes absolutely imperative that the Committee should know precisely what Treaties we are talking about. In order to know what those Treaties are one has to turn back to Clause 1, which is the definition clause, in which one should find clearly and specifically set out what those Treaties are.
As a matter of general complaint, I would venture to say this. The situation being as I have, I hope, correctly described it, it would, I should have thought, have been highly desirable that all those Treaties that fall within the scope of Clause 1 which have up to this moment been entered into should be actually listed, perhaps in a Schedule to the Bill. A liege should know what are the Treaties portions of which are, from the time of the passing of this Bill, to be in their actual wording part of our own law.
My first complaint is that those Treaties are not listed. One has to work them out by seeking to apply the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill. In those circumstances, I submit that it is of the greatest importance that that definition should admit of no doubt in its interpretation if any change can be made which makes it more precise in its application. The definition refers to the:
"the Treaties' or ' the Community Treaties '"
as meaning in the first place
"pre-accession treaties, that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1".
That is clear enough. Then follow the words "taken with" and then paragraph (a) which refers to the Treaties that were entered into on January 22, 1972, which in the Bill is described as the entry date; namely, the date on which the Treaties were entered into making this country, as from January 1, 1973, a member country of the European Community.
It is in the middle of that definition that these words "taken with" appear. I cannot myself discover or think of any
462
reason why the extremely experienced and skilful draftsman whose work this is did not use the ordinary English word "and". What is the difference between "and" and "taken with"? I should have thought that in ordinary parlance, if one were asking oneself what Treaties one is talking about, one would say, "Treaty A and Treaty B and Treaty C and Treaty D. "That, I should have thought, admits no doubt. You are talking about those four Treaties. But I cannot quite make out what the draftsman had in mind when, instead of using that simple English precise word "and", he substituted for it the words "taken with". Therefore, in his drafting "the Treaties" means the pre-accession treaties set out in the Schedule taken with the accession Treaty, if I may so describe it, of January 22, 1972. What does that mean? Does that mean that both of those Treaties come within the definition, or does it mean that both are to be regarded as constituting one Treaty?
I would ask the noble Earl who I believe will reply to this debate: What is the difference between the expression that the Treaties we are talking about are "Treaty A and Treaty B", and the expression that the Treaties were are talking about are "Treaty A taken with Treaty B "? My respect for the draftsman is so high that I am sure there must be a perfectly simple reason which has eluded me. I have been puzzling over it, but I have not yet lighted upon the reason which would explain the matter at any rate to me. I therefore put this Amendment before your Lordships for consideration as a matter of some importance, because it is essential that we should know, as they are not listed, what it is we are talking about. I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he would be so good as to give me the answer to the simple question: What is the difference between the expression "pre-accession treaties and the accession Treaty", on the one hand, and the expression, "pre-accession treaties taken with the accession Treaty", on the other hand? There must be some difference. There must be some reason why the draftsman has chosen that terminology, and I should be very grateful indeed if the Government would be so kind as to say what that is.
I am perfectly prepared, so far as I am concerned, to assent to the position if there is a reason. But if there is not, I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that this is an example, to which we should attach importance, of a lack of precision which could have been avoided, in a context where precision is of the highest possible importance. That is the case I venture to put before the Committee, and I hope it will be given an answer which will answer the simple question which I have, probably only too innocently, asked.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): May I—
LORD BESWICK: I want to say, if I may be allowed to say, following my noble friend, and my name is down to the Amendment—
EARL JELLICOE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to say that the Home Secretary has now started to make a Statement in another place, and if it is for the convenience of your Lordships' House I would beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

DOCKS STRIKE: STATE OF EMERGENCY
3.35 p.m.
EARL JELLECOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to deliver to your Lordships a Message respecting the declaration of a State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such a nature as to be calculated by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may by Proclamation declare that a State of Emergency exists. And the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports, having in Her
464
Majesty's opinion constituted a State of Emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated August 3, 1972, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a State of Emergency exists."
My Lords, I should now like, if I may, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making in another place. It is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.
"The Government consider that the present industrial situation in the ports constitutes a threat to the essentials of life of the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services. They have therefore thought it right to advise the Proclamation of a State of Emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended, followed by the making of emergency regulations under Section 2.
"The regulations will come into force at midnight to-night. Copies will be available this afternoon."—
I understand, at 4.30 p.m., my Lords—that was an interjection into the Home Secretary's Statement.
"I shall shortly make an announcement about the arrangements for debating the usual Motions on the Address and the regulations. The regulations are almost identical with those made last February; the only significant change is a new regulation to facilitate the supply of medicines.
"The use of the powers will be limited, as always, to what the essential public interest requires and it is premature to say what orders may have to be made under the regulations."
My Lords, that concludes the Home Secretary's Statement. Before I resume my seat I should perhaps mention to your Lordships that I understand it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House may be asked to consider Her Majesty's Message and a Motion to approve the regulations on Wednesday, August 9, at about 7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is customary to thank a noble Lord for making a Statement, however unwelcome it may be. So I do thank the noble Earl, though perhaps I may register one small complaint. It is one of the courtesies of the House to enlighten the Front Bench opposite that a Statement is about to be made. That might have saved the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between my noble friend Lord Beswick and the noble Earl. I realise that there is probably not a Government Whip—oh yes; there is a Government Whip present. This is usually done, but I realise that the Government Front Bench are in such chaos at the moment that they cannot remember these courtesies.
It is, of course, a very serious Statement. This is not the time to debate it. I have not seen the Orders. I take it that they are those with which, one way and another, we have been familiar—with perhaps one exception—for a number of years. We shall have an opportunity to debate the matter on Wednesday. Indeed, it was partly in anticipation of this situation that we were having our debate that was so tragically interrupted the other night. Of course time is very short. I hope the Government will continue—and this, I take it, is the reason for this Proclamation now—their more cautious posture. Also, I again beg the Government not to go on making provocative remarks that may exacerbate the situation, which has developed largely from the Industrial Relations Act.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I can only say on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches that we believe the Government are entirely right to declare a State of Emergency at the present time, and we can only hope that before we come to debate it next Wednesday the dockers' strike will have been ended and the powers will no longer be needed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which both the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, have given to the Statement which I have repeated. All I can do is to echo the hope which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has expressed and which I think was also implied in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton: that the present dispute in
466
the docks, with all its very serious implications, will be terminated in the, near future. That is certainly the ardent wish of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House one question? Is it not the case that the Emergency Regulations are necessary, not because the situation has become really critical but because it is necessary that these regulations should be taken in the other place within a stipulated period, and that that would involve recalling the Members of the other House? Is that such a serious matter? Would it not be far better for the other place to remain in session a little longer rather than to present regulations now which seem to imply that the situation has become critical and could possibly lead to panic hoarding of foods and other supplies?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the timetable or the programme in another place, and I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that these powers have not been taken as a result of considerations regarding the Parliamentary programme but rather as a necessary precaution. I think that at this stage no one can predict to what extent any of these powers might have to be used and in what precise timing. If the strike were to continue any longer, as we all hope it will not, the threat to the essentials of the life of the community would become graver.
A practical point is that under the regulations port emergency committees can be set up, and this, in the view of the Government, is a necessary precaution. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will have noted, there are emerging certain areas of shortage—such as animal feedingstuffs—which are becoming really quite serious.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
3.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD BESWICK: We shall listen with particular interest to the answer that is given by one of the noble Lords or by the noble Baroness opposite to the case that was put by my noble and learned

467
friend Lord Stow Hill. As he said, this is not simply a probing Amendment. It certainly is not a wrecking Amendment. We believe it to be, and it is certainly intended to be, an improvement to the Bill. If, on balance, Her Majesty's Government accept that my noble and learned friend, a very distinguished and ardent supporter of the Community, has put forward an improvement then we shall know that the assurances that were given by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on Second Reading, about listening to the merits of each Amendment, were fully meant and we can then go on to what I hope will be a useful and constructive Committee stage. If, however, there is read out the kind of negative, prepared brief which we heard so often during the unhappy Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, then of course we shall have to draw our own conclusions. For our part, however, we are fully prepared to listen sympathetically to what is said.
I should like just to add another word or two on the merits of the Amendment. As my noble friend said, its purpose is to give added precision to the meaning of the Bill. If there is one thing which will emerge, I believe, throughout this Committee stage it is that we are about to see a quite appalling blight of uncertainty settling on a very large body of our English law. So much of our legal system will then become imprecise in language and unclear in meaning. The whole purpose of this Bill is to superimpose upon our legal system a totally different principle of law making. Hitherto an Act of Parliament was hand made, custom built. It was the initial product of a skilled professional draftsman and it was scrutinised and polished by the two separate Houses of Parliamentarians to ensure that the words used were precisely those needed to achieve an agreed objective.
If I venture to give the appearance of pre-empting arguments which undoubtedly will be used about the rest of this clause it is because this Amendment is such an excellent example of how, through the years, by debate in Committee stage, we have learned to appreciate the importance of each single word and phrase that was destined to go upon
468
the Statute Book. It may well be that this Bill will be the last example of a piece of legislation dealing with really major matters to go through this process which we have evolved. There is all the more reason, therefore, why we should use this opportunity to the full. Unless Ministers can produce quite significant reasons to the contrary I much hope that they will be able to accept this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for his very clear exposition of the purpose of his Amendment. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for unwittingly interrupting him; as he knows, no discourtesy was intended. I should like to say by way of preface that the substantive effect of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill's Amendment would be nil; it would neither add any Treaties to the definition, nor would it remove any Treaties from the scope of the definition. And may I say, again by way of introduction, that I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, assert that all the Treaties defined in Clause 1, which is, of course, a pure definition clause, as he knows, were to be incorporated into the law of England by Clause 2. This is not really correct.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to interrupt. I did not, with great respect, say that. What I said was that parts of them were: those parts which fall within the scope of Clause 2; those parts which constitute rights, powers, obligations and so on.
EARL JELLICOE: Then I think the noble Lord and I are closer together. It would, of course, depend whether the Treaty included provisions which were directly applicable as a matter of Community law. Unless that were the case, Clause 2 (1) would not be involved. But I do not think the noble Lord and I are far apart on this particular point.
I think it might help the Committee if I were to explain, as briefly as I may, that Clause 1 (2) includes in the definition of the Treaties three separate categories of instrument. First, there are the pre-accession Treaties, that is, those set out in Part I of Schedule 1. Second, there is what I would like to term the accession complex, that is, the Treaty of Accession

469
and the decision—I would lay some weight on that—of the Council; and third, the future Treaties, about which it is likely that a good deal may be said on later Amendments to this clause, and about which I will not expand in answer to the first Amendment. All these categories are defined in Clause 1 (2) as comprised within the terms "the Treaties" or "the Community Treaties".
It might be thought very natural—and indeed, when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill's Amendment I was inclined at first blush to think it was natural—to link all three categories with the simple conjunction and", as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has proposed. Nevertheless, I must explain to your Lordships that the Amendment would be technically incorrect, and that the words "taken with" were not dreamt up, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, would recognise, given his knowledge of the pen that drafted this Bill; that those words "taken with" were carefully and consciously adopted in preference to the word "and", and this was for a very precise reason. I would agree with him that in this important Bill we must be precise.
The reason is that the Bill must take into account the fact that the decision of the Council of the European Communities relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Coal and Steel Community, which is referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), is not itself a Treaty. It is, as its title makes clear, a decision of the Council. Nevertheless, its terms are important because they set out the basis on which we become members of the European Coal and Steel Community, and they in some respects amend the provisions which will apply in the context of that particular Community. It is, therefore, entirely necessary—and I believe that there can be no dispute about this—for this decision to be taken into account in the definition of the Community Treaties. But at the same time it must be done in such a way as to accord to the decision a proper recognition of its status as a Council decision. It is for that reason that the words "taken with" are adopted in the Bill.
It is also necessary to make clear that the Treaty of Accession and the decision of the Council are not themselves pre-accession Treaties in the sense in which
470
that term is used in the Bill as meaning pre-January 22, 1972, Treaties. They were not entered into before January 22, but they were in fact entered into on that precise date. The words "taken with", carefully imported into the drafting, avoid any possibility of reading the reference in lines 16 to 18 on page 1 to "the pre-accession treaties" as including the Accession Treaty complex. Nevertheless, the Accession Treaty complex is closely related to the pre-accession Treaties, and they must obviously be read together, and the words "taken with", I would claim, bring this point out precisely.
LORD BESWICK: Before the noble Earl leaves that matter, when he says they must obviously be taken together, does he mean that we have to accept what is said in them or not? Do they apply to us or not, and if they apply, why cannot we refer to them simply as another Treaty?
EARL JELLICOE: Of course they apply to us. That must be crystal clear to the noble Lord.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl has said it must be crystal clear to me. What appears crystal clear to me is that if they apply to us equally with others why cannot they simply be listed as additional Treaties? Thus the conjunction "and" is therefore absolutely in order.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord may care to reflect on this a little further, because I was making a rather carefully argued reply, and this is a very technical area. I think he might come to the conclusion that here there is force and logic behind the use of the words "taken with".
There is another reason for the use of this phraseology, and that is the need to mark clearly the prime importance of the Treaty of Accession and the Council decision. Without them the pre-accession Treaties are irrelevant, and with them the pre-accession Treaties are in many respects amended. By using a phrase such as "taken with" the special significance of the Treaty and of the decision is given due recognition.
I should like to say straight away, if I may, in answering this first Amendment, that I feel some trepidation in venturing

471
into the deep waters of Clause 1—and they are deep waters, and not at first sight the easiest waters in which to swim. I have considerable consolation in that I of accompanied there by so good a swimmer as my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and buoyed up, if need be, by the legal waterwings of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that on balance, for the reasons that I have given, I cannot accept that the phraseology, which would appear to be very simple—the importation of the little word "and" would be an improvement on the carefully calculated use of the words "taken with". They are there for the reasons I have given and in order to import a necessary precision in view of the fact that the decision of the Council of European Communities relating to our ac scion was, in fact, a decision and not a Treaty.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I am bound to say—and I make no personal reflection on the noble Earl—that if this is a foretaste of the debate which is to extend before noble Lords for some time to come then I am sure the great part of it will be totally unintelligible to your Lordships. I say this in no disrespect to the intelligent and cheerful faces of noble Lords sitting behind the noble Earl at the moment but it is a measure of the technical difficulty of this Bill. This Amendment is really a relatively simple one. It is one in which I think I understood both the learned and noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and indeed the noble Earl, even though he did not convince me. The important point that I should like to reiterate is that this is a definition clause, although to an ordinary layman it seems to go further than definition. A definition clause has a particular significance—and this is the point my noble friend has made, and we shall come back to it in the light of the statements made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading—in that in certain respects it has a binding effect on future legislation. A definition clause has great significance. I may be wrong here; but I do not think I am, because
472
I have had some very good legal advice—in fact, what I am saying has come from none other than lawyers, because only lawyers can understand this Bill.
I am encouraged by the way in which the noble Earl dealt with the first Amendment. He may have thought that this was comprehensible at least to him and me, but I am still not entirely convinced by his argument because if he is saying it is appropriate, as I follow the argument, to apply the words "taken with" to a decision, it does not appear to me to be appropriate to apply it to the Treaty relating to accession, which is a Treaty. We know that in this Bill a Treaty can be almost anything. Again, it has the Pickwickian or Conservative Government sense and not that which the ordinary layman attaches to a Treaty. It can, as noble Lords know, be protocol, and I would have thought it could almost be a decision. If we are going to play with words why not say that a decision is a Treaty? My noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who really does understand what he is talking about (and I feel very thankful for that) may well be satisfied with the noble Earl's answer; but I must say that, hoping to be satisfied, I am not. I am wondering whether the Government ought to undertake to look at this again, and perhaps allow this simple Amendment to be made so as to see the consequences. It would be perfectly easy, if necessary, for them on Report stage or on Third Reading—we have lots of time—to put the "taken with" in before paragraph (b), the decision. What I cannot understand is why we need to have "taken with" applied either to paragraph (a) or, indeed, to the part of the Bill to which we shall be coming, in lines 5 to 8, which are also Treaties. It may be that it is thought to be more convenient.
There is this point that I would stress to noble Lords. This is a very important Bill. It is brilliantly drafted—so brilliantly drafted that most of us laymen cannot understand it. It probably fulfils the purpose intended for it. But I would have thought this a reasonable Amendment, and to my mind its acceptance might also show a willingness on the part of the Government to meet attempts to improve the Bill, which we are genuinely anxious to do. I stress this. This is not just a Party political move; it is an attempt, especially by those of

473
us who have supported entry, to try to remove anxieties on some of those points which I think have been exaggerated by those who are opposed to entry. But it is not helpful if we are unsuccessful in doing that.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Lord replies may I intervene for a moment because I think the Committee is confronted at this early stage in the consideration of this Bill with a question of fundamental importance; that is, how the consideration of these various Amendments are going to be dealt with by the Government. The first Amendment is one which simply goes to the wording of the Bill, and is an attempt to improve and make more precise its meaning. It is a test case. It is a test of whether the Government are prepared to listen to argument and decide these matters on merit, or whether a decision has already been made that the Bill is going to be driven through this House without Amendment of any kind, as it was driven through the other place. This is a basic question which clouds the whole of the discussions that we are to have. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether this small Amendment is being resisted on its merits or because the Government have already decided that they are not going to accept any Amendment of any kind. I think we are entitled to be told this. We are entitled to be told whether a decision has been made. If it has been made, then all the time we are going to give to this Bill, supposedly talking about various Amendments on their merits, is a pure waste of time and the constitutional function, the revising function, of this Chamber to which the noble Earl. Lord Lauderdale, was speaking on Second Reading, is going to be thwarted throughout the long deliberations, and the deliberations are going to be a prolonged farce.
I find the reply of the noble Lord—and I hope my noble friend Lord Stow Hill will agree—totally unconvincing. I ask myself the question: if the Government were dealing with this Bill as they would deal with any ordinary Bill—for instance the Local Government Bill—where they were not under the domination of a timetable, and if they had not made up their minds to resist all Amendments, should we have heard a speech such as
474
we have had from the noble Earl in reply to this Amendment? What are the two points he made? He says that the words "taken with" must be used because the word "and" would not be appropriate to the decision of the council under (b). If that is the case, then put the words "taken with" after (a) and before (b), before "the decision". Another reason the noble Earl gave for preferring "taken with" to "and" was this. He suggested that if you insert "and" there might be a risk of someone supposing that the Treaty under (a) was one of the pre-accession treaties, but the very use of the word "and" makes it clear that it is not. The use of the words "taken with" is more ambiguous if you are trying to make it clear that the Treaty referred to in (a) is not one of the pre-accession treaties. If the Committee is going to be dealt with in this way during our long discussions, and if we are going to be asked to accept arguments of the frailty which have just fallen from the noble Earl, then we might as well go home because we are wasting our time.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY:I must say one word in support of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am not a lawyer, and I understood his explanation perfectly. I found it completely satisfactory, and I do not know what the fuss is about.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Before my noble friend replies to the debate may I offer a few observations? I did not expect that we should be in such a muddle so early in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, sought to inject more clarity into the debate so far as this Amendment is concerned, but I confess that I am completely in the dark. I should not be at all surprised if I were not the only Member of your Lordships' House in that situation. What surprises me more than anything else is that my noble friend and Leader, Lord Shackleton, accepted the Bill, hook, line and sinker, without any reservations whatever, and now he is concerned about definitions. I should have thought that before we proceed to the general we should concern ourselves about the particular. We ought to define our terms and know what we are talking about know where we are going on the road to our destination. He is in precisely the same position as

475
my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who is now concerned about the legal niceties and whether we should use this term or that term.
We are going to be involved in a long argument about semantics, and at the end of the day what is going to happen? Along will come the members of the legal fraternity. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has promised that. I think he did very well himself. He did his best to explain the matter and as a layman I could not have done better myself. But now we are going to have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and no doubt other legal luminaries who are going to explain these matters most meticulously, but forgetting something. I know it is wrong, it is improper, it is a violation of procedure—at least I suspect it is—to speak about what happens in the other place. However, I have been reading the debates in the other place, and the debate that took place only the other day when they were discussing whether a decision to enter the Common Market was irreversible or reversible.
At the end of the day, the Solicitor Generally, who has had a large say—probably all the say—in the drafting of this remarkable Bill admitted after a long debate, that it was reversible. That is to say, you can go into the Market and some day you can come out. It would be quite improper to do it, it would be an act of discourtesy to do it, but there was no legal obstacle in the way; once you are in you can come out. I am a bit doubtful about that myself, and no doubt we will come to that subject later in the Committee stage. I ventured to make the observation during the debate last week that there would be a legal quibble about this Bill. There has been one, there will be one before we go in for the rest of the period until 1973, and there will be many legal quibbles afterwards. At the end of the day not only the general public will be left in the dark; I should not be at all surprised if many Members of your Lordships' House will be without the necessary information to come to a rational conclusion as to whether or not we should have gone in.
Let the lawyers come along; let them explain, and let them clarify the issues. All the better. But is it not astonishing
476
that at the very beginning of our debates we should be engaged in a discussion on semantics, and that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, with all his ingenuity, his courtesy, and his goodwill fails to convince those Members of your Lordships' House (who are not like me, against going into the Common Market) like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, all of whom are pro-Common Marketeers?
4.16 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to say without presumption that, in my opinion at any rate, he has no reason whatsoever to fear the deep waters. I thought he breasted the waves most gallantly and that he produced a carefully-thought-out and most admirable answer which had only one defect—it was wholly inadequate. May I seek to demonstrate why in my opinion it was in that sense inadequate? The noble Earl began by saying that if one accepted the Amendment which I proposed, namely, to substitute the word "and" for the words "taken with", it would produce no result. That is simply saying that "taken with" means no more and no less than "and". If that is so why not use the simple English word "and"?
Then the noble Earl, perhaps slightly inconsistently, said that nevertheless there were two very good reasons why in this context one should use the words "taken with" instead of "and". The first of those reasons was that if one turns to Clause 1(2)(b) one sees a reference to the decision of the Council relating to the accession of the United Kingdom, and that that decision does not constitute a Treaty. If that were so I still would not follow why one should not use the word "and". But, with great respect, is he right? If one looks at subsection (4) one sees that
"For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, 'treaty' includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement."
I hold the decision in question in my hand. I will not read from it extensively, but it clearly says:
"The Council of the European Communities having regard to certain circumstances has decided as follows: Article 1, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

477
Northern Ireland may become members of the European Coal and Steel Community by acceding …"
et cetera. I need not read any more. If does not come within the scope of subsection (4) I cannot think why. I should have thought that that was exactly what subsection (4) was designed to achieve; to bring into its scope documents of the sort from which I have just cited.
The second reason which the noble Earl gave for using "taken with" instead of "and" was that the accession Treaties and the decision amended the pre-accession Treaties. It is the first time I have ever thought that the words "taken with" are to be construed as being equivalent to the words "amended by". They seem to me to mean something quite different, and I rely on what the noble Earl said when he said that they mean no more and no less than "and". I do not feel that the noble Earl has given reasons which in any sense can be said to be adequate. So far as the point about the accession Treaty and the decision amending the pre-accession Treaties is concerned, one has simply to look at their terms to see that they amend the pre-accession Treaties. There is no reason to use the words "taken with" to indicate that they so amend them. Their terms are inconsistent with the pre-accession Treaties, and therefore produce a change.
In all those circumstances, with very great respect, I propose to the Committee that it should express its opinion on this matter. It is, for reasons which have been advanced in this debate, a matter of importance. Once again I congratulate the noble Earl in producing so much attractive material out of such scanty premises. I think he is a splendid athlete, but he has not really answered the case that I put, and I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: Before the noble Earl or the noble Baroness replies to the remonstrances of my noble friend Lord Foot, I should like to say one word about the general attitude of the Liberal Party in this debate. Our attitude is that Amendments which, on the face of them,
478
seem to be reasonable, and which in no way cast doubt on the validity or credibility of our signature of the Act of Accession, may very well merit our support. But we shall certainly not support any Amendment which comes into the latter category; that is to say, which casts any doubt on the credibility of our signature of the Act of Accession. I should find difficulty—and I am speaking only for myself—in voting for any Amendment which, though it may be preferable from a strictly legal point of view, does not materially affect our obligations under the present Bill.
THE MINISTER OF, STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): I wonder whether I may add a little clarity—although I hate the word—on this matter. I think it is very important when one is considering Clause 1 to remember that under the procedure to which my noble friend referred, and to which we shall come in subsection (3), all of the various sorts of Treaties which will become part of our law and which are dealt with by way of the Order in Council procedure must, by one means or another, be brought into our law by this machinery. But the pre-accession Treaties in Part I of Schedule 1, to which this definition refers, were all made long before our accession decision came about. They become part of our law, and conclusively so when they are dealt with by Order in Council under Clause 1(3). But they had nothing to do with us in the first place and were made by the other members and by the Community itself. They get into our law only through the accession Treaties. They come into our ambit only because they are to be read with, and applied by virtue of, the accession Treaties themselves—not only the one on the Coal and Steel Community, but all three. Those Treaties bring in the pre-accession Treaties. I suggest to the Committee that in order to get those pre-accession Treaties into the law of this country under Clause 2, they have to be read or taken with the accession Treaties which alone are capable of applying them to this country. That is the reason why the words used are "taken with", because that connotation cannot apply to the word "and".
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Their Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 49; Not-Contents,154

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Bowden, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Maelor, L.

Wise, L.

Foot, L.

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monck, V.

Abinger, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Essex, E.

Morrison, L.

Albemarle, E.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

Gage, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Garner, L.

Moyne, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gisborough, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grantchester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Perth, E.

Bethell, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Polwarth, L.

Blackford, L.

Hailes, L.

Poole, L.

Blake, L.

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

Radnor, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Bradford, E.

Hankey, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brecon, L.

Harcourt, V.

Reay, L.

Brentford, V.

Harvey of Prestbury L.

Redmayne, L.

Brock, L.

Hatherton, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L

Hawke, L.

Rennell, L.

Clwyd, L

Hayter, L.

Rhyl, L.

Coleralne, L.

Hemingford, L.

Robbins, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Roberthall, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hertford, M.

Rochdale, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hewlett, L.

Rothes, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Sackville, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L.Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kindersley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Daventry, V.

Limerick, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

de Clifford, L.

Listowel, E.

Somers, L.

Denham L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L

Dudley, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Dundee, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Suffield, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mar, E.

Thomas, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Elles, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Vernon, L.

Vivian, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wynford, L.

Wadefield of Kendal, L.

Wolverton, L.

Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.33 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 2, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Nos. 3 and 4.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out from beginning of line 5 to end of line 8.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2 on behalf of my noble friends, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with it Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, so that we can take a comprehensive look at this. Indeed, it could be argued that, had the Amendments been marshalled another way, we should have gone from the particular to the general, because Amendment No. 2, which proposes to leave out from the beginning of line 5 to the end of line 8 is almost like an Amendment to leave out a clause, because it covers a particular little part of the subsection. The noble Earl appears to be leaving the Chamber, but I was going to say that, in a way, I would ask for his sympathy, as he has mine in dealing with these highly technical matters; and I would apologise to the Committee if, as is very likely, I get some of the arguments in a rather confused way. I am bound to say that, of all the Bills I have had to deal with—and this again is a measure of its brilliance—this one is the most difficult I have ever known. Luckily, we have a number of noble Lords who I think understand it. There are moments when I understand it myself, but a minute or two later it escapes me.
The purpose of the Amendment to leave out lines 5 to 8 is this—and for noble Lords who have not got the Bill in front of them I should like to read the passage, so that they may know what we are talking about even if they do not understand it. This is a definition clause, but it in fact carries much greater influence than a pure definition. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Earl, in that gallant and clear speech of his, explained the purpose of subsection (2), with which
482
we are concerned at the moment. It was in fact to list the Treaties and other items—the decision "taken with", as the Committee has decided—which we are in effect adopting, and some of which are self-executing. The last part of this particular subsection reads:
"and any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom;…"
Seeing the look of bright and enthusiastic intelligence on the part of noble Lords opposite, I realise that they understand what every word means; but I must say, then, that they ought to be in Iceland playing chess, because it really is a very difficult piece of phrasing.
I have attempted to construe this (and I may say—as a former classical scholar, that I found this much harder to construe than many of the Latin and Greek passages I have had to construe in the past), and as I understand it this particular passage really has two parts to it. One part relates to Treaties, some of which may have been entered into by the Community; and, correctly, they would be, as I understand it, Community Treaties. As to the phrase "with or without any of the member States", the noble Earl last night asked me if I understood it, and we both finally decided that we did; and the noble Earl will confirm that the Community may make an agreement or Treaty without any of the members participating. The second part is,
"any other treaty entered into … as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties …",
and these are ones which we have agreed to, if I am correct on this. So there are two parts.
Now our first complaint is that this is an extremely broad description, and I should like to ask the noble Earl: would a Treaty entered into by the Community with say, China, depending on its nature—it would be quite a small one, a commercial Treaty—in fact be covered by this passage—I cannot call it a subsection. It is a very wide power indeed. This could be entered into by the Community without a participation by the United Kingdom except in its capacity as a member of the Community, and therefore it would be as a result of a

483
decision by the Council of Ministers and we might not ourselves be a signatory to that Treaty. This has some importance, because it again raises the question as to how we establish the right kind of Parliamentary control over later parts of some of these other activities.
I should like to know why this passage has to be so wide and so unlimited in scope. It is the nature of Governments to take powers which will provide them with all the authority that they need. In objecting to this I am not suggesting that there is no Parliamentary sanction; although I am bothered about the treaties which are ancillary; for an ancillary treaty, so far as I know, might not be—though it could be—subject to the provisions of subsection (3) and would require an Order in Council procedure even if it was not self-executing. As I understand it, unless it had been laid before January, 1972, it would not need to come before Parliament. I think I am right about that, but it will be interesting to have an explanation. I do not want to discuss subsection (3) now; although I must refer to it to indicate how my mind in its present murky state is working. As I understand it, an Order in Council in relation to a treaty ancillary to any of the treaties entered into by the United Kingdom before January, 1972, would not require to come before Parliament.
It appears that these ancillary treaties are not listed anywhere in the Bill, not even in the Schedule. I know that there has been a reference to other documents but it would have been helpful to have them set out in the Bill. Such treaties are quite often annexed to a Bill. The noble Lord has a good reply on this; he can say, "We have not annexed any other treaties; they are to big for that" I. accept that. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the words "ancilliary treaty". For that reason we have put down two further Amendments to leave out lines 7 and 8, the effect of which will be to cut out the reference to "ancillary treaties". This is not because we do not think it will be needed but because we should like to know what these ancillary treaties are and we should like to have them somewhere in the Bill linked more obviously to this clause. I do not know whether it would conform
484
to usual practice but perhaps it would be possible to cross-reference it to the relative documents. In this connection we had also thought it might be clearer if we inserted after "any other treaties" (this is Amendment No. 3), the words, "signed on or before that date"—that is. January, 1972. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that it might be useful to discuss these three Amendments together.
To sum up, what we are complaining about this passage is that it is extremely wide and extremely obscure, and although it may achieve what the Government want there is enough ambiguity about this Bill to arouse grave doubts. It is the duty of Parliament to ensure that what passes into law will be intelligible and, above all, intelligible to the courts. It may be that the courts will be the only people who are able to understand this passage. We shall seek to deal later with the points made, for instance, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on Second Reading. A point of particular concern that I should like to mention in this. It appears that by virtue of this being a definition clause (and taking into account Clause 2(1) and Clause 2(4)) we are doing that to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred on Second Reading we are providing new rules
"of construction for Statutes to substitute in the appropriate case".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/72, col. 1230.]
This matter arises more appropriately on Clause 2; but because of the importance of the definition clause and because, as I understand it, it has a pre-eminence—I do not know whether that is the right word—in relation to future legislation, it seems to me to be of the greatest importance that there should be clarity.
It may be that my remarks have merely added to the confusion in noble Lords' minds. If so, I apologise. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill will shortly be coming in and will seek to put this to the Commitee in clearer language than mine. I hope that I have not confused your Lordships; and I should not blame you if you thought that I was confused. This is one of the problems with this Bill. It is for that reason that we wish to probe. We hope to get a clear explanation; but I wish very much that the Government would consider a form of words—even another clause—which

485
would be rather more intelligible. There may be great economy of words here, but it does not provide great clarity. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
LORD SHINWELL: Before the noble Baroness replies no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill will be making his more effective contribution to the debate on this Amendment. I want to ask a question, and on the reply to it will depend whether I would desire to speak later on this Amendment. The Treaties referred to in this subsection are undefined, they are not specified, and my first question is this: when the Government injected this subsection into the Bill what Treaties had they in mind? Let us assume that France and Germany entered into an agreement—in fact, a treaty—related to one of the Communities referred to in this clause, say, the Atomic Energy Community; or let us suppose that Italy entered into an agreement—an agreement is a treaty, so far as I understand it—with, say, the Netherlands or with one of the additional countries which are going to become the Ten. I want to know whether those treaties would be binding on the United Kingdom.
The second question is this. Let us assume that one of the countries of the Six entered into an agreement of whatever nature—I myself cannot specify the kind of agreement they could enter into; it might be dealing with commodities—with one of the associated countries in Africa. Would that agreement be binding on the United Kingdom, which had no heart and no part in the preliminary discussions about its details? We are entitled to an answer to those questions because, although one can understand what is meant by some of the Treaties referred to in this clause, one is unable to understand what is meant by those Treaties which are undefined.
4.50 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I, shortly I hope, add to the questions that have been put by my noble Leader and by my noble friend Lord Shinwell? May I first seek to deploy some considerations which, in my view at any rate, seem to stress the importance of the type of inquiry upon which we are engaged. A good deal of the argument in support of this Amendment was advanced in our last
486
discussion. It is to the effect that as part of these Treaties may automatically become parts of our law we ought to know what they are. My noble Leader said he accepted that perhaps the annexing of the Treaties would be hardly feasible because they might be too long. On the other hand, what I ventured to propose was not that they should be annexed but that they should be listed. We ought to know what Treaties are spoken of; at any rate those which up to date have been entered into.
May I seek to enlarge on that. We are dealing with a definition clause and I submit that it is extremely wide when one comes to look at it. We have considered part of it. First comes the preaccession Treaties, which are set out in the first part of Schedule 1 on page 19. If one looks at that Part it is not in any sense, shall I say, self-contained. It lists in seven paragraphs the Rome Treaty, the European Coal and Steel Treaty, the Euratom Treaty and three others that I will not trouble with. Then again there is a general provision in paragraph 7 because it includes any Treaty—I emphasise the word "any"—
"entered into before the 22nd January 1972 by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States) or, as a treaty ancillary to any treaty included in this Part of this Schedule, by the member States (with or without any other country)."
So one starts with pre-accession Treaties defined in the language to which I have referred, as amplified by paragraph 7 in the first part of Schedule 1. That in itself is very wide.
Then one gets to the second group, which is the accession Treaties of January 22, 1972 and the decision referred to in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 1. That is a very wide net to spread already, and it is only when one has, as it were, considered all the Treaties within that wide net that one gets to the third category of Treaties which are, or may be, embraced by the very general language to which my noble Leader referred. I will not read it again, but if your Lordships would look at the lines between line 5 and line 8 on page 2 you will see that there is no time limit; the Treaty may have been one entered into before January 22, 1972 or after. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, shakes

487
his head; I do not understand why. The wording is:
"and any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom."
That may mean a Treaty entered into in 1964, say, or it may mean a Treaty entered into in 1984; there is nothing to stop it.
I do not see why the words—I infer this from the fact that the noble Viscount shakes his head—should not be construed as being applicable to Treaties entered into already. There is nothing to limit it in time. So that one gets, as it were, a fourth category of Treaties included in those very wide words. As my noble Leader said, the words fall into two subdivisions. First they seem to relate to Treaties entered into by the Communities with or without any of the member States. The Communities may enter into a Treaty. They may do so with or without any of the member States. That means, I think I am right in saying—I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would confirm it; I do not know how the courts would construe it—or is intended to mean with or without any of the member States as co-signatories; it does not mean as the opposite parties to the Treaty.
The second limb to which my noble Leader referred is included in the words
"… or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom."
So you have two separate groups there, I suggest, with no time limit and with very little limitation as to what they may be. It is
"…any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities…"
The purpose of the Treaty is not described; it may be a Treaty relating to almost anything so far as the language goes. If you are talking about a Treaty entered into by the United Kingdom falling within the second limb of those lines then it has to be
"a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties."
What "ancillary" means I do not know. "Ancilla"—my noble friend Lord Shackleton is a classical scholar and I think that probably he would confirm this—means a hand maiden or a slave girl. I do not think that affords very
488
much guidance when one is considering whether one Treaty is an ancillary Treaty to another. It is a very wide term, and I think I am right in recollecting that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor envisaged a situation in which an English judge might have put before him a Treaty—I do not know what Treaty—and be called on to decide whether, within the meaning of these wordings, it was an ancillary Treaty, a Treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties or not. That, I should think, would be putting an impossible task on the learned judge. The words are so wide and imprecise that they would confront him with a problem which I would think, in terms of ordinary legal interpretation, would be well nigh insoluble.
Then one goes to a still different category of Treaties, namely, those set out in subsection (3). I believe I am right in thinking, from a shake of the head by the noble Viscount when my noble friend was speaking, that the noble Viscount would not assent to the view I put to the Committee, that when you look at subsection (3) you are looking at a further category of Treaties. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but I very much doubt whether there is anything in the language to limit them to Treaties which have already been referred to. There is a power given by Order in Council to declare
"that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined …".
If it is so specified it is conclusive. That, I should have thought, as a matter of ordinary English means that the Government may by Order in Council take some Treaty, which is wholly beyond the scope of subsection (2), and specify it as a Treaty which is to be within the definition—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord—
LORD STOW HILL: If I may complete my point. May I venture to offer one, slight I hope, correction to what my noble friend said? All the Treaties referred to in subsection (3) I think are subject to Parliamentary control. Those entered into before January 22, as I read paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 on page 20, are subject to Negative Resolution procedure; those entered into after that date,

489
with some slight exceptions, are subject to Affirmative Resolution, otherwise they cannot be specified. There is again a new field of Treaties, I submit, on the language used here. I have already referred to subsection (4) with its very wide terminology—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do beg Lord Stow Hill's pardon, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made the point earlier that this is not very easy to follow. With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, if we want to discuss the last few lines of subsection (2) of Clause 1, in my humble submission it really would be the greatest mistake to get on to the question whether, under subsection (3) of Clause 1, anything else is covered, because there is an Amendment on this. The point that the noble and learned Lord is on is something which I think should be dealt with and explained fully; and if we want to know what Treaties are covered by the lines in the Amendment now before the Committee we shall only get confusion worse confounded if we get on to subsection (3) of Clause 1 at the moment.
LORD STOW HILL: I entirely accept that rebuke and will endeavour to restrain my exuberance. I hope that, for the time being, the Committee will forget subsection (3). I read in the Report of a debate in another place that reference was made to eight volumes of Treaties and supporting documents. I made reference to them during the Second Reading debate. I went to the trouble of examining them and I have brought to the Committee two random specimens. One is Volume 1, and the other is Volume 8, Part II. When we talk about volumes we envisage something much thicker than these very slender volumes, but even these are somewhat alarming. Volume 1 contains a very lengthy and substantial treaty altering, I think, Article 53 of the iron, coal and steel community. I suppose part of that Treaty is part of our law. I will not look at Clause 2 of this Bill, since I am still smarting under the noble Viscount's rebuke, but it is formidable when we have to take this document, go through all of this Treaty and ask ourselves whether it is part of our law, or whether part of it is part of our law. Much of it is not.
490
The second volume which I chose at random was one about which my noble friend Lord Shinwell in effect asked a question. He asked whether it would include, for example, an association treaty entered into under Article 238 of the Rome Treaty which provides for association treaties. The second volume I happened to choose was just such a treaty, an enormously long thing relating to association with Morocco. I will not read it, but I suppose we should have to go through it and, in terms of Clause 2, we should have to pick out what were rights, powers, liabilities and so on and say, "From now on those are part of our law". That is a rather formidable proposal.
I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me if I turn to page 119 of this volume. May I, with great trepidation, make one reference to subsection (4)? I apologise and I take the point entirely that if one wants to have some clarity and order in this discussion one must restrain oneself, but I think the point is relevant to what we are saying. On page 119 and onwards there are exchanges of letters between Morocco and the Communities. If I read Clause 1(4) correctly, all those exchanges of letters would constitute international agreement. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. but they look as if they would. In any case, I do not see why they should not. I should have thought that the net result is that a very strong case mounts for doing one's level best to obtain maximum decision here. A very strong candidate for change in that direction are the lines 5 to 8 on page 2.
That is the argument which I would respectfully put to the Committee. I hope the Government may feel that they can accept the view that one must get something clear, in the absence of a listing of these treaties, to enable Her Majesty's subjects to know what is their law and what is not. I accept that as a matter of drafting this is an extremely difficult undertaking. I have ventured humbly to pay tribute to the draftsman for producing the Bill, but I submit that it does not quite measure up to that standard of precision which in this context it is so highly desirable to achieve.
LORD ROBBINS: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to elucidate for a

491
layman a point in his speech which caused me some perplexity? He alluded to the difficulties of the word "ancillary" and made some reference to the classical learning of the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord explained the word "ancillary" by reference to its original meaning, "handmaid". I can understand that, if one starts to trace things upwards, so to speak, a great crop of ambiguities can develop; but in 20th century English is there some great legal difficulty in grasping the general conception? I think, for instance, of business operations with which I am far more familiar than I am with the law. I give a directive to a certain part of an organisation and say that certain subordinate officers will take the necessary action ancillary to that directive. Is that an ambiguous statement?
LORD STOW HILL: May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in this way. I quite accept that it is perfectly easy to formulate to oneself the general concept which is embodied in the word "ancillary". It is quite a different thing sitting on the Bench as a judge, having two Treaties in front of one, and having to answer positively or negatively the question as to whethr one treaty is ancillary to the other. The trouble is that the concept is so wide and general in its terms. Learned judges crave for something more precise for guidance in coming to a conclusion which may be of the utmost importance to millions of people. I accept that people know what "ancillary" in the general sense means. The old adage is that we know an elephant when we see one. But then we know what heaps and heaps of words mean in a general sense; but if in relation to a given situation of the utmost importance to enormous numbers of people we expect our learned judges to come to a clear, certain conclusion as to the result of the application of words of general import, I submit that we owe it to our Bench to give them more guidance than is given in the language now under consideration by the Committee.
5.9 p.m.
LORD HALE: I had firmly resolved that in this debate I would say no word which might incur for me the malice of the Ramnusian maid. The way in which
492
the debate has gone up to the moment almost compels me to make one general observation on the Amendment, and I propose to limit myself to the Amendment relating to lines 5 to 8. The way in which this Bill is drafted is a Parliamentary outrage. During the very few minutes of our discussion much more learned Members than I have had the greatest difficulty in comprehending the Bill word by word. We have got two documents. We have got the Treaty of the European Economic Community, beautifully written, admirably presented, full of aspirations, perhaps not very precise because precision was not then possible. In many ways it refers to the hopes of the Western American poet, Vachell Lindsay, who talked about Abraham Lincoln,
"Walking by night dreaming of a Europe free,
The league of sober folk,
The workers' earth,
Bringing white peace to cornland, alp and sea."
When we look back on the years through which we have passed we can all agree that much needs to be done. Then we see this miserable document designed to suppress debate, to prevent the free expression of democratic opinion, and defended miserably by saying that if you can put something shortly that is a good way to do it. Edmund Burke had an election colleague whose speech on the hustings was: "I say 'ditto' to Mr. Burke." One might just as well have framed this Bill by say, "Ditto to Mr. Rippon", except that we do not know what Mr. Rippon said, and the candidate in Bristol probably knew what Edmund Burke had said. So we are at a disadvantage.
But I wish to call attention to my own activities. I put a Question on the Order Paper and I received a perfectly courteous and clear answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, as to what these words mean and what they include. I put the Question in relation to paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, but that is the same paragraph in almost precisely the same words and referring to precisely the same things. Of course I cannot go outside the terms of my own minute and refer to the second question. But noble Lords who are bored by my speech may read the first line of the second question, which seems as if it was

493
extracted from Roget's Thesaurus and gives words which are capable of meaning almost anything: "Rights" and "Obligations" and so on—a whole list of them.
The noble Baroness said—and the noble Viscount appeared to me to be rather puzzled about this—that the agreements referred to are those set out in the Appendix to Command Paper 4862, No. 1: in other words, the Treaty documents with the Appendix. I do not propose to be facetious—I got past that juvenile stage some time ago—and I propose for the moment to mention only matters relating to the E.E.C. Those who have the Appendix before them will see that it is divided into:
"The Treaties establishing the European Communities as supplemented and modified by the related and further agreements and other acts."
Then another section is:
"Other Treaties and related instruments concluded among the member States of the European Communities."
And another section:
"Treaties and related instruments concluded by the Communities."
Each of those is divided, quite properly, into European Coal and Steel Community, Atomic Community and the E.E.C. But if we look at those Treaties—and surely we are entitled to look at them and question them—we find that the first list starts with a Treaty; the next is a protocol, and then we get half a dozen protocols or more.
Then there is an implementing convention on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the Community. This is not a small matter. Then we come to a regulation, No. 7A of the E.E.C. Council, modifying the list in Annex II to the E.E.C. Treaty 1961 Official Journal, page 71. Then another convention and so on. Then an agreement, and later a decision of July 10, 1963 in the second section. A convention for mutual assistance and internal agreement of July 29. I really thought that I had come to the complete variety of these things.
Yesterday, with the generous assistance of the Lords' Library, I tried to make a little investigation into the terms of what is called the "snake in the tunnel" arrangement. The noble Lord will say of course: "Yes, I know". He will
494
say that this was made after the date of the Treaty and therefore is not included in these words. But I propose just to show what I did find in the official journal, and I relate it back to the photostat copy I have of the order, regulation, protocol or statute (I forget which) that is included in the schedule and was the origin of these directives and of these procedures. I have not really found the "snake in the tunnel" agreement, because there does not seem to be one.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, there is.
LORD HALE: I am sorry. It is a picturesque phrase which appeared in every paper, and I am sure that it was in The Times because that is the only paper that I read, apart from Le Monde. This is the European limitation of the Smithsonian Washington Agreement which was made before the Treaty was signed. The Washington Agreement limited the variation of currencies to either 2½ per cent. or 2½per cent.—I think 2½ per cent.—and the European Communities met on March 21, after a series of interviews, and decided to reduce that limit; and it was that reduction of the limit which everybody (including I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, was what really forced us to float the pound. It is not a small matter. It arises and is based precisely on one of the directives or agreements I have, which is included in lines 5 to 8, page 2, Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the Amendment that we are now discussing.
I turned up the Journal officiel of the European Community. I am afraid that it is in French. I do not speak a word of a foreign language; I have never been educated. However, I can read a few words of French, and I will try to translate it into English if your Lordships will trust me; but if any noble Lord wishes to know the precise word. I will use it. Perhaps I should start in French by saying that this is headed "Legislation 18th April, 1972", and it starts:
"1. Actes dont la publication est une condition de leur applicabilite."
What is that? This is legislation which applies when published; and one would have thought that that was a fairly

495
reasonable propositon. If people are to know the law they should have some means of getting it, even if they do now have to pay about £3·50 to find out what is the law on local government.
Then there follows a list—and I do not criticise—"Reglments", and so on, about the distillation of table wines and many others. Then we come to paragraph II:
"Actes dont la publication n'est pas une condition de leur applicabilite."
I do not want to be facetious, and I do not want to be unfair. It may be that some of these Acts are to be communicated to Ministers and Ministers are to act upon them. But if we are bound by Acts—and we are—of which the publication is not necessary to their applicability, we are entitled to go, not hostilely, not unduly critically—I am not sneering about distillation of wines order, or coffee orders or bananas, which are still important in Jamaica; I am talking about the financial basis for the moment. This is called a "directive du Conseil." I think there could be 10 different translations of "directives". But we call it a directive in English as the simple explanation. It is dated March 21, 1972, and sets out a whole series of considerations and movements of capital, steps regulating internal liquidity, indispensable:
"The moment has now come to discourage movements of capital,…"
and so on. There are observations about "big movements of capital", though no one says what is a big movement of capital or a small one, or whether you add £505 to £500,000 and divide them by 501 and find that they are not so great or how you govern it.
I do not say this maliciously. What I am saying is that they are trying to give civilised directives and advice. But how does it come that Her Majesty's Government say that we must incorporate into our Jaw civil directives and advice, on the meaning of which our courts may have to seek advice from Brussels and upon which we might be called upon to act, and, certainly in this particular connection, on which we might be rebuked for having failed in our Treaty obligations, for having honoured these directives too little. We have to take
496
our turn, of course, because Italy, as everybody knows, has already been rebuked. The actual arrêté of the present directive says:
"… the member States will take all necessary measures to conform to the directive."
and
"Each member State will apply in case of need all or part of the instruments mentioned in Article and the banking authorities will maintain a close relationship and keep the Council informed of the state of the situation and its evolution."
There are a whole series of provisions. I do not say they are not wise ones; I do not say they are not well-intended; but they are certainly not precise. I should be very much surprised if President Pompidou took quite so much notice of them if they did not suit French foreign policy. It may be well within the notice of Members of this Committee that Le Monde to day on its front page is reporting that the price of gold has more than doubled and is advising a return to the gold standard.
BARONESS ELLES: Would the noble Lord give way? I think perhaps the noble Lord should be aware that the translation of directive is directive, and according to Community law a directive is for the future and it is up to each member State to apply it in their own country, according to the legislation that they see fit; so naturally any directive in any publication from the Community must be in general terms.
LORD HALE: With very great respect to the noble Baroness, this directive I am concerned with uses the precise words, moment venu—now. It does use that phrase. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I have said that in a way this is expressed rather as advice and encouragement, but it is expressed with great urgency. These steps have to be taken, and that is one reason why it is expressed with such urgency—because much the same thing has been said in the agreement which is incorporated in lines 5 to 8 of Clause 1 of this Bill, of which I have a photostat copy in English. This is a Resolution of the Council—no, I am sorry; I think I have got the wrong photostat copy. This is dated March 31, 1971; so this is actually the English translation of the French one that I have used. However, I have read it and I have done a great deal of

497
research over it, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee and I will ask your Lordships to accept for the moment what I say about this. We are discussing something which is very important. This is our last chance. Let us think it over: I repeat, let us think it over.
There area series of decisions in Section A of 1970—decisions on representatives on the accession of institutions, decisions on the replacement of financial contributions, decisions concerning forecasts for several years, a Treaty amending certain budgetary revisions in the Treaties, a Treaty on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark—and the precise one I am referring to is certainly dated 1970 and is to be found, I think, in the second part of this Schedule. It is under E.E.C.—I beg your Lordships' pardon: I was looking at European Atomic Energy Community. It shows how easy it is to be wrong.
5.25 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Would the noble Lord care for me to intervene at this point and try to clarify some of the matters which seem to be of great concern to him? Would that be convenient to him and to the Committee?
LORD HALE: May I ask the noble Baroness to repeat what she said, because I did not quite catch the opening words? I heard the last bit.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I just wondered whether it might help if I tried to explain in layman's language these Amendments as I see them. It might help the noble Lord, because he is referring to the volume of pre-Accession Treaties, and under the Amendment we are discussing future Treaties at this moment.
LORD HALE: Certainly.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If that is acceptable, perhaps I should just try briefly to reply and if the noble Lord, Lord Hale, is not satisfied he can always return to the charge. As I understood it, we were discussing Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List which refers to the lines 5 to 8 in Clause 1(2), and these do of course apply to the future Treaties. At
498
the same time it was agreed that we should discuss the substance of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, was of course quite correct in referring to the list of Treaties he had in his hand, but these are the pre-Accession Treaties and the related Instruments. They were also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill; and so far as we are aware, together with the Community, this list is believed to be complete. I will only briefly say that Volume 1 of the publication European Community Treaties and Related Instruments does contain references to where in this list the English texts of the Treaties may be found.
Now if we turn to lines 5 to 8 on page 2, they of course refer to the future Treaties—
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I did not quite grasp where she said the English texts could be found. We should be most grateful if she would tell us where the English texts of all these Treaties could be found; and we should be grateful also if she could tell us who actually translated them in the first place.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: There are nine volumes to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred, and Volume 1 indicates where the English texts may be found. It would not be suitable, I think, for debating across the Floor of the House, but it is in this Volume, a copy of which the noble Lord also had in his hand.
LORD HALE: The noble Baroness asked me to give way, and I did so in order that she could make that explanation. I always do anything she says. I am very grateful for the explanation. What she has said, with her usual clarity, is really the most severe condemnation of the working of the Act that has yet been made in the course of this debate, because the words we are discussing—
"and any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom"—
I will give way again with pleasure.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I was just about to try to explain in my own layman's language

499
the lines which have just been read out by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Would he be happy to hear me do my best on this, and then see if he is satisfied?
LORD HALE: I am happy to give way.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Then that being so I would say first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who started this debate, that one understands perfectly why he wishes to see what Parliamentary control there is on this particular matter. Lines 5 to 8 on page 2 of course refer to the future Treaties. They thus follow from the words in the Bill "any other treaties", because of course all the pre-Accession Treaties have already been dealt with. These future Treaties, like the past Treaties, can be of three kinds. There are those entered into by a Community without any member State as a cosignatory, because the Community has express powers and is a legal entity in itself. Secondly, there are those Treaties that are entered into by the Community with member. States as co-signatories, for example the Yaoundé Agreement; and then there are those that are entered into by member States like the merger Treaty, and we are only interested in this in so far as the United Kingdom itself is a party. That is why lines 7 and 8 on page 2 refer to Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom. We want only to cover United Kingdom Treaties in a Community context.
The word "ancillary" was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Robbins and Lord Stow Hill. This word has been written into this Part of the Bill. The three categories of future Treaties that I have mentioned are within the definition in Clause 1(2). I want to say this in passing as questions were raised on it. The second part of Clause 1(3) does not derogate from Clause 1(2), because it provides that no future Treaty—this is where the Parliamentary control point of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, comes in—entered into by the United Kingdom will come within the definition unless there is an Order in Council subject to Affirmative Resolution. This point about the Order in Council applies to any Treaty within the categories which I have described.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked specific questions. Of course we are talk-
500
ing about future treaties. He asked: "What kind of future Treaties will be binding on this country?" This is a definition clause. Parts of Treaties which become binding in any way are dealt with later in the Bill. Treaties that are entered into by the Community acting alone are automatically binding under Article 228 of the E.E.C. Treaty. That does not mean to say that they are directly applicable under Clause 2(1). One has to consider how the Treaties entered into by the Community come about. First of all, the Council of Ministers, acting together, have to ask the Commission to work out the provisions of a Treaty. If it were not acceptable to the Council as a whole a Treaty could not be entered into. What we are discussing at this moment is the definition clause and not what part of any Treaty would be applied by, for example, Clause 2(1).
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, also asked about other kinds of future Treaties. Those entered into by some of the other member States, either among themselves, or with a third country, but not involving the United Kingdom as a party will not be binding upon the United Kingdom. They will not therefore come within the definition in Clause 2(1). I am not a lawyer, but I have sought to address myself to this Amendment and to the other two Amendments to which the noble Lord referred.
LORD HALE: The noble Baroness spoke with her usual clarity, but she was not clear about what is in the Bill. For this purpose I must turn to Schedule 1. Schedule 1 says: "Part I. The Pre-Accession Treaties". That is clear. That is Treaties before January 22, 1972. Clause 1 does not say anything about pre-accession Treaties; it does not give any dates. It does not say what Treaties it is referring to. After specifying in similar terms the Communities' Treaties, it refers to the Treaty relating to the accession of the United Kingdom and the decision of the same date of the European Communities. The part we are really debating is:
"…and any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom";
That is what we are talking about. Is the noble Baroness really saying that on

501
January 1 we are going to say: "Boys, we have passed a Bill, but of course we have not accepted anything that has been done since"? This is despite the fact that, in general, the Six have been good enough to permit a British observer to be present and, indeed, very often to make representations. This was done over the snake in the tunnel. We took part in these decisions and obligations. The clear meaning of the words stated is that they include all the associated Treaties right up to the time when we enter the Community.
The noble Viscount nods his head. He is trying to say that you come along with an Order in Council and say that there is a State of Emergency, or something like that, or that we have to pass it quickly because the boys are going on holiday, and there will be a full opportunity for discussion so long as people do not take too long. But at the moment we are discussing the wording of this Bill. I submit that the wording is grossly misleading if it is meant to be what the noble Baroness said, and completely lacking in the clarity necessary for an Act of Parliament.
5.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Since my name appears on this Amendment, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. I hope that I will be shorter than the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Those of us who knew him in the other place are happy to welcome the noble Lord here. I speak as a juryman among lawyers. Having sat in my place since 3 o'clock this afternoon, I am already completely confused. It is because I am completely confused that I should like to ask a question. We were told by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that it would be best if we kept to lines 5 and 8, only to find that his fair colleague has discoursed on to Clause 1(3). This is my difficulty is it the case that future Treaties as yet unwritten are to be accepted without legislation, but by Order in Council, or is it that they are to be accepted with legislation? This is quite a short point; I am quite certain that it can be answered in one sentence or less.
There are those of us who wish well to the Government and well to this House in its handling of this Bill. The impression so far after two hours of this debate
502
is not of a great readiness on the part of the Government to say, "If there is an ambiguity we will look at it between now and the Report stage. We will do the best that we can to meet the points raised". I hate to think that so early on in this debate the word might get around that there are:
"None so deaf as those who will not listen."
LORD BALOGH: I wish to avoid the legal difficulties which have been so well characterised by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. I shall ask one naïve question. I take the rebuke, or the admonition, of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, most seriously, nevertheless, I shall have to disobey because the real essence of the problem cannot be discussed merely with this Amendment, but with two or three following Amendments. My naïve question is this: can we entrust the Government with these powers? This Bill is what one used to call in Roman law in the old days, "rapina pulchra priellae". The Government's difficulties are due to the fact that they cannot admit that they are enjoying it. It seems to me that the Government cannot be entrusted with these powers, because they have been palpably unsuccessful even with less powers. They cannot be entrusted, we cannot entrust them to legislate by Orders in Council unilaterally telling us what we should do with the very imperfect supervision which is represented in the Affirmative Resolution process.
This is a Government which have so misunderstood the needs of the times as to get themselves into the enormous tangle of which today's Emergency Proclamation is a consequence. It is the same Government which have lost in oil revenue as much as the whole cost of European entry. It is the Government which has already violated one of the most important monetary rules before we even enter. I am certainly going to vote, if a vote is called, for these Amendments because they at least reduce the enormous risks which we are facing with the Government with its present powers.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Over many years I have seldom disagreed with my noble friend Lord Stow Hill but I did disagree with him in accepting the limitations which the noble Viscount sought to put on our

503
discussion by saying that we should keep the issue much less confused if we restricted our discussion to subsection (3).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Perhaps I may clear up the point I was trying to make. I did not mean that this should be dealt with in isolation from Clause 1(3). I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is very worried about the possibility of certain Orders in Council being made under Clause 1(3) which could, as he said, add a fourth category of treaty to the three mentioned by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir that appear in Clause 1(2), with which we are dealing. It was solely on that point that I sought to divert the Committee. We can deal with that as an entirely separate issue. It is purely legal; it is a matter of vires and we can deal with it separately. It was only that from which I sought to divert the Committee because it is an entirely different and rather difficult point.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: We are grateful to the noble Viscount for approving that we should consider this in the general context of the rest of Clause 1 which it is most essential to do. Unless we get this into its proper context, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has said, it is very difficult to understand and to accept. I do not think there is any difference between the two sides of the Committee as to what are the basic Treaties. They are set out perfectly clearly in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill although, when one comes to paragraph 7, there is a certain amount of difficulty because it refers to any Treaty entered into before January 22, 1972 and so on. It is difficult to know what Treaties are included in paragraph 7.
In another place it was suggested that by this Clause Parliament was approving several major Treaties and 100 other ancillary treaties and making them part of the law of this land. So far as I have been able to discover from studying the discussions in another place, there was no effective or convincing answer to that criticisms. I would hope that noble Lords opposite might find it possible to publish, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a list of the Treaties which are
504
covered by paragraph 7. Unless we have a list of that kind your Lordships will be buying a pig in a poke and entering into a completely incomprehensible morass of legislation which has been imposed upon them from outside.
One of the problems that we have is knowing what all this ancillary legislation boils down to. It is difficult enough to understand the Treaty of Rome itself. I should say that Article 203 is engraved upon the minds of all Members of your Lordships' Committee. It is very difficult to understand; it is probably the most difficult official statement that I have ever encountered. It begins with Article 203 with an asterisk against it. At the bottom of the page there is a footnote saying that it has been amended. Above the footnote Article 203 with an asterisk finishes at the end of paragraph 3. One then turns over the page and finds Article 203 without an asterisk which runs 1, 2, 4, and then later 4. Then one turns over to page 5. There is a line across at the end of that paragraph. There is another paragraph; then we come to 5, and then 6, 7, 8, 9, over the page and then to Article 203a with an asterisk. It is difficult for Members of your Lordships' Committee who are not unaccustomed to reading official documents to understand exactly what that boils down to. Yet this is something which your Lordships' House agreed to accept by a very large majority last October; of course, one accepts the obligation which we entered into on that occasion.
I can see no justification whatsoever for adding to the Treaties which we are accepting without knowing exactly what the existing Treaties are and what future Treaties are likely to cover. It is unreasonable to expect your Lordships to give approval at this stage to Treaties which may be signed four or five years from now and which may cover subjects such as economic or monetary union or perhaps European defence. It is unreasonable to say that the justification for this is that it will be done by Order in Council and therefore Parliament will be involved. As I understand it, even the Order in Council procedure will apply only in certain cases, and, as your Lordships know, that procedure does not provide for amendment of the Order in Council. It is something that your Lordships have to accept

505
or reject. As the Bill stands at present Parliamentary control seems to be almost completely non-existent; this will be the case if your Lordships pass Clause 1 and allow it to go on to the Statute Book.
We shall come at a later stage to ways and means of improving the Bill and making provision for greater Parliamentary control and for proper scrutiny. This should be the case not only when something has been done—if the Government is kind enough to let us know what it has done—but perhaps we should also be told in advance through machinery which will clearly have to be established in both Houses of Parliament if the legislators of the country are to know what the Government's policy is and if they are to have any influence on what is being done in Brussels, Luxembourg or wherever the decision is taken. The last point I want to put is that this is an onerous responsibility that we are apparently prepared to accept. I should like the Government to tell us whether the Parliaments in the other countries of Europe have voted away their obligations and rights in the way that Her Majesty's Government are proposing that this Committee should do.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know if there is going to be a further reply.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I had not intended to speak again because I had sought to cover all the points except one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, just now. If I may say so, I thought a good deal of what he referred to was more appropriate to a speech on the Question, whether Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. But of course I was guilty myself in that I referred to Clause 1(3) because of the question of the Order in Council. However, what I omitted to say—and this is important in view of the remarks the noble Lord has made—is that where an Order in Council is used, where the United Kingdom is a party to a Treaty in regard to these four lines which we are discussing under Clause 1(2), it will not be that only an Order in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolution, must be employed; one could also have legislation in the shape of an ordinary Bill. That is not excluded. This is a most important
506
point which has been raised by the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful for that helpful speech by the noble Baroness and for the other interventions. Once again, I have a dim perception of what this means. It will remain with me for a few minutes and then will disappear. I believe that this will be the state of many noble Lords who are now sitting back and saying, "Yes, we think we understand." This section or provision—I do not know quite what to call it—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Limb.
LORD SHACKLETON: This limb refers to what may be done in the future, and covers these two categories: Community Treaties in which we may not be participants, and treaties ancillary to ones to which we shall be signatories. I suppose that the phrase "entered into" has a specific legal meaning. I do not know, and would not argue if the lawyers say, "Yes, it is in order and the word 'signed' does not have to be used". I am not sure at what point one enters into a Treaty. Presumably it is when one signs it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that this point is susceptible of a fairly easy explanation. On the point of the phrase "entered into", one first of all makes the agreement, and that is entering into it. It does not become binding until it is ratified. As a rule, one has to do something in one's own country before it can be ratified. Therefore, the phrase used is "entered into". At this stage of the definition, before we reach Clause 1(3), whereby we ratify, it is probably correct to use these words.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Viscount has been helpful and it is obviously necessary to consider subsection (3) in the consideration of this limb. He need not be worried; I am not going to start on that point now because we shall be coming to it shortly. I am not totally without belief or hope that the Government have it right, but I still think it would be possible for an assurance to be given. And this is where we see the significance of the earlier Amendment on which the noble Viscount gave a helpful explanation, although

507
rather late in the day. By the time it came we were almost heading for the Division Lobby. But I do not see how it can be satisfactory to leave this provision as it stands.
This Bill is going to be the basis of a lot of work by many people. I refer not only to the lawyers, who may welcome this (though the lawyers are becoming increasingly overworked) but to ordinary Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. We shall undoubtedly have to look at this Statute many times in the future because it is going to be one of great importance. Unless there is the kind of explanation which my noble and learned friend the former Lord Chancellor at one time had in mind with regard to Statute Law, because it will be necessary for people to go back to the explanations given in debate in order to understand it, I do not think this is satisfactory.
I do not assume that all Bills and Acts have to be absolutely intelligible to everyone, but it would have been possible for this drafting to be clearer. Noble Lords on the Front Bench have helped us, with patience, to understand this, but it is my view that we have a duty in this House

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Gifford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bowden, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Champion, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Walston, L.

Colyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L,

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungersall, L.

Maelor, L.

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fiske, L.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Blackford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Abinger, L.

Blake, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Boothby, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd of Morton, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bradford, E.

Craigavon, V.

Arbuthnott, V.

Braye, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brecon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brentford, V.

Crathorne, L.

Balerno, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Croft, L.

Barnby, L.

Camoys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Chesham, L.

Daventry, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

Digby, L.

Bethell, L.

Coleridge, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

in this connection. We are not seeking to hold up the Bill—we are moving quite fast—but my noble friends are not happy about this. I suspect that there are noble Lords on the opposite side of the House also who are not happy about it. Since the Government have given no undertaking—and are clearly in no position, I fear, to give one—to look at the arguments to see whether the drafting can be improved, I feel I must divide the Committee. It is almost impossible for the rest of us to deal with this.
The Government have brilliant hacking from the particular draftsman. We ackknowledge that—and I am not saying this in other than an admiring way—but something more intelligible could have been produced. In these circumstances I should like to divide the Committee in order to encourage the Government to recognise that we should like clearer legislation. We shall go on pressing throughout the Committee stage to obtain greater clarity.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Non-Contents, 152.

Dudley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Reigate, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Rennell, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kindersley, L.

Rhyl, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Robbins, L.

Eccles, V.

Limerick, E.

Roberthall, L.

Elles, Bs.

Long, V.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Rootes, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rothes, E.

Essex, E.

Luke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Falmouth, V.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Sackville, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sandford, L.

Gage, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sandys, L.

Gainford, L.

May, L.

Selkirk, E.

Goschen, V.

Merrivale, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mersey, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Sherfield, L.

Gridley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Morrison, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hailes, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stradbroke, E.

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

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Harcourt, V.

Suffield, L.

Harris, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Thomas, L.

Hawke, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Hayter, L.

Onslow, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hemingford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Hewlett, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vernon, L.

Hives, L.

Perth, E.

Vivian, L.

Hood, V.

Polwarth, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Poole, L.

Watkinson, V.

Hurcomb, L.

Radnor, E.

Wolverton, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Redmayne, L.

Young, Bs.

Jessel, L.

6.5 p.m.
TILE EARL OF LAUDERDALE TILE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) (a) this Act shall continue in force until the end of the year 1973 and shall then expire unless continued in force in accordance with the following provisions of this subsection;
(b) subject to paragraph (c) below, Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council provide for this Act to continue in force for a period of twelve months beyond the day on which it would otherwise expire;
(c) no Order in Council shall be made under paragraph (h) above so as to continue this Act beyond the end of the year 1977.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which may appear rather formidable in length, is in fact neither anti nor pro Common Market, and on that controversy at the moment I do not propose to enter. But to those who profess that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will indeed be an Act of sovereignty rather than of diminution my Amendment should offer proof, and at the same time it should offer some solace to those who are legitimately anxious. It is not
510
intended in any way to compromise, to corrupt, to contaminate, to soil or to spoil our accession; and I am advised that since each State ratifies by its own procedures this would in no way affect our ratification.
My right honourable friend in another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said on Third Reading:
"…the broad issue of sovereignty … is broadly as it is under other Treaties we have signed in the past.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 13/7/72, col. 1979.]
When we signed the North Atlantic Treaty in April 1949 we pledged mutual defence aid to the limit of our capacity, and in the first instance we did so for some 20 years ahead. Yet at that time Parliament had provided a standing Army and Air Force for no more than 12 months.
In the following year, the North Atlantic Treaty being now ratified, Parliament still did no more than repeat the Army and Air Force annual Act and kept our standing forces in being simply for

511
another year, and this against a commitment which now had more than 19 years to run.
The same formal self-restriction on our willing the means to comply with our pledged word occurred also when we adhered to the SEATO commitment in South-East Asia in September 1954. Our defence obligations there were undertaken for an indefinite time. Yet on the day when we signed the annual Act had but half a year to run, and therefore in law we had a standing Army and Air Force for just another six months. The next year, in February 1955, when we signed the CENTO Treaty, pledging defence aid for not less than five years, we did it when the annual Act keeping the Army and Air Force in being had fewer than three months to run.
No voice was raised to cry, whether in 1949, in 1954 or in 1955, that having willed the end we had now failed to will the means. Still less was any voice raised to plead that failure to authorise our Armed Forces, whether for eternity, for two decades or indeed for only five years, in the smallest degree would compromise or weaken either our ratification or our good faith or our national honour. Of course not. For the yearly exercise in renewing the Army and Air Force annual Act was just how my right honourable friend the Solicitor General on Third Reading in another place described our joining in and acting within the Community. He called it "a deliberate and continuing act of sovereignty". Indeed this annually repeated exercise of sovereignty both fulfilled the aspirations of the Petition of Right and obeyed the Bill of Rights of 1689, two provisions of which are particularly relevant to this time and place. The first one reads:
"The pretended power of suspending laws and of the execution of laws"
and the sixth one reads:
"The raising or keeping of a standing army … in time of peace".
and they both have this passage in common:
"without the consent of Parliament is against law".
That last phrase has remained part of our legislation, being incorporated in the Preamble to the annual Acts for the Army and Air Force, until in 1955 Parliament chose to foreshorten matters.
512
To-day we have the Armed Forces Act 1971 with effect for a year only, renewable each year by Order in Council, but, even so, valid for not more than five years altogether; and in 1976 we begin the same process again.
The wording of my Amendment has been taken straight from the Armed Forces Act 1971. What is good for the armed forces is surely good for us all. Like that Act, if the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill now before us, it would hold intact the principles of 1629 and 1689, which some believe have been pushed somewhat aside. My words in this Amendment have been designed to respect the principle that, though many times over Parliament has supported the Executive in adhering to a treaty with costly, burdensome and, in many cases, totally unforeseeable commitments, unforeseeable in their extent, ranging from periods of five years to periods in the indefinite future or eternity, nobody disputes and nobody has disputed the propriety of keeping the means to such ends under annual Parliamentary review.
This group of Treaties which we have now been talking about for nearly three hours are not only wide-ranging but are intended to range wider still. Little wonder, then, that when my right honourable and learned friend in another place, the Solicitor General, spoke of our "continuing act of sovereignty" he also qualified that phrase, for he said:
"So long as we remain a member"
pooling decisions
"… will be a continuing act of sovereignty".
So it is quite plain that the Government Front Bench have conceded, at any rate elsewhere, that Britain might at some point wish to withdraw.
To enable withdrawal is not the purpose of my Amendment. Indeed, by this Amendment I do not seek to make the Community stumble and fall. But I believe that accession, if accession there is to be, should be set upon a rock of stone. Such expressions by the Solicitor General are expressions of opinion; such expressions are only expressions of opinion, such expressions bind nobody outside the Government from which they are sprung. Do not let us leave to chance what can only, as it stands, be an opinion, which might even prove in the future to

513
have been a misleading opinion. Do not let us be fellows in any kind of deceit. If we believe what the Solicitor General has said, let us make sure, let us set it in the Statute.
"Loss of sovereignty implies that Parliament has been forced to accept membership …."—
that is, of the Communities—
"… without choice".
That was said by the Solicitor General, again on the same occasion. If we believe this, then let us set it in the Statute.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack told us on Second Reading that he believed—and he used the word "belief"—that there was nothing in this,
"…which derogates … from British soveregnty, legal or political—if sovereignty means, as I think it means, the right … or at least the power to do anything right or wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/72; Col. 1233.]
Those were his words. Once again they are an expression of belief, albeit the belief of a magisterial personality to whom, if I may take the liberty of saying so, our respect is clothed in personal affection. But belief is not enough for a matter so grave as this, and in this particular case it has indeed been contradicted by the Master of the Rolls. Where there is doubt, let us set it in the statute.
I have listened, like others of your Lordships, with interest and hope, mingled with apprehension, to the reactions of our Government Front Bench to questions that have been put to them about the meaning or the drafting of this Bill. I am bound to say that so far I am not greatly encouraged, but I believe firmly in their good faith and I feel confident that before this Committee stage is over there will have been abundant demonstrations of it. But what I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench is this. If the Government would accept the spirit and purpose of what I propose, if they would undertake to look at it and come back with their own wording on Report, they would at a stroke prove by deed that sovereignty still lives where they tell us they believe it does; they would at a stroke allay much public anxiety: they would at a stroke put to confusion much lurking hostility; they would at a stroke win new support outside Parliament and, I believe, within it; they would at a stroke prove them-
514
selves sincerely attentive to the constitutional revising function of your Lordships' noble House. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe assured us in his winding-up of the Second Reading debate a little while ago, that he would make sure as Leader of the House that we were no mere rubber stamp, and he added that that was no mere formal promise.
This Amendment is not proposed lightly or wantonly. It is designed to meet a real difficulty, albeit in my own ignorant kind of way; it is designed to do it in accord with our most venerable Parliamentary practice; it is designed to do it with grace and decency, and it is designed to do it without loss of honour to the Government in any way, and, may I add, without in the smallest sense denigrating the great hopes which I know repose in many of your Lordships in Great Britain's joining what I would choose to call the great congregation.
LORD SOMERS: I would beg the Government to pay earnest heed to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl. I am not going to say anything about my own particular attitude towards the Bill because I have lived long enough now to know that I am more often wrong than right. But there can be very little doubt that this Bill is taking our country into a totally new era and very few of us, even, those expert on the subject, have any idea as to what our problems and difficulties are going to be. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will consider the Amendment which has just been moved as a way of preventing our country from going into a position from which it cannot extricate itself.
6.23 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: I have never in your Lordships' House listened without deep respect to a speech from the noble Earl, and I certainly listened to the pronouncement he has just made in the same spirit. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the analogy on which he based his recommendation is, in fact, misleading. Let us suppose for a moment that we are considering not relations with other Powers but other matters relating to the law of this country. There are special reasons, going back to the 17th century, whereby it has been considered desirable—and I agree it is desirable—that arrangements concerning military forces

515
be reviewed at frequent intervals. But suppose, lit is suggested that arrangements concerning the general law of property should be reviewed at frequent intervals; supposing other branches of the law were automatically to come up for review in such a way. Then surely the orderly processes of society would be gravely impaired. Needless to say, if due cause can be made out for review of any parts of our legislation it is open to anyone in your Lordships' House or in the other place, operating according to the proper conventions, to make them the subject of debate and to put the matter to a democratic vote. But surely it would be regarded as unwise—if I may use Burke's phrase—to make
"The occasional medicine, our yearly bread'.'
Turning to the matter in hand. I suggest that the arrangements we are contemplating, which are arrangements consequent on our proposed entry into an economic Community are arrangements which are not to be regarded as suitable to come up automatically for review at 12-monthly intervals. For all the business enterprise concerned these arrangements will involve, planning ahead, not merely for months, but for years. My imagination boggles at the uncertainty involved if it were thought that every year we should have debates of this sort as to whether these arrangements should continue. I am not arguing that in certain emergencies we ought not to call into review the arrangements now contemplated; but I am arguing that to write automatic review year by year into the present Bill would be an act of unwisdom.
6.26 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, speaks always with great authority, but it does not follow that one must always agree with him. In the course of his observations he rejects the analogy submitted by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, but it is a very effective and logical analogy, as I shall venture to demonstrate. What is being asked for, essentially, is that there should be effective and regular Parliamentary control, and it must be conceded, from a study of the debates in the other place and a knowledge of the arguments and contentions submitted in your Lordships' House,
516
that the one thing which is absent from this legislation is effective Parliamentary control. If it is the opinion of noble Lords that we should enter the E.E.C. without adequate terms—indeed, accepting unconditional surrender—then I understand it. In fact the decision just reached on the previous Amendment, when the Government rejected the appeals that were made by my noble friends on the Front Bench and by others on this side of the House, is a demonstration of what I have just said: unconditional surrender.
It does not matter treaties have been agreed in the past or are envisaged for the future—if indeed one can envisage something which is vague, nebulous and ambiguous. Nevertheless, we are determined to go in, and that is the end of the story; that is the attitude of the Government, and I suspect (I say this with great respect) that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the Leader of the House, and those associated with him in these debates, have not the slightest intention of yielding an inch, so far as the principles embodied in this legislation are concerned. That is my view.
Of course, my noble friends on the Front Bench speak with much greater authority than I can hope to do, but I think they are wasting a lot of their time. They will discover this in due course. It is true to say we have been approached, many of us, by some of our colleagues in another place who have suggested that we might by our efforts improve the Bill. That is impossible. I think the only way to deal with this Bill is to demolish it; finish with it completely. That is my view. I have given reasons before, and I shall venture one or two in the course of my remarks. What we might be able to do—and here I agree with my noble friends on the Front Bench, and those on this side of the House who are building up an opposition—is to weaken the legislation so that it might not do as much harm as under the original intentions of the Bill. That is the only hope we have. Opponents of the Bill can go on in their agitation and approaches, some of them emotionally presented and some logically argued; they can do it all, and see what happens at the end of the day.
I support the Amendment proposed with great courage in the circumstances.

517
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is almost the only one on that side of your Lordships' House ready to argue logically against the principles embodied in this legislation. It shows remarkable courage. I applaud his sentiments. I applaud him more particularly because it is obvious that we do not know what we are in for. Even the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has ventured to suggest that we cannot accept an annual review, but there might be an occasional review every four or five years. Why? Why four or five years, seven years, or ten years?
LORD ROBBINS: With deep respect, I did not suggest a five-yearly review. I said that in circumstances of great emergency, naturally the sovereignty of Parliament would permit a review.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is right to correct me. He did not specify any period of time. He suggested that there might be a review dependent on the circumstances. Nevertheless, while he rejected the automatic annual review, he was prepared to consider a possible review? Why? It is a fair question that I pose. I presume that it is because he has doubts; that it may not work out as some people expect. Indeed there are doubts. The legal arguments that have been adduced in the course of these debates, not only at the Committee stage this afternoon but in the general debates we have had—and I think that there have been three over the last 18 months or so—have indicated that doubts exist. There are doubts on that side of the House, and there are doubts on this side of the House; and quite rightly, because, in a sense, it is a leap in the dark.
It is all very well to come along and say, "Look at the growth that has been developed on the Continent. Look at the wages the workers receive. Look at the co-ordination and the co-operation, and the sense of unity." That is all very well, but there are still doubts and reservations. In those circumstances, and having regard to that sentiment, it is wise to consider whether it would not be desirable that we should, after a period of time, consider whether it is worth while going on or—and I will modify what I have just said, because that would indicate perhaps the end of it—perhaps
518
seek some modifications where the harm has been done, where there has been injury, and seek to correct it. I can understand that, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Lauderdale, is suggesting, as I understand it from listening to his speech and reading his Amendment. That is also my view.
I beg your Lordships to understand that I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said, about the good faith of the Government. Of course their sincerity is not in question. How can it be? But I do not believe that they are going to give way at all. If it should happen, as a result of the very strong and strident appeals, backed up by the logic imparted by my noble friends on the Front Bench, that the Government give way on something, I shall be prepared to examine it. If they do yield, after my meticulous examination I shall make the remarkable discovery that it has hardly been worth while. There are to be no great discoveries so far as this legislation is concerned. There will be no "Columbus's"—none at all. So we must accept the worst. I am ready for that. I have predicted disaster from the outset. I deplore it. I hate it.
If I may be allowed to say so—and I am not speaking with any excess sense of emotion; I am speaking from my mind, if not from my heart—I would much rather it had been the other way; that we had backed down and gathered up our loins and made a really great effort, as this country has done in the past, in order to retain our independence. But that I do not mean refusing to associate with other countries in trade and commerce, and in various activities—not at all! I mean merely that we should retain a measure of independence and Parliamentary control. I should not be at all surprised if—it may be in my time: who can tell?—I had better touch wood the way things are—we make the discovery that your Lordships' House is no longer of any value in the context of the Economic Community, and that it has become really an anachronism. I should regret it if that were to occur in my time. If it is after my time, well I shall know nothing about it. I beg your Lordships to understand that I am an unrepentant opponent of Britain's entry into the Common Market; and if disaster ensues do not blame me.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: I am glad that before intervening I had the opportunity of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, whose views I certainly always listen to not only with great attention but also with great respect. This is a matter of a general character on which he could quite properly let us have his views. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is an unequivocal opponent of entry, and for me it is always interesting to hear the reasonings which he advances in support of the views which, with his long experience, he has the right to hold.
I do not propose to take the time of the Committee in saying much on this Amendment. I read it with great interest, and waited with impatience to hear the way it was going to be presented by my noble friend, and after the three speeches, I now await with impatience to hear the manner in which it is going to be dealt with by the Front Bench. But I must say that I found the speech of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale persuasive. His argument was certainly moderately put. It was ingenious. He reached back a long time. He must have made much research in support of it. I could not pretend to have the ability, or the knowledge, to make any comment on the substance on which he advanced his reasoning; but at least we must admit that it had much logic behind it.
The main objection was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins; not unnaturally, it was that for us to agree to support the views of the noble Earl would lead to great question marks. But the fact is that the Army Act is renewed only once a year, and there is a general expectation that that will occur, unless there is suddenly an inconceivable change of public opinion in the country. So it may well be that it would be possible to find some manner in which this yearly examination could, with advantage, be done. In a very much humbler sphere, the difference between a banker's order and an annual scrutiny is something we have all had experience of and it is improper to bring it into such an important question; but for myself I was impressed with the logic and the reasoning of my noble friend and it is for that reason, awaiting with interest the manner in which it is going to be dealt with by the
520
Front Bench, that I, at least at this stage, support the Amendment.
6.41 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and my noble friend Lord Shinwell have set the rest of the House an example. As I look around me I feel that the lacklustre expression on many faces derives from the fact that we all sat up so late last night trying to understand this completely incomprehensible piece of legislation, and the monolithic silence which seems to have descended on some sections of the House is no doubt a reflection of the fact that many of us were unable to make sense of the legislation.
The criticism has been offered of the noble Earl's proposal that it is an unusual proposal. I forget the exact words which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, used, but he was really saying that this was something which had not been done before and therefore might be a rather dangerous precedent. I do not accept that at all. If we were for the first time in this country starting to have an Army it would be regarded as complete lunacy to say that the Army should depend on an Annual Vote of Parliament. It really would not make sense. One of the most important protections our Constitution has had has been that every year the Armed Forces of the Crown have had to obtain the support of the House of Commons. It seems to me that over the centuries, or at any rate over the last half century, the annual Army Act and the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, upon which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and I occasionally joined issue in another place, have both worked well and have both been admirable checks upon the Executive.
The fact that this is unusual in this context is not, I think, a matter for criticism. This is, after all, a most unusual proposal. That we should surrender such a large measure of the sovereignty of this country is probably the most unusual proposal that has ever been made to your Lordships' House. I do not think that even the Prime Minister now deludes himself that the Government are going ahead with this legislation with the wholehearted support either of the people of this country or of the

521
Members of another place; and when we are taking this quite drastic action to curtail the rights, and perhaps to affect the future, of the rest of the population it is surely not unreasonable to ask that we should allow ourselves some escape hatch by which, if public opinion turns fiercely against this proposal, as it may well do, we are able to release ourselves from the obligations into which we are entering. It would mean that we were doing it under honourable conditions. I am not very happy about the idea that once we are in we should try to re-negotiate. I believe that probably the only sanction we should have in the last resort would be to break our Treaty obligations; and that is something that no honourable man or woman willingly does.
If we were to accept the proposal in the noble Earl's Amendment tonight it would mean that we put the Community under warning that in certain circumstances we in this country might think it necessary to withdraw. I ask noble Lords to consider seriously the political situation in France, in Germany, in Italy. I think anybody would be pretty optimistic to bet heavily on the fact that ten years from now Italy will be a democratic country. I think there is a pretty good chance that Italy may go either Fascist or Communist in the next ten or fifteen years. I would not put my shirt on Germany's remaining indefinitely a democratic country. We have to remember that France has the largest Communist Party outside Eastern Europe. These are the partners we are trying to wed ourselves to, absolutely indissolubly, for all time. The White Paper issued by the Government points out that these Treaties are binding for all time except for the Coal and Steel Treaty, which is for a period of 50 years. Would it not be prudent to give ourselves the opportunity of saying that we have accepted the principle, that we want to see the thing work once we are inside, but that we want to give notice that we may find the attitude of other members in the Community incompatible either with our own philosophy or with the basic material interests of this country and that therefore we propose to look at this matter from time to time.
LORD ROBBINS: May I put a question to the noble Lord? Accepting, as I am sure he does, as a good citizen of the world, that there should persist some degree of solidarity in Western Europe, would he think it a good thing if each of the present members of the Common Market were to adopt the procedure which it is proposed we should adopt?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: That is a perfectly fair point for the noble Lord to make. I only wish that the noble Lord who referred to discussion on the previous Amendment had answered the question I put to him: that was, whether other countries, when going into the European Economic Community, had accepted the same limitation which the Government has put into this Bill. This question was put to the learned Solicitor General in another place, and so far as I have been able to discover it is a point which none of the Ministers in another place was able to answer. It seems to me that we have in fact voluntarily proposed that we accept in this country obligations that the other Western European countries have not accepted.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Would my noble friend give way? The example par excellence is Italy, who in the transition period refused to apply the value added tax because of the trouble it would cause.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: If I may continue without the helpful support that I am getting from the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, I want to say that I think the onus here rests upon the Government. So far, no means have been proposed—at any rate, no means have been disclosed to the House—of keeping your Lordships' House or another place informed of what is proposed should happen inside the Community. We have to look very carefully at the kind of machinery that is to be set up. We do not know what we are being committed to. There is no provision for scrutiny of various legislation to which we shall be committed. There is no proposal, so far as I know, for a regular report to be made by the British Government to the people of this country about how they have behaved and comported

523
themselves in the councils of the Community. This is still a complete mystery, and it is something we shall have to learn about as time goes on.
I think it would be wise if the Government would help us just a little by conceding that there is a case for giving this kind of reassurance, or some equal reassurance, to people who have these serious doubts about joining the Community. I say this not in any pugnacious way, but I would put it to noble Lords who represent the Government in your Lordships' House that it would be helpful if they would follow the tradition of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and say that they would look to see whether this or some similar proposal could be made to work. If the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate were able to tell me that the Conservative Party will have discussions with the leaders of the other political Parties in this country, then I would gladly urge the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, to withdraw his Amendment, and I would advise my noble friends not to support it if it was pressed. So I hope noble Lords opposite will be able to make just this one concession to us, that between now and Report stage we should see whether we cannot give Members of your Lordships' House and the general public the reassurance for which I believe all of them are entitled to ask.
6.51 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: Perhaps it might be a good thing if I were to intervene at this stage, I hope fairly briefly, in the discussion on this Amendment. First of all, I should like to say that, with other noble Lords, I found the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in moving his Amendment both powerful and passionate. What is more, he was quite correct when he stated that his Amendment would not prevent us from ratifying the Treaty of Accession; although, as I think he also made clear in his equally eloquent speech on Second Reading, he would not himself shed bitter tears if we found ourselves in the position of not being able to ratify. But the fact is that if we were to adopt this Amendment—and I think it is worth saying this, as I want to be straightforward with your Lordships—our ratification would remain valid and binding; indeed, that would be the fact whether or not the Act was
524
renewed each year and re-enacted in 1977. However, if the Act were not renewed in the way provided for in my noble friend's Amendment, and were not re-enacted, if it were allowed to lapse, we should be unable to fulfil under our domestic law those obligations to which we should still be bound in International Law under the Treaty of Accession—and I must confess that this is not a position into which I should like to see our country deliberately put itself.
The alternative is re-enactment in five years' time; to have the sword of Lauderdale hanging over us for five years, with the possibility of a further two million words spoken in another place and half a million—I do not wish to prejudge how many million words your Lordships will utter, but we seem to be notching up quite a lot on the speedometer at the present time—
A NOBLE LORD: Not a speedometer!
EARL JELLICOE: Not a speedometer, no; but with the possibility of a few words spoken in your Lordships' House—is not a prospect which particularly commends itself to at least this noble Lord. But I come back to this point. The fact remains, quite correctly stated by my noble friend, that there is no technical incompatibility between acceptance of his Amendment and our ratification of the Treaty of Accession.
I do not wish to dwell unduly on the legal aspects of the case, the semi-military case, developed by my noble friend, and my noble friend Lord Colville will, if need be, intervene towards the end of the discussion on this Amendment, but I should like to make one point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood. If his argument has validity, it points, as I see it, basically, to a reservation in the Treaty of Accession and not in this Bill. Our Treaty obligation is not subject to a time limit, and it is my belief that the Bill ought in honour to follow the Treaty obligation, the obligation which we have assumed. But I do not wish to rest unduly on the legal argument. In fact, I should be very unwise to do so as there are better lawyers than I—indeed, I am not a lawyer at all—in your Lordships' Committee. I have said that there is no technical incompatibility between the

525
acceptance of this Amendment and ratification. However, given the whole background to this matter, there is in my view a very considerable practical and political incompatibility—political in its widest, international sense.
My noble friend spoke of the spirit and purpose of his Amendment. I would suggest that the spirit and purpose of his Amendment, sincerely moved, is in fact contrary to the whole spirit of our application to join the Communities. For the past five years we have been negotiating for entry on acceptable terms and, pace the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I believe we have won acceptable terms. For the past 14 months we have been moving steadily nearer our goal. In June last year we completed our negotiations, and in October last year your Lordships voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of joining the European Communities on the terms negotiated, and by an equally overwhelming majority on Second Reading of this Bill last week. Now, when the Bill giving effect to this decision has already passed through another place, it is suggested that we should hesitate; that we should not commit ourselves wholly but should review the situation at annual intervals and that, in five years' time, if we decide to stay in the European Communities—"if we decide—we should enact new legislation. If, after all the argument, all the discussion, all the negotiations of the past few years, we are not sure that we wish to join the Communities: if we really entertain all the doubts, all the hesitations, which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has expressed, it is better that we should not enter, rather than that we should join hesitantly, making it abundantly clear by our hesitation that we have not accepted the continuing nature of our Community commitments.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him for one moment—and I apologise for doing so—to clarify one point? He has said, in effect—and I take the point—that this proposal, though technically not incompatible, would be practically and politically incompatible; and I accept the distinction. He has suggested that if we incorporated some such provision in our Bill we would then
526
display hesitancy to our proposed partners. But when we signed NATO we had just such a provision. Did it then suggest hesitancy? When we signed SEATO it was the same; and when we signed CENTO, the same. Surely no hesistancy is implied: we are merely conforming to our traditional practices in Parliament.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that what my noble friend is seeking to do is to import this hesitancy expressly into the ratification Bill. There was no such provision in our ratification of the NATO Treaty. I know he used an analogy. I must say that, along with others, I thought the analogy was a false one; but my noble friend will come back on that, if need be. With the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I believe that if we were deliberately to write in this provision for review it might have a really disastrous effect upon the economic and commercial evolution of the Community itself. But quite apart from that, quite apart from the effect upon the wider Community. I believe it would be seriously detrimental to our own, narrower interests. All our industry and commerce, as I made clear on Second Reading, would be placed in a position of uncertainty which would make long-term planning and total involvement in our policies towards Europe virtually impossible. I would suggest that unless we enter the Communities with a firm commitment, the commitment implicit in our Treaty of Accession—and that Treaty of Accession has been on the Table ever since January of this year—determined to play our full part as members and to make sure our membership is a success, we shall be ourselves undermining the chances of that success and ourselves undermining our chances of success within the Community. If we have to decide this—
LORD SLATER: May I—
EARL JELLICOE: May I just finish? I was coming to a conclusion. I will then answer the noble Lord's point.
If we have to decide this matter one way or another—and we have so to decide—let us decide it now once and for all in a clear-cut categorical way, in a way compatible with what is said in the Treaty of Accession. I listened to the noble Earl's plea that we should consider

527
this matter between Committee and Report stage; but it would be disingenuous of me, given what I have said, to hold out any hope that I could change on this fundamental point, that I could see my way to any Amendment which could accommodate him. I must say that to him and—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Address the Committee!
EARL JELLKOE: I have noticed noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite sometimes turn, fearing the shafts which may reach them from behind. I turned to my noble friend for I did not know that the sword of Lauderdale was about to—
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My noble friend referred to the ratification Of NATO, and SEATO and of CENTO. Can he tell the House by what Bills we ratified those Treaties? There was no Bill at all! We do not in Parliament make this ratification Bill by a Parliamentary Act. We deposit the ratification when whatever means are needed to an end have been willed. Here, the means to an end were not willed. We did not provide a standing Army for 20 years, for five years or for eternity. Surely there is some slight confusion here.
EARL JELUCOE: If I used the word "ratification" inappropriately, I would—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The word was used correctly.
EARL JELLICOE: I am advised by my legal friend that I used it correctly. I said that I would prefer to leave the legal argumentation on this point to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
LORD SLATER: The noble Earl said that he would answer what I have to say. First, is he aware that many of us in the past have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in another place taking the same stand on this issue, a stand against his Government. The noble Earl talked of committal. How did some such committal come about? How did such an acceptance by Her Majesty's Government come about? It did not come about through reasonable debate and discussion in another place; it came about because it was forced through by the guillotine
528
measure introduced on the Bill. It was not debated and discussed in the way it ought to have been. It has been forced on this House. I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, speaks to-night he realises that the words which fall from his lips will go out through this nation and that the people of the nation will take particular note of what he says on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the speech he has already made about going into Europe.
EARL JELLICOE: I am very glad to hear that my words will be listened to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, for giving me that assurance.
7.5 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: I do not know whether any words that I say will be able to influence a single vote when the matter comes to a vote, as I am sure it will. But I must say that I myself would think that this Amendment, if not a wrecking Amendment, could at any rate be said to be a weakening Amendment and in the general category of Amendments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Therefore, I would say that it comes into the category of those Amendments which, as I have already said, I think that my friends would be opposed to: namely, any Amendment which casts any doubt on the credibility of our signature to the Act of Accession. Surely if any Amendment would cast doubt on the credibility of our signature to the Act of Accession, it would be this particular Amendment! What would our friends abroad say? It would be that "every January, the Sword of Damocles is hanging over the whole show."It might be that in a few years a Government here could be extremely annoyed with the Government of Germany, or of France or Italy—a case was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood—and then perhaps in December, in a fit of petulance, that Government would say, If you go on like this, then there will be no Order in Council, the Order will not be renewed." Then at one bang everything would just lapse. No Government who are serious about entering the Community could put themselves into a position like that. Without any hesitation I shall vote against the Amendment.
LORD PEDDIE: I hope the noble Earl will help me in making what I hope will

529
be the right decision on this Amendment. Am I to assume that the acceptance of these review conditions would impose some restrictions on our own Government in their association with the Community and restrict their credibility in being associated with any long-term decisions which the Community may be called upon to make? To me that is the most important aspect of this particular matter. I should like some reassurance on that before I make up my own mind.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I say a brief word on a point connected with the analogy? The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said that he was going to attack this analogy. He did so; but I felt that he did not put his finger precisely on the point which lies at the centre of it. Nor, indeed, did my noble Leader. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale in what I thought, if I may say so without impertinence, was a most moving, sincere and memorable speech, said at one moment that what is good for the Armed Forces is good for us all. But it seems to me that there is a flaw in so thinking. The arrangements that we make for the Armed Forces for annual or quinquennial review are not for the good of the Armed Forces; they are for the good of Parliament, on behalf of the people. They are intended to make it absolutely certain that, originally the Sovereign and now the Government, should not find themselves in permanent control of the Armed Forces. That arrangement therefore is not in existence in order that at the drop of a Governmental or Parliamentary hat we suddenly allow the Armed Forces to fall into a disunited and undisciplined rabble; it is to make certain that no Government can entrench itself and find it has the Army under its control.
That is one side of the analogy. My noble friend developed it by referring to the Treaties that we already have. He referred to NATO, SEATO and CENTO. As he pointed out, it has made no difference whatever to our adherence to those Treaties simply because our allies in those organisations never had the slightest doubts about our intentions. They knew that we had no intention of not renewing the Armed Forces Act in, say, five weeks' time, or five days or five
530
years. It would not make sense. The only reason why we should possibly do such a thing would be the arising of a situation of such enormous internal emergency that we had to do so to free ourselves of the despotism of our own Government. It is unlikely that any nation on earth thinks that that is likely to happen in Great Britain.
Now we come to the other side of the analogy. We are asked by my noble friend to say why we think the other members of the Community should not take a similar view. On that analogy, they think that we are not likely to take advantage of this get-out provision in the Amendment unless there arises some monumental domestic emergency of such an appalling magnitude that we are bound to take action in order to prevent it. There is really no analogy at all. When my noble friend says—as he did say, with what I am sure is perfect truth, for he cannot speak in any other way—
"To enable withdrawal is not the purpose of my Amendment,"
that I entirely accept. But if I were a Frenchman, an Italian, or a member of another of the Communities, I would say that, whether or not that is the purpose of Lord Lauderdale's Amendment, it is certainly the effect; and from our point of view (I am still speaking from the Community's point of view) that must be the intention of any Parliament that accepts it and drafts it into its legislation.
The effect, to outer eyes from the other side of the Channel, and indeed to eyes on this side of the Channel, must surely be that this Amendment is put in for no other purpose than to enable us to get out of agreements into which we have entered. And this comes back to what my noble Leader has said: that it would be perfectly deplorable and entirely opposed to the whole spirit and, indeed, to the legality of the way in which we have hitherto acted. And, as I say, I think that the result would be totally deplorable.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on the way he presented his case, which he did very clearly and very well. Unfortunately, I am unable to support him because what he is proposing cuts

531
right across the whole principle of the Common Market. It is not a practical proposition that annually we should opt in or opt out or, with respect to your Lordships' House, decide each year whether or not we are going to continue. To me this is not a small Amendment. It is an Amendment which cuts right across the whole principle of our entry into the Common Market. Finally, I should like to make one comment on the remarks I have heard so far during the Committee stage discussions about the Government's being reasonable. Just because a Government do not accept an Amendment it does not mean that a good Amendment has been lost. What it means, usually, is that the proposer of the Amendment has not made a sufficiently good case to persuade us to vote in favour of it. This question of the Government not having good faith is, I think, being overplayed.
BARONESS ELLES: Before anybody votes on this Amendment, can we turn our eyes to what has happened in the member States? Since 1957, they have continuously pursued a policy of improving the standard of living and the life of the people within the Community, and there has never been any question of renewing or looking at it each year. Let us look at the situation to-day. If it were not for the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community, when France and Germany willingly gave up sovereignty over the products of coal and steel, which, after all, are the products for making conventional weapons, we might not have been able to sit in this Chamber discussing this problem. For the first time—looking back to 1870 and up to 1939–45—we can say: "For 25 years we have been able to live without the threat of rearmament within Western Europe."Certainly no woman can stand back and say, "Right, let us renew this every year", when for the last 25 years we have been able to bring up our children in peace without any threat of rearmament. Therefore, I seriously ask noble Lords to consider that point before voting in favour of this Amendment.
7.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am not quite sure whether it is in order for me to take up the points which have been made, because I understood that the noble
532
Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was going to say a final word. Perhaps, working backwards, I may say that if many noble Lords believe, and all of us hope, that the consequences of going into the E.E.C. will be an immense improvement in our standard of living with no worry about back-sliding, then an annual review or a five-yearly review is nothing whatever to be afraid of. I am surprised that noble Lords who put their faith in this Treaty seem to fight shy of an annual or quinquennial review.
Another point has been made by my noble friends Lord Cork and Orrery and Lord Macpherson of Drumochter and I thank them both for their kind words about me. Their suggestion was that to our future partners this Amendment must look as if we were trying to provide some backdoor way out. But surely it would be much more convincing to our partners in Europe to know that we had gone in with the full-hearted consent of Parliament and without violation of our traditional procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, suggested that this annual review would produce great uncertainty. I am not aware that the annual or quinquennial review produces any uncertainty in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, took up the spirit of my Amendment by asking the Government, All right, you may not like these words or this proposition, but what have you to propose; and are you willing to enter into discussions about Parliamentary review?" so that Parliament may have a regular free-ranging review of our obligations in the future. If the Government and others are so confident that their hopes will be realised, what on earth is there to be afraid of? I cannot understand this fear. I am sorry that we have not had some sort of response from the Front Bench, at any rate to the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. I do not ask for the precise wording of the procedures of my Amendment to be accepted. What I ask is that the Government should look at it. They have said that they will not, and apparently the reason is that this would be politically incompatible with our ratification.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that this is a ratification treaty. I should like him to name—or perhaps the noble

533
Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will name—the Bills that passed through Parliament to ratify our adhesion to NATO, CENTO and SEATO. I have never heard of them. My researches may not have gone far enough, but I believe that there were no such Bills; and to liken this Bill to some Bill that ratified NATO is not, I submit, correct, though I am open to correction.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, put a question, I am not sure whether to me or to the Government Front Bench, but I will give way immediately if the noble Lord would like to repeat his question. I am sorry that I did not catch it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MAYBRAY-KING): Does the noble Earl wish to withdraw his Amendment?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: No, I am not withdrawing my Amendment. I was waiting to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, would clarify what he said.
LORD PEDDIE: Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to reply to the point that I raised. It seems to me an extremely important and significant aspect of this discussion.
LORD KINDERSLEY: May I add a word—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I did not catch what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said earlier and therefore I cannot answer what he asked. If he would
be so kind as to repeat his question, I will try to answer. I apologise to him but my attention was distracted earlier and I do not hear very well.
LORD KINDERSLEY: My Lords, may I add a word—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD PEDDIE: I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, did not hear the point I made originally. With the permission of the Committee, I will repeat it. I asked: if the Committee accepted these review provisions would it not prejudice the activities, or indeed the credibility, of the British Government in their association with the European Common Market in the determination of long-term policy?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am open to correction—and the only solace I have these days is that I am invariably wrong; this is the comfort I get in life—but when we adhered to NATO, still subjecting our Armed Forces to an annual or quinquennial review, that did not diminish our credibility; nor did it do so when we adhered to SEATO or CENTO. So my answer is that it does not diminish our credibility. Our frankness and the open stance that we would have taken would enhance it.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 155.

Collison, L.

Hawke, L.

Polwarth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hemingford, L.

Radnor, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hewlett, L.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Hives, L.

Redesdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rennell, L.

Cranbrooke, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Rhyl, L.

Croft, L.

Janner, L.

Robbins, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Roberthall, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Kemsley, V.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Rootes, L.

Digby, L.

Kindersley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Drogheda, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Sackville, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Limerick, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dudley, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dundee, E.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lothian, M.

Selsdon, L.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Luke, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Elles, Bs.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Simon, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs

Mancroft, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Essex, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stow Hill, L.

Falmouth, V.

May, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fletcher, L.

Mersey, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Suffield, L.

Gage, V.

Milverton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Gainford, L.

Monck, V.

Terrington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Goschen, V.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mountevans, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trevelyan, L.

Gridley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Grimthorpe, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Vernon, L.

Hailes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

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

Onslow, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Wolverton, L.

Harcourt, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Wynford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Perth, E.

Young, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It has been agreed between the usual channels, that we should adjourn this Committee stage for half-an-hour for dinner. So I beg to move that this House do now resume for half-an-hour until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

DEACONESSES AND LAY MINISTRY MEASURE
7.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Deaconesses and Lay Ministry Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for bringing you down from the matters of high policy, with which we have been occupied during these past hours, to the very humble matters which are contained in this Measure. The reason for my having to do so is one which I have had to explain to your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. The Church of England has

537
the power to legislate for its own domestic affairs by means of Canons which are made under Royal licence. The conditions, however, that attach to Canons is that they may not vary or be in contradiction to the existing Statute law: and, since the Book of Common Prayer is a part of the Act of Uniformity, when the Church of England wants to alter anything in the Book of Common Prayer, however small and reasonable that change may be, we have first of all to alter the law before we can make a Canon about it. That is why I have to ask for an Affirmative Motion regarding the Deaconesses and Lay Ministry Measure.
The reason for this is that over the past years there has been a considerable movement in the Church of England to employ more and more the services of lay persons in the conduct of divine worship. Already, as a result of action that has been taken under various Measures, readers, both men and women, are permitted to conduct divine worship, to assist in the administration of the Sacrament at Holy Communion and so on. But there are certain things which they are precluded from doing because the Book of Common Prayer orders that the minister shall do them. Therefore we are seeking powers to be able to make Canons which would permit lay persons to take the service of the churching of women in the absence of the minister, to baptise, and, with the good will of those who are responsible, to bury the dead or to read the burial service before, at or after cremation. These things are by the Book of Common Prayer reserved to the minister, but as a result of this Measure it will be possible to allow other persons to perform these services.
My Lords, this is an enabling Measure, and it is the intention of the General Synod first of all to give these permissions to deaconesses, who are women who have been ordained to that function. We already have a draft Canon that has gone through most of its stages in the General Synod and is awaiting only the passage of this Measure before we can formally promulgate it as a Canon. The contents of the Canon are set out in the comments
538
and explanations of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. No doubt later on we shall want to extend these powers by Canon, but, as I say, at the present time it is the intention of the General Synod to pass a Canon to permit all deaconesses to perform these functions. I hope therefore that your Lordships' House will give this Measure an Affirmative Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Deaconesses and Lay Ministry Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
7.35 p.m.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for the careful way in which he has explained the object of this Measure, and I feel confident that I am speaking for all my noble friends on this side of the House if I say that our general approach to this question is that, Parliament having given the Church a very wide measure of freedom to legislate on all matters affecting its own domestic affairs, this House, as on other occasions, will, almost without exception. wish to endorse any Measure of this kind to which the Church of England, acting through the General Synod, has given approval with substantial unanimity.
I should like to ask the right reverend Prelate, merely as a matter of interest, two or three questions which occur to me arising out of the comments and explanations by the Legislative Committee. I gather from what he said that the intention is to pass a Measure which will give deaconesses certain rights. But of course the Measure that we are considering goes further than that. I think it would perhaps remove any doubt if the right reverend Prelate could confirm me in which I believe to be the present state of the law. Am I right in thinking that at the present time in the Church of England no sanction is required to enable a minister, with the consent of the Bishop, to invite any lay person, man or woman to preach at divine service. I mention that because I am sure that the right

539
reverend Prelate would not wish it to be thought that this Measure in any way takes away any existing right.
Similarly, the Measure will enable deaconesses and others, in the absence of the priest, to baptise. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will confirm that, as the law of the Church of England stands at the moment, in cases of urgency the service of baptism, which, after all, is one of the two major sacraments, can be performed in private by anybody, layman or indeed a woman, and from time to time it happens that in hospitals a doctor or a nurse performs the right of baptism, which more often than not is then followed by a service, not of baptism, but of reception into the Church. I take it that nothing in this Measure is intended to take away the existing law in that respect.
Then, a further provision will enable deaconesses and others, as it says, "with the goodwill of the persons responsible"—and I suppose that means the relatives—to bury the dead. I take it that that is intended to give power not merely to bury the dead—because I suppose there is nothing to prevent anybody from performing a service of burial at any time—but to enable others than those who are at present entitled to do so to recite the service of burial for the dead which is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, being, as the right reverend Prelate said, part of the common law of England. No doubt there is nothing to prevent any other form of service being said by anybody at any time, or no service being conducted at all.
Finally, my Lords, it is proposed that we should authorise the publication of the banns of marriage at morning and evening prayer by deaconesses and others. That seems to me to be an eminently desirable permission, in line with the general intention of this Measure, as I understand it, which is to facilitate others than ordained ministers to assist the ordained clergy in performing services and taking part in services of divine worship in the Church of England. With those few words, I hope that the House will support the Measure proposed by the right reverend Prelate.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, for the kind and helpful way in which he has approached this Measure. He has asked me four questions. The first concerns the right of any lay person to preach in a church. This is controlled by one of the miscellaneous provisions Measures which came previously before your Lordships' House and gives permission for readers and other lay persons to preach so long as they have been authorised. This Measure in no way detracts from those powers that already exist.
With regard to baptism, this Measure refers to the reciting of the Service of Baptism in the Book of Commotion Prayer—for of course the noble Lord is quite right when he says that the Sacrament of baptism is the most open of Christian Sacraments, even to the extent that it may be validly administered even by a person who is not a Christian. Very frequently, as the noble Lord said, a nurse or doctor in a case of emergency will administer a valid baptism, and that is then followed by reception into the Church. So this Measure would enable a deaconess or a lay person who was authorised by Canon to use the service in the Book of Common Prayer which at the present time they are not technically permitted to use. The noble Lord referred to the right to burial, and I would draw attention to the fact that the Measure refers to some of the burial Acts to which we have had to make ourselves fit on this occasion. The Service for the Burial of the Dead is referred to in the Book of Common Prayer according to the rites of the Church of England.
Finally, as regards the publishing of banns of marriage, the noble Lord will notice that this is not in the Measure itself but in the draft Canon of which we have given notice, since this does not need authority from Parliament in this particular respect. I understand that this is something which has to be authorised by means of the Marriage Act. A reader at the present time has the right to read the banns in church and this Measure will extend that right to deaconesses or to other lay persons if the Canons so permit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLERGY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
7.43 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the system of clergy pensions is controlled by the Clergy Pensions Measure and by subsequent amending Measures. If, therefore, we want to vary the way in which retired clergy and their widows are paid pensions, we have to come to Parliament in order to get an amending Measure. This Measure which is before your Lordships' House does two things. First of all, it proposes a number of improvements in the existing situation and, very importantly, in Clause 6 it proposes a new way in which changes in the pensions system shall be effected by regulations rather than by Measures. So that this may well be the last pensions Measure that comes before Parliament.
The improvements that are suggested in the Measure are as follows. First of all, by Clause 1 we are trying to make it easier to pay a good pension to a clergyman who has retired at the age of 65 (which is the pensionable age) but who has not been able to effect 40 years' pensionable service. This clause will give some amelioration of what would otherwise be a difficult situation. Clause 2(1) of the Measure gives power to the Pensions Board to select certain classes of persons who may have an increase in their pensions. There may sometimes be a certain group of clergy who have had some injustice done to them by other changes, and it is therefore desirable for the Pensions Board to have this opportunity of picking out certain groups and being better able to help them.
By subsection (2) of Clause 2, the granting of supplementary pensions is made discretionary instead of mandatory, because there have been situations in which gross inequalities and injustices have occurred because of the way in which, technically, the granting of pen-great help, and also a help to justice, if the granting of these pensions is made sions has worked. It will therefore be a
542
discretionary instead of mandatory. I can assure the House that the Pensions Board is a very generous-minded body, very sensitive to the needs of the clergy, and they would always exercise their discretionary power in the most generous way.
Clause 3 deals with the problem which arises when a clergyman who has been given a disability pension later recovers his health and is able to continue working. It seems appropriate that in these cases the Board should have power to discontinue or decrease the disability pension where this is appropriate. Clause 4 deals with a number of questions regarding widows' pensions. Subsection (1) provides that a pension should be at the discretion of the Board when a clergyman marries after retirement. At the present time, his wife gets a pension as of right if they have been married five years. But it can happen that a clergyman, after retiring, marries a very young wife and then the Pensions Board may have to pay a pension for 40 or 50 years. So it is thought that these cases should be matters of discretion.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that these provisions will not be used to the detriment of widows who now receive pensions. Subsection (3) applies to the widows the same rights as have been applied to clergymen in Clause 2(1). Subsection (4) gives the Church Commissioners power to give directions for increasing the pensions of particular classes of widows, as is done for particular classes of clergymen. Subsection (5) provides the opportunity to give a widow a higher pension under certain circumstances. The obvious example is where a clergyman has to be admitted to a hospital or nursing home at considerable expense. This subsection would allow the power to be exercised in respect of widows.
Subsection (6) deals with the widows of clergymen who have moved from the Church of England to another church in the Anglican Communion, and who have pension rights under the Church of England. In addition, the clergyman may have contributed to a pension for his widow. At the moment, these pensions are not transferable and we think it desirable that this injustice should be remedied. Subsection (7) provides that when a widow receives a pension for

543
which her husband has paid, she should continue to have it even if she remarries. Clause 5 deals with a number of minor points, and the procedure for changing the system is in Clause 6.
As I have explained to your Lordships, every time we want to amend the system of pensions we have to come back to your Lordships' House for an amending Measure. This seems to be very burdensome to everybody, and indeed it is contrary to most pension schemes in these days. The Superannuation Act 1972, together with earlier Acts, provided for pensions paid to civil servants, local Government employees, teachers, the Police and persons employed in connection with the Fire Services and the National Health Service to be embodied in schemes or regulations, instead of in Acts of Parliament. So we think that the way in which pensions for clergy are arranged should similarly be by regulations. When they have been approved they will have to be laid before Parliament and will be subject to annulment by a Resolution of either House. This is in accordance with one of the recommendations of the recent Church and State Commission. I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships' House, and that you will be able to give this Measure an Affirmative Resolution.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
7.50 p.m.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, here again we are indebted to the right reverend Prelate for the very full explanation that he has given of this Measure, which I am sure will commend itself to all persons in the House. I must declare an interest: having two sons who are ordained as priests in the Church of England I am naturally sympathetic to any Measure designed to increase and improve the pensions of the clergy. One is only too conscious that there are a number of elderly clergymen living in circumstances of some distress, and it is most satisfactory to know that the Church of England is alive to their need and is taking these steps to remove some of the injustices that exist and to improve the pensions of the clergy in general.
544
I am sure it is right, as the right reverend Prelate said, that in future we should, by reason of Clause 6, relieve the Church of England from the necessity of coming back to this House and another place every time for a Measure to change the rates of pension. The Church and the General Synod should have the same powers as comparable bodies dealing with superannuations and pensions to revise from time to time the appropriate regulations regarding pensions, and make them subject to confirmation, or otherwise, by a Resolution of this House. I support the Measure as proposed.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a word about this Motion? Quite obviously all of us want to do anything we, can to increase the pensions of the clergy and to make life for them, as they get a little older, more comfortable. In this respect this form of poverty—if I may so describe it—is not confined to the Church of England but affects clergy of all denominations. I was a little perturbed about the proposed change from mandatory to discretionary pensions because this means someone has to make a selection. When this is done trouble can arise. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate, when he replies, will be able to assure us that this is going to be dealt with in the most charitable way.
I agree with what my noble friend said with regard to Clause 6. It is intolerable that when a change of this kind has to be made it has to be brought to the Houses of Parliament. It is right that it should be dealt with as outlined in the Bill. Certainly after what we have learned to-day I think the right reverend Prelate has chosen the right time to make these changes. One never knows what will happen after we pass the Bill we were discussing before this business arose.
BARONESS BERKELEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome this Bill, especially Clause 6. I should also like to ask the right reverend Prelate this: With the pension do the clergy who are retiring get any grant towards a house? The housing question is extremely difficult and the price of houses is something which is enormous now.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as one who for some years sat on the Church of

545
England Pensions Board I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that that body leans over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to every one of its pensioners. Not least of the reasons for this is that the body seems to consist very largely of retired clergy themselves, so they have great sympathy with their brethren. I have never known a more generous body.
7.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this Measure? I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that the discretionary powers of the Pensions Board will be exercised in a most generous and sensitive way. Those of us who have to deal with the Pensions Board when concerned with the general problems of our own clergy know the Board as one of the most efficient and, at the same time, sensitive of all the organisations in the ecclesiastical machine. We hope that this discretionary power will make more money available because it will prevent the mandatory pensions being paid in certain cases where they are not justified. Therefore there will be more money available.
The noble Baroness referred to the equal problem of providing a house for clergy when they retire. This is a problem to which the Church is devoting a great deal of attention. Very often the clergy are told, "You are so well off. Think of all the fringe benefits that you have: a very nice house with rates and rent free. You get other fringe benefits." That is all very well, but the moment comes when those benefits stop, and whereas other people have been buying their houses throughout their working lives the clergy are faced with the problem that they have to leave their houses. Worse still, a widow of a clergyman has to leave her house in order to make room for the clergyman who follows.
The Pensions Board has a number of houses and bungalows throughout the country. It has some big houses where individual clergymen can live. In my diocese we have Shafton House, a clergy nursing-home in which a clergyman who
546
is ill, or the wife of a clergyman, can stay while the other member of the family stays in a small house which is attached. Of course those are not able to deal with all the problems and many clergy want to have their own houses. I cannot give the exact details of a scheme which has only just been announced in the General Synod. The clergy get a lump sum on retirement, I think it is £1,000 and I have an idea it is going up to £2,000, but I should like to check that. It is also going to be made possible for the clergy to get a mortgage up to £6,000 on very favourable terms—terms which will be more favourable to those who are on a basic pension and less favourable to those who have rather more means. This is a way in which the clergy will be helped to get a moderate mortgage, and one which will be greatly welcomed and will do a good deal to relieve that problem.
BARONESS BERKELEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate very much for what he has just said.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the Question I should like to say that I should have spoken on the previous Measure and I apologise for not doing so. It would be most ungenerous for me as a woman and a layman—and here there seems to be some discrimination!—not to congratulate the right reverend Prelate and the Church of England for this particular action as they have so often suffered in this House from the noble Baroness who feels that occasionally the Church does not rise to the cause of women. As one of another faith I can only hope that perhaps my own Church will take note of this and extend this Measure to us, too. It seems to me that the Almighty must be a supporter of "Women's Lib". After all, He created more of us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.58 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
8.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11. leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment purely for the purpose of probing. I should like to put a number of questions to the noble Viscount who, I believe, is going to be so good as to reply. I cannot put the questions without harking back for a moment or two to lines 5 to 8 in the previous subsection because I want to make quite certain that I understand to what those lines may apply. May I start by putting this question: When we were looking at those lines the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, said that we were considering Treaties to be entered into in the future. As I pointed out earlier there is in the wording of lines 5 to 8 no obvious indication that they are to apply only to future Treaties. I presume, however, that I am right in supposing that Ministers feel that the words in lines 5 to 8 can apply only to future Treaties because the definition of pre-accession Treaties in the first part of Schedule 1 contains paragraph 7. As I read it, that paragraph seems to cover all Treaties entered into before January 22, 1972. It follows almost word for word the language of lines 5 to 8 and seems to cover the same ground as those lines in relation to Treaties entered into before January 22, 1972. I assume that Ministers are relying on that situation when they say that lines 5 to 8 can only apply to Treaties in the future. Probably they would agree that that has to be amended slightly. If that is the process of reasoning, lines 5 to 8 would apply not only to Treaties entered into in the future but to any Treaty entered into after January 22, 1972.
Perhaps I may start, therefore, upon the assumption that that is what those lines deal with. Then I go to subsection (3) to put my questions. First I have a preliminary question. During the course of this debate it has been asked whether the Orders in Council which may be made under Clause 1(3) are subject to Parliamentary control. I would have answered that question in the affirmative, and I should be grateful if the noble
548
Viscount would tell me whether he thinks I am right or wrong. I would so answer it because of the provisions of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2. That sub-paragraph reads:
"Any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council … if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House."
Therefore, if it is not approved by Affirmative Resolution procedure it must be approved by Negative Resolution procedure. When one goes back to subsection (3) one finds that it is divided into Treaties entered into before January 22, 1972, and, with an exception to which I do not make reference, Treaties entered into after January 22, 1972. It goes on to provide that all Treaties entered into after January 22, 1972, must be approved by Affirmative Resolution procedure. Therefore those entered into before that date are subject to annulment by Negative Resolution procedure, and those entered into after that date cannot be approved except by Affirmative Resolution procedure. That is how I read it. If my reading is correct the answer to the first question which I venture to put—namely, is there adequate Parliamentary control in the case of this subsection?—is that no Order in Council can have effect unless either there is an Affirmative Resolution procedure or there is no Negative Resolution procedure.
Then I go to the next question. I should like to ask whether I am right in assuming that when one looks at subsection (3) one is looking at a provision which can make Treaties Community Treaties in addition to those which are made Community Treaties by lines 5 to 8. I know that the noble Viscount disagrees with me on that, but I cannot help saying that I cannot understand why he so thinks. May I put the question in the form of an example? Suppose in 1980 a Treaty is entered into by the United Kingdom. If that Treaty is a Treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties in the definition in subsection (2) it becomes a Community Treaty or a Treaty within the definition. I apprehend that there can be no doubt about that. I add that there can be no doubt, if that is right, that no Order in Council is requisite for it to be a Community Treaty.
All that has to be asked is, first, was it entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972; and secondly, if it was so entered into, was it a Treaty of which it can he said that it was ancillary to one of the pre-accession Treaties? And no more is requisite; it is automatically within the definition of a Treaty or a Community Treaty.
If I am right in that respect, then I look back to subsection (3) and, as I read subsection (3), it gives a power by Order in Council to declare Treaties to be Community Treaties although it could not he said of them that they are Treaties ancillary to one of the defined Treaties. I should very much like to know whether I am right in so supposing, or not. May I put my question in this concrete form? Supposing one has Treaty X. Treaty X has been thought by parties to proceedings to be a Treaty which, within the meaning of subsection (2), is a Treaty entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to one of the defined Treaties. The party so thinking, or being advised by advisers, has gone to an English court (or indeed any Community court) and has made a claim based upon the view that Treaty X is, by virtue of lines 5 to 8, and without more, a Community Treaty. Supposing the English learned judge who tries that person's claim has ruled, as a matter of law (considering the terms of Treaty X and all other relevant circumstances; perhaps the circumstances in which it was entered into, or whatever else he may think relevant) and as a firm conclusion, that that Treaty X is not, within the meaning of line 7, an ancillary treaty. He has answered that question in the negative. Assuming that is so, I myself cannot see anything in subsection (3) which would prevent Her Majesty, by Order in Council, from declaring that, notwithstanding the judge's ruling that that was not an ancillary treaty, it is to be so regarded: it is to be regarded, if I may quote, as "one of the Community Treaties as herein defined". If an Order in Council so declaring were not negatived, or were approved by positive resolution, as the case may be, why then subsection (3) proceeds to declare that the order is to be conclusive: that Treaty X is to be so regarded. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, disagrees with me. But I have not—I am sure it is
550
entirely my fault—understood on what language he bases that disagreement. I cannot find any words in subsection (3) which lead to that conclusion, and I should be most grateful if he would indicate them.
This sounds all very dry-as-dust, and I apologise to your Lordships for taking time on these technicalities. I venture to do so because I think that, not only in the Temple but in the solicitors' profession, and broadly speaking in very large numbers of undertakings in this country which are, as we said in the last debate, formulating, or contemplating the formulation of, long-term plans, people do want to know how subsection (3) is meant to work. I therefore put to the noble Viscount the question: Am I not right in supposing that subsection (3) enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to declare that Treaties which do not fall within the scope of lines 5 to 8 in subsection (2) are nevertheless to be regarded as Community Treaties, and that that Order in Council would be effective unless in the case in question it is either negatived or approved by Affirmative Resolution procedure? That is the question I should like to put.
May I also put this question, which is my final question on subsection (3). Subsection (3) clearly by its terms contemplates that Treaties entered into before January 22, 1972, may be declared to be Community Treaties. That is obvious from the first three lines up to the semi-colon. What Treaties are those? What Treaties are envisaged, which were entered into before January 22, 1972, which may be declared by Order in Council to be Community Treaties? Those, one would have thought, cannot be Treaties which are co-terminus with those which are described in lines 5 to 8, if lines 5 to 8 apply only to Treaties entered into after January 22, 1972. There must be some others entered into before that date. I should very much like to know what those other Treaties are. Those are the questions I should like to ask, and I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would be so kind as to give me an answer.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, while I am on my feet, I indicated quite shortly, so as to save time, what are the reasons which underlie the next two Amendments. I can

551
put the case quite simply. The two Amendments would produce the result that the delegated legislation procedure, which is described in subsection (3), could not be used in relation to Treaties entered into after January 22, 1972. The case in support of that proposal rests on broad considerations of Parliamentary sovereignty. The argument would be that if a Treaty is entered into in the future which could have the far-reaching effect of becoming as to some of its provisions part of our own domestic law, it should be made part of our own domestic law as and when it is entered into in the future by Statute, and not by a process of delegated legislation. That is the case, but I am perhaps anticipating because I am now only moving the first of the three Amendments. I should be most grateful if I might have answers to the questions I have posed.
8.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not know whether other noble Lords would like to join in this debate, but it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered those questions straight away; then if anything further needs to be said about it, it can be said afterwards in the light of what I have told the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was quite right in starting with lines 5 to 8, and he is perfectly correct in the reasoning whereby he deduced, after looking at the seventh paragraph of Schedule 1, that it was upon this that we rested the claim that those words could refer only to Treaties entered into after January 22 of this year. He went through that with absolute propriety and correctness, if I may say so. He is quite right that it is not future as from to-day; it is future as from the date of accession. Therefore, he wholly and accurately described the situation.
The noble and learned Lord then went on to ask his three questions about the provisions of subsection (3). The first was on Parliamentary control and how it was going to work. This, I am glad to be able to tell the Committee, is a good deal less complicated than Lord Stow Hill suggested, because for the purposes of this subsection I am glad to say that there is no need to look at Schedule 2 at all. Schedule 2 is intro-
552
duced by part of Clause 2 and applies only to the subordinate legislation that will be made under Clause 2. If one looks at Clause 2(4) one will see the substantive provision which brings in Schedule 2. At the beginning of Schedule 2 it will be seen that it refers back to Clause 2 of the Bill, and not Clause 1. Therefore, all one has to do in order to see what is the measure and method of Parliamentary control under Clause 1(3) is to look at the words at the end of that subsection, which, in talking about the specification of treaties, states that Treaties shall not be specified
"unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
That is the Affirmative Resolution method and it applies both to the list of treaties (and I will come back to this) which are already in existence and are the pre-accession treaties, as it does to the subsequent lists or individual Orders in Council declaring that later Treaties are Community Treaties within the meaning of the Bill. Therefore, in both cases it will be Orders in Council subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, the draft having been previously laid, and the noble and learned Lord need not trouble himself at all with the contents of Schedule 2.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? Again it is quite clear, but in so far as Schedule 2 relates only to Clause 2, does it therefore mean that whereas there is certain subordinate legislation, as it is called, which requires to be handled by main legislation—in other words, the subordinate legislation in the E.E.C. sense—none the less there would have to be a Bill to increase taxation or a Bill to increase criminal offences? However, this would not prevent one from making a Treaty to give effect to this and putting it into effect by Order, so to some extent subsection (3), if it is done by Treaty, weakens the protection which is given in paragraph (1) of Schedule 2.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case I am afraid I must become a little more complicated, because the first thing that one has to try to recognise is that what we are doing in Clause 1 is to deal with directly applicable law which, if one looks at the phraseology of Clause 2(1), arises by or under the Treaties. Now "the Treaties" is a magic

553
term; it is a term of art, a drafting term in the Bill, and when you want to know what are "the Treaties" you have to go back to Clause 1 in order to find out; and "the Treaties" will be added to from time to time as new Treaties are entered into by us, or indeed by the Community, which have direct applicability in this country within the notion which is set out in Clause 2(1).
Those Treaties will be entered into and if they are going to apply to us they are either Community Treaties which we are bound to accept under the terms of the main Treaty, or they are Treaties which we have been party to. Therefore we will have been in on their formulation and we will have had influence over the way in which they are phrased and the extent to which they are directly applicable. The extent to which they are directly applicable must be common across all the member States of the Community. Therefore, the notion of direct applicability comes in at this stage so that they will apply here as they do in France, Germany and all the other countries of the Community; and it is part of the essence of this whole affair that there should be directly applicable law common throughout all the countries. We only control this in two ways: one, by being party to its formulation; and, two, by the whole process under Clause 1 whereby it actually becomes directly applicable. No law can become directly applicable unless it is a treaty law because otherwise Clause 2(1) does not "bite".
LORD BESWICK: If I may interrupt—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a most complex argument, and if the noble Lord will let me finish my sentence I should be immensely grateful. I will give way in one moment but really this is very difficult and if I am going to follow it clearly I must be allowed to go on for a moment. No directly applicable law becomes directly applicable under Clause 2(1) unless it is a Treaty. To be a Treaty it has to go through the procedure under Clause 1(3) and be specified in an Order in Council under an Affirmative Resolution. Prior to that, it has no status in this country as directly applicable law at all. Therefore our control is, secondly, Parliamentary control by the Order in Council machinery. If Parlia-
554
ment says, or if the Government decide: "This is much too important for an Order in Council; this ought to go by legislation", then either a Bill will be introduced or one or other of the Houses will throw out the draft Order in Council and the Government of the day will be forced to resort to legislation in order to implement it. I think that is the answer on that part. There is a good deal more, but this might be a convenient moment to answer the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
LORD BESWICK: I confess that I cannot quite understand. The noble Viscount is continually and only using the term "Treaty". The difficulty that I have in following him is in the position of the regulation. Although the noble Viscount said that the only law—I think I am quoting him correctly—which will be directly applicable are the Treaties which come under Clause 2(1), the fact of the matter is that it carries with it the whole of the regulations which flow from those Treaties, and they are the source of the concern and the trouble. These are in effect Orders in Council. This will not be legislation in the sense that we understand it. These will not come before us, or if they do come before us we can only say "yea" or "nay"—and indeed we cannot say "nay".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord must recognise that when I use the word "Treaties" I use it in the terms of the Bill. He is quite right: it does not only include what one might, in other contexts, call "a Treaty"; it includes other instruments as well. Therefore, when one is speaking about directly applicable law it could include regulations and, exceptionally, there may he cases, as I explained during the Second Reading debate, where it may include a directive or part of a directive, or a decision or part of a decision.
Whether or not the noble Lord likes it, the facts of this situation are as he has described them. We have these directly applicable decisions agreed to, and I reinforce what I have said—agreed to by us as well as the other members, setting up the directly applicable law. Then we come back and we consider it by the machinery under this clause.
LORD BESWICK: But—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, we do. because it cannot be directly applicable by the courts of this country until it has been made into what is called "a Treaty" by Order in Council procedure under Clause 1(3) or, if that is not applicable, or the House does not like it, by Bill. That is the way in which it works.
LORD BESWICK: That is no protection at all.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord may say that it is no protection, but what I am trying to do is to answer the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, about how the Parliamentary control works. I was wrong when I said that this applied to the Treaties made by the Communities; it applies to the Treaties made with us as one, at least, of the signatories.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, went on to a much more difficult point which really touches on the method whereby courts could say that Orders in Council made under Clause 1(3) have wrongly included something as being directly applicable when it was not in fact valid—if I may put the noble Lord's argument in a shorthand form. In fact the examples he gave cannot, think, arise (and I will explain briefly why not) because it follows from what I have just been saying that a judge in this country could not pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of any provision of directly applicable law under lines 5 to 8. He could not say whether it was or was not an ancillary treaty until there had first been made an Order in Council, because until an Order in Council has been made that particular treaty would not be a treaty at all, would not be directly applicable under Clause 2(1) and therefore would not come before the court. The matter is, therefore, a little more simple.
What I think the noble Lord might have in mind is this situation: that for some reason a regulation or some other directly applicable provision is passed by the Communities and an Order in Council is made which purports to show, under Clause 1(3), that it is conclusively part of the directly applicable law of this country, and a party to a
556
case comes before an English court and says, "But it is absolutely monstrous that any such Order in Council was made because it is as plain as the nose on your face that this particular treaty or regulation cannot under any circumstances be said to have been ancillary to the Treaties"; in other words, it does not fall within the basic definition in lines 5 to 8. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that there is nothing in the Bill which cures this situation, but fortunately there is in our domestic law.
It is at this point that I would like to refer the Committee to two decisions of this House which were made in 1969. The first of them is Anisminic v. The Foreign Compensation Commission, and here we have a situation where, under the Act of Parliament whereby they were set up, a determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission about the amount of money to be handed out—this happened to relate to the Egyptian situation directly after Suez—was final. The money was split up. Usually the money was obtained from a foreign country under a treaty and the Commission divided it between the various applicants, and their determination was not to be challenged in any court of law. This is what the Act said. Orders in Council were made under this Act. The case came before the Foreign Compensation Commission and they decided it taking into account a certain provision in the Order in Council which governed them.
It is a very long case. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, went into the question about whether the Foreign Compensation Commission were right in taking this into account, because if they had not been right the whole case failed and the whole of their determination was bad. In this case he went into the question of jurisdiction and validity, and he gave the criteria upon which the courts may hold that, despite the fact that an Act of Parliament says something is conclusive or cannot be called into question, nevertheless there has been an excess of jurisdiction. An excess of jurisdiction can take the form, for instance, of bad faith. This was one of the examples he quoted. It need not. But if it is not a question of bad faith, it can be looked at in the context that the Order in

557
Council has been made in such a way that it goes beyond the powers laid down by the parent Act. If, therefore, an Order in Council was made which said a particular Treaty was directly applicable, in other words made under Clause 1(3), but this Treaty was subsequently held by the British courts not to be ancillary, there is a residual power in the British court to say that the Order in Council was invalid to that extent, on the ground that although the Act says that the Order in Council is conclusive nevertheless the courts can still go behind conclusiveness when a question of vires is involved.
The other example, which some of your Lordships may remember, and is perhaps a little easier to follow, arose when the A.A. Club was levied by the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board on some of its members. The club challenged the propriety of this levy on the ground that the subordinate legislation made under the Industrial Training Act did not entitle the Secretary of State to include in the Order as being liable to have levy paid for them by their employers all the people whom the Secretary of State had in fact put in. The case came to this House, and the House held that the subordinate legislation was in fact too wide, that it included people as being subject to levy for whom the original parent Act did not allow the Secretary of State to provide, and consequently it was held that the A.A. Club did not have to pay levy on those people. The result was that the original subordinate legislation was withdrawn, and new and much narrower subordinate legislation covering the scope of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board was finally introduced.
So there are these Dowers, first of all to go behind conclusiveness—that is, Anisminic; secondly, to upset subordinate legislation on the ground that it exceeds the scope of the parent Act—that is, the A.A. Club. Both powers are available to the British courts to deal with the situation the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned, and there is no need therefore for anything to be put in the words of the Act to deal with it. I am sorry that I am going on for so long, but this is a very difficult and complicated point.
In the second limb of Clause 1(3), when one looks at the words in line 17,
558
"shall not be so regarded", the point about this, which I confess I had originally missed, is that the Treaty "shall not be so regarded" means that it shall not be regarded as a Community Treaty at all. It does not mean it shall not be regarded as conclusive, but that it shall not be regarded as a Community Treaty at all unless there has been an Order in Council. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that the judge could not be in the position he posited in his example.
The last point the noble Lord made was a comparatively short one; namely, what were the pre-Accession Treaties? I think the easiest thing for me to do is to refer him to Cmnd. 4862, Part 1, pages 137 to 144, which, to the best of my knowledge, includes the pre-Accession Treaties which are covered by paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1. I am not sure whether that is conclusive; my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir is better placed to answer that. But that is my understanding of the situation, and that is where the noble Lord will find the answer to that question. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on some of those points, because they are very important and very basic, and I would wish him to be quite satisfied that they are covered.
8.37 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Am I, as a layman, to understand that although an Order in Council is made it is possible in the British courts for that Order in Council passed by Parliament to be cancelled by order of the British courts without the matter going to the European Court?
Then the noble Viscount spoke about the power of the court. I would like to ask this question again in this general context: Parliament makes laws and judges interpret them as they under- stand, the intention of Parliament; but they often cannot do that. That goes for all Governments and Acts. In this case, there will be the Act which covers a variety of things. I have read over 20 volumes of the discussion that took place in the other place. I am not sure, and I would like the noble Viscount to consider, whether he has reported the same interpretation as the Solicitor General did. It seems to me to be slightly different; I would have to look it up again tomorrow. It seems to me that there has

559
been a variety of opinions from lawyers on both sides of the House and within each side of the House.
We are getting to the point to-day where we are discussing in legalistic language what simple phrases mean. I wonder how we are going to deal with this in a way which is satisfactory, because some of us employed had lawyers over the years, good lawyers, bad lawyers, and they have all given us different opinions on different cases. Hence the courts. We have found out that many of our most eminent lawyers, so far as the judge has been concerned, have been wrong. If you do take one of these cases to the courts—I do not know who would take the case about an Order in Council, whether it would be a common informer or whether he would have the money eventually to take the case to the House of Lords. Who would deal with the case after the judgment had been given? Would it go back to Parliament? Would it go direct to the European court? I am sorry that my questions are long but I have not been trained to handle a case legally.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think that the noble Lord has quite understood, and I am terribly sorry. I did explain that this was rather a difficult point; I am sorry if I did not make it clearer to him. The question I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was what would happen in essence (if I could again abbreviate it) if an Order in Council is made which declares to be directly applicable a Treaty which is perfectly obviously miles outside the scope of the Treaty with which this Bill deals. If this happens, one has to recognise that there will have been passed by the Community some sort of Treaty or regulation, or whatever it is, which purports to create this directly applicable law. At the moment, however, all we are considering is whether that is or is not directly applicable under the terms of this Bill in Britain. All I am saying is that there is built into the municipal law of this country machinery whereby the Order in Council which purports to declare that it is directly applicable can be declared to be ultra vires.
Now this has nothing whatever to do with the European Court because it is
560
a matter of municipal law in this country only. It would, I think, inevitably follow, certainly if it happened in more than one country, that the regulation concerned would have to go back to Brussels on the grounds that there was something wrong with it and, at any rate, that the courts of one of the countries concerned had held that it was invalid. This could be done in a number of ways; it could be taken back on the political level or there is no reason why this country, as a signatory and member of the Community, should not take the question of validity of the regulation to the Luxembourg Court under the provisions, I think, of Article 177. But this would not happen directly as a result of the municipal court's judgment. It would require a separate initiative by the Government of this country.
The noble Lord then asked a question which I am afraid I did not altogether follow, but I think that he wants to know who would take this sort of point. The fact of the matter is that when you get a case of what lawyers call vires which is the extent of powers to make regulations or to make Orders in Council, there is usually somebody who is sufficiently hard hit to think it is worth while to take it to the court. One would not have thought that the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board Levy Scheme would be taken up, but there was the A.A.; you would not have thought that anybody would be so brave as to challenge the Foreign Compensation Tribunal but there was in fact a British subsidiary of the Sinai company concerned. If it does turn up there is someone to do it. I am not quite sure whether that answers the noble and learned Lord's second question, because I did not quite follow what it was.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I am afraid it does not. I should like to invent a possibility. An Order in Council is made by a Government which has a very narrow majority, and Parliament does not like that Order in Council but has no power to stop it. A nation is in jeopardy—I do not mean that in the widest sense—but it is not an individual; it is not the Automobile Association, or shareholders or possible people placing money for past services—it is a nation. If Parliament cannot do it, how can Parliament or the nation take action against

561
an Order in Council which has gone through by a majority of three in Parliament? How can they start an action?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In the courts of this country they cannot. The only person who has an opportunity and a right to appear in this sort of case is somebody who is directly affected; somebody who has only a hypothetical case in the situation is not given an audience by the courts. But the way this would be done, if somebody was directly affected, would be that he would find his rights were in some way infringed, and he would, no doubt, decide to take this to the courts. You cannot do this in any circumstances on a hypothetical basis. But there is practically always somebody who will take it up.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Viscount's confidence appears to be ebbing a little. We are grateful to my noble friend for putting a point of view which is a point of view held by a good many non-legal people. I wonder whether I may put a similar point of view. The noble Viscount posed a question that if an Order in Council is passed and it is miles outside the provisions of the Treaty—and then he went on to answer it. We are not concerned with something which is miles outside and which therefore it is not open to argument. We are concerned with the sort of Order in Council which is held by the Government of the day to have been within the provisions of the Treaty, which is a marginal case possibly, but about which there is a difference of opinion. The question put to the noble Viscount by my noble friend behind me was: "Where then does the Luxembourg court come in?" I suggest to the noble Viscount that he really would be much more frank with noble Lords if he was to say that in these circumstances we have in this country no protection at all; it is what the Luxembourg court eventually says which goes.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry, but the noble Lord is perverting everything I have said. I have most carefully tried to explain this. A marginal case is always much more difficult than a direct one. If I tell the noble Lord that the Anisminic case turned on Article IV(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulations made under the Act in question, set up
562
by the Foreign Compensation Tribunal, and the whole question was whether, in a case of a national of this country who originally had a claim under this scheme set out in the Treaty of Egypt, you did or did not have to take into account whether that person had a successor under the wording of the Order, the noble Lord will see that the point can become extremely marginal. In fact it is on that that the whole thing turned and fell. Nothing could be more marginal in the world. Now the rest of it I perfectly well explained. I have explained how the Luxembourg court comes into it; I have explained the relationship of that court with the municipal courts of this country, and if the noble Lord wants to be reminded, if a judge in any inferior court or in any superior or final court where he has got to wishes it, a reference can be made to the Luxembourg Court on any case on which the Luxembourg Court can adjudicate on its validity. That is not the point I am on. I am on the point of the validity under English law and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, wants it chased up under English law. I told the noble Lord how to do it, I have explained to the Committee what the jurisdiction of the courts is. I have explained the cases which established that they have jurisidiction and if noble Lords do not like it I am very sorry, but that is the situation.
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder whether the noble Viscount would be a little more patient in his replies. I fully realise that he is under strain, but so are noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House. Although I may be inclined to agree with the noble Lord's exposition, I would be grateful if he would be a little more patient while we try to understand his arguments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I apologise to the Committee; I did not mean to be discourteous. I did not want to be cross, but with great respect it seemed to me that we were getting into a position where there was confusion between what happened in the courts of this country and the situation in which some cases might come within the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court. The whole of Lord Stow Hill's question related to what happens in this country under the municipal law which applies here. It was Lord Bernstein's

563
helpful suggestion that we should also consider how the Luxembourg Court can come into it. But I was particularly anxious that my explanation should be divided into two parts, and if any noble Lord opposite thinks that I am getting cross, I unreservedly apologise.
8.50 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I feel that the questions that I desire to put to the noble Viscount must be so unbearably boring for all of your Lordships, that I hesitate very greatly to do so. I hope that your Lordships will be a little indulgent to me if I do put the questions, I hope at not too great length, because I think they are important. May I first thank the noble Viscount very sincerely for going to such trouble in formulating his reply to the questions I asked? I hope he will not think I am disrespectful if I feel obliged to say that I do not quite agree with him in some of the conclusions he advanced. He has obviously thought about the matter so carefully, that it seems presumptuous of me to doubt the validity of his reasoning. May I go to each point in turn?
First, Parliamentary control. He said that I need not go to paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, and that in any case Schedule 2 applies only to Clause 2. Clause 2 is simply a side-note, and I have always been brought up to believe that you had to look at the contents of a Schedule to see what its application was, and that if the contents seemed to conflict with the side-note the side-note had to be disregarded. Applying that test, I look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. It is in two subsections. The first subsection reads:
"Subject to paragraph 3 below, where a provision contained in any section of this Act confers power to make regulations … the power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
I should have thought there could not be a plainer indication in the wording of the Schedule that it is not limited to Clause 2. I quite agree that paragraph 1 of the Schedule is, but paragraph 2 of the Schedule, in the plainest terms is not.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to get this right. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in that. But
564
what he said was that you had the alternative forms of Negative and Affirmative Resolution procedure. I agree that the Order in Council would be made by Statutory Instrument, but the power of Parliament is not determined by Schedule 2 because it is written into Clause 1(3) that it has to be affirmative.
LORD STOW HILL: I genuinely hesitate—and I hope your Lordships will believe that I am sincere about this—to go on bandying technicalities with the noble Viscount. I think I really must limit myself to saying that I am sorry indeed, but I simply cannot agree with him. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 applies the Affirmative Resolution procedure to Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972. I will not repeat it, because one can go on for ever crossing swords on matters of this kind.
Let me pass to the next point. I think this is rather more substantial. The noble Viscount said that no English judge could be faced with the task of deciding whether a Treaty was within the meaning of lines 5 to 8 ancillary, unless that Treaty had previously been specified in an Order in Council. I was puzzled to know where he finds the language by which he gets there. Towards the end of his argument I understood him to say that the language which he relies upon in advancing that proposition is the language in line 17:
"shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified, …"
I really will not trouble your Lordships by elaborating reasons why, but I submit that that language has nothing whatever to do with it. It harks back to the language earlier in the subsection,
"If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded; but a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972 … shall not he so regarded",
unless there has been an Affirmative Resolution It seems to me—and I cannot go on repeating it—that the words just do not produce the conclusion that the noble Viscount seeks to draw, or any conclusion like it.
I may be quite wrong—probably, I am extremely obtuse about the matter—but I

565
still adhere to the opinion that I have expressed. As the noble Viscount differs from me on that fundamental point of the interpretation of lines 5 to 8, it probably does not profit anybody to continue the discussion, and to ask him what the answer would be if he did not differ from it, so I will not do it. I will simply content myself by thanking him for his reply. He has obviously taken a lot of trouble over it. I hope when I have studied it that I shall convince myself that I am wrong and he is right, but at the moment I am rather pessimistic on that aspect. With the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The text of any treaty which may be a Community treaty within the meaning of this section, other than the pre-accession and accession treaties, shall be referred in draft or immediately upon publication of the text to a Select Committee of Parliament for scrutiny and report, and until such report has been made the procedure provided in subsection (3) above shall not be followed.")
The noble Lord said: Some of your Lordships may be rather thankful as am, to have an Amendment which I think will be intelligible to the Committee. I have listened to the exchanges between my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and the noble Viscount, and I think a lot of us sat back amazed and wondered how we could possibly usefully intervene at all. Of course we shall read the report of what was said, and no doubt return to it at Report stage. What my noble friend has said, I must say, strengthens the case for Amendment No. 11. I suspect that not all of your Lordships have the Amendments in front of you. This Amendment is something which I hope is acceptable. Whether or not the Government have taken on rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions not to accept any Amendments, I hope that what I am recommending to the Committee is something upon which we are all agreed.
This Amendment states:
"The text of any treaty which may be a Community treaty within the meaning of this section,"—
566
and we are still on Clause 1—
"other than the pre-accession and accession treaties,"—
which we are excluding—
"shall be referred in draft or immediately upon publication of the text to a Select Committee of Parliament for scrutiny and report, and until such report has been made the procedure provided in subsection (3) above shall not be followed."
That is the subsection which we have just been discussing. If I understand the noble Viscount correctly—he has been working hard and has gone; I wanted to make sure that I had got this right—a treaty (which sounded to me a little odd), does not become a treaty for the purposes of this Bill until there has been an Order in Council. Perhaps some Member of the Government's Front Bench can confirm whether that is so.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The first half of Clause 1(3), which we were discussing earlier, is really a supplementary provision for the avoidance of doubt. It refers to a treaty entered into by the Communities, with or without one of the member States and whether in fact it is a treaty. The second half, of course, applies to a treaty ancillary to the treaties entered into by the United Kingdom; and it is that—that is, a future treaty—which has to be subject to an Order in Council and to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not sure whether it is wise for me to ask for that help. The noble Baroness is always very helpful. Let me state again that I am concerned with future Treaties. If I understood the noble Viscount correctly (it is not a major point; it is a point of argument), a Treaty does not become effective until there has been an Order in Council. This is new treaties; it is not the pre-accession or Accession Treaties. That being so we know that with any Treaty and with the strange collection of protocols and what not there has to be an Order in Council. I almost believe I am right up to this moment. The fact remains that thereafter the Treaty might become—I think "self-executing" is the right word, or "directly applicable". Perhaps we could have a lawyer to help us on this.
EARL JELLICOE: May I say that I think the noble Lord is getting on very well indeed without a lawyer.
LORD SHACKLETON: I shall feel so much more confident with a lawyer. I am very anxious to persuade my case to the House. I shall not put the point again in case I get another answer. Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, as I understand it a new Treaty will require an Order in Council for it to operate as domestic law. I think I am correct.
EARL JELLICOE: All legislation.
LORD SHACKLETON: All legislation. The noble Lord argued powerfully—perhaps he did not put it as strongly as this—that Parliamentary control is retained by the obligation to have a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I should be very surprised if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, did not fulminate against the practice of the Labour Government in the 1945–50 Parliament of using subordinate legislation and Statutory instruments. We know that the noble Lord is a reformed character in these days, but certainly in those days this was still very undesirable, and I still believe that major matters ought not to be dealt with by Order. I do not think many noble Lords would disagree with this.
The objection to these is that first of all in another place the Government of the day will use their majority. I shall be careful of my language in this matter; there are noble Lords and there are Members of another place and critics of Parliament who have been concerned at what might almost be called—I will not use the word "dictatorship", but an authoritarianism by which the Government get their way. Noble Lords may say that this House has the power in fact to protect the country in regard to a Treaty. But supposing a Treaty was so bad that in fact we felt we could not go on with it, that we could not go on as a member of the Community; we should then be in trouble with the Luxembourg Court and so on. These safeguards are built in. The Government require that there should be an Order to give effect to Treaties; but your Lordships' House is not in a very strong position in this matter. It is very unlikely—and there are good reasons why it is unlikely in an unreformed House of Lords—that this House would override such an Order. It may well be our constitutional duty to do so. It may well be that this could be, in the words of
568
the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, "The last bee sting of the House of Lords". It may be that the Treaty could bear on the powers of an awkward Second Chamber. This is quite hypothetical.
The Government's short answer is that we should not dream of giving effect to any major Treaty of this kind except by a Bill and an Act of Parliament. But this is precisely what we are doing in this Bill now. We are giving effect to a large number of Treaties and Clauses 1 and 2 amount to all the legislation that there is on them. Furthermore, the Government have been unwilling to allow a single Amendment in another place, and are clearly unwilling to allow a single Amendment in this House. Therefore they do not give confidence in the sort of matters dealt with by Orders.
I accept that the Government are in difficulty; they have been in difficulty with their Parliamentary majority in another place. We all understand this, and many people sympathise. But this Bill has now left another place; they have passed through the ordeal of the endless nights and the guillotine procedure. We are in a position, I would suggest, to provide the sort of additional safeguard with which I believe every Member of your Lordships' House would agree, and which I believe to be consistent with the intentions of the Government: simply, that before a Treaty could be subject to the procedure of the Order which leads to resolution it should either be referred in draft, or, even if it is not in draft it could be entered into, on publication, before Parliament is asked to approve of this new Treaty by Order. It should go either to a Select Committee of Parliament or perhaps to a joint Select Committee. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor's Committee is considering these matters. Suggestions have been produced by Mr. Rippon, at one stage rather out of a hat, as a major proposal. I know that the noble Earl himself is in favour, and that it is only because of some of the difficulties between the Parties at this moment that we are not further on. But we are operating as the Second Chamber, with an obligation to provide such safeguards as we think fit; and all we are saying is that it must go to a Select Committee if this automatic procedure is to be used.

569
If it goes to a Select Committee, Parliament will be advised, will know what is involved.
Your Lordships know what happens when an Order arrives in this House—and I am not trying to be difficult when I say, "Look at some of the Northern Ireland Orders with which we are having to cope": we cannot cope with them, we acknowledge that, and I am not blaming the Government for that, until we have a proper Select Committee. If it does not go to a Select Committee, then it will call for main legislation and one will have to proceed by Bills. Governments will get their way, if they wish, by main legislation, but it takes a great deal longer; and one of the checks on a Government who are inclined to move into a dictatorial mood—and all Governments are inclined to be authoritarian in these matters—is the timetable. The threat that they might have to move to main legislation, as opposed to a simple Order which can go through in an hour or two, seems to me to be a powerful one.
What we are now suggesting, therefore, is that, in the interests of Parliament, and fully in accordance with, I believe, the intentions of the Government, we should write into the Bill that all Treaties should go to a Select Committee, and that they should then be reported upon. Thereafter, of course, if they are reported upon, Parliament will know what it is about, instead of its being sprung on them—and we know how badly we deal with Orders. We do not deal with Orders at all seriously in either House at the moment; and I think a provision that this should go to a Select Committee is one which ought to command the support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: Before the noble Earl replies. I am tempted, if I may, just to add one short observation in view of the speech which the noble Viscount made when we were considering the last Amendment. It is this. The noble Viscount's view is that a Treaty could not get before an English court until it had been included in an Order in Council, and in those circumstances an English judge could not be called upon to decide whether it was, within the meaning of lines 5 to 8, "ancillary" until it had been so specified by an Order in Council.
570
I venture to propose this argument in support of my noble Leader for this reason. It is obviously, I should have thought, most undesirable that an Order in Council should be made specifying a Treaty, and that an English judge should thereafter say, "I do not mind what the Order in Council says. It is ultra vires because this Treaty is not an ancillary Treaty and cannot in law be so regarded". The procedure which my noble Leader suggests would, I should have thought, very considerably lessen that risk.
I think Parliamentarians and lawyers are very conscious of the old dispute between the courts and Parliament. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has this very much in mind; and there has been this difference, this kind of borderland between where the courts may rule and where Parliament's jurisdiction extends. I should have thought that, in order to try to avoid this kind of conflict between the courts and Parliament, this sort of procedure, which would result in Treaties being very carefully examined by experienced people conscious of that sort of risk, would make the chance of the courts being forced into a position in which they must disagree with what Parliament has done very much less. If there were such a disagreement, I suppose it would provoke the most disagreeable reaction among the other Community countries. I do not know what the result would be. I suppose the European Court might then be called upon under, I think Article 173 and Article 177 of the Rome Treaty to pronounce upon it, and to decide between Parliament and our courts. That would be a very unenviable situation, and if we could avoid it we should try to do so. I would submit that the procedure suggested is really very well suited for that purpose. Before the subsection (3) procedure is invoked, the Treaty would have had to be scrutinised by Members of, I suppose, both Houses—Members who no doubt will have particular experience in those matters—and they would be conscious of the risk that there might be a very serious question as to whether a court could say that this was an ancillary Treaty. I submit that argument to the Committee in support of the proposal of my noble friend.
EARL JELLICOE: Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I venture rather

571
diffidently into this discussion but I congratulate him because I found that what he was saying—although I do not agree with all he said—perfectly intelligible. I have a horrible feeling that he may not find perfectly intelligible what I am about to say. I should like to say, first, that we recognise clearly that there is a need in this general area—above all where it affects Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972—for Parliamentary control. On that, I think we are all agreed. We have come to the conclusion that here the Order in Council procedure, subject to Affirmative Resolution, is the best. This is a great deal more than applies in certain treaty areas at the present time.
Take for example the extradition Treaties. Under the Extradition Treaty Act of 1870 an Order in Council can be made for extradition Treaties; but these are merely laid and Parliament can do nothing about them. To go further than that—and there were certain Amendments which would have made the introduction of a Bill obligatory—would, we feel, have been disproportionate to many of the Treaties covered by Clause 1(3). If we look at the pattern of existing Community agreements, an absolute requirement to have a Bill in each case would, we feel, be disproportionate because many of these Treaties are not like the Treaty of Utrecht, or of Campo Formia, or of Versailles; they are humdrum terre à
terre affairs.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not proposing that there should be a Bill in every case. I am proposing that it should go to a Select Committee.
EARL JELLICOE: I am aware of that, but I wanted to sketch in the background to your Lordships. If I was doing so at too great a length I apologise. I was sketching in the background by way of reaffirming our clear recognition of the need for Parliamentary control here.
That said, I do not think the noble Lord should undervalue the degree of Parliamentary control which exists in the Bill before us. Future Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom would require an Affirmative Resolution Order in Council. Parliament can prevent this by refusing an Affirmative Resolution. If Parliament does this, and it it is neces
572
sary for implementation of the Treaty that it should be within the definition in the Bill, such a refusal would force the Government of the day either to proceed by Bill (if it has not already exercised that option; and that is perfectly well open to it in the Bill) or to renegotiate the terms of the Treaty in order to improve those aspects to which Parliament may have objected. The final thing is to withhold ratification of the Treaty, with what goes with it.
There is, therefore, an important degree of Parliamentary control in the Bill as it stands at present. The noble Lord wishes to introduce this extra safeguard of a Select Committee. While I am sympathetic towards the idea of Parliamentary control in this area I cannot say that I am sympathetic towards the importation into Statute of the idea of a Select Committee. I will say briefly why. In the first place an express statutory provision for a Select Committee is unusual in the highest degree. As far as I know, it is unprecedented. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is usually extremely meticulous in these matters of procedure, would agree that Select Committees should be set up with clearly defined terms of reference. But the terms of reference which are laid down in the Amendment are exceedingly broad.
I see a gravely practical objection to the Amendment in that it would require the Houses of Parliament to await the Select Committee's Report before passing an Affirmative Resolution under Clause 1(3). It would mean that Parliament would be putting itself into baulk. The Select Committee could consider the matter for ever, if it so chose. I hesitate to say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but if Mr. Michael Foot, his brother, happened to be Chairman of the Committee I think that the matter might be sat upon for a long time. The same might apply if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was Chairman of the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He does not have a brother.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Is there any reason why a standing Select Committee of this kind should not be subject to the same kind

573
of timetable procedure as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has to abide by?
EARL JELLICOE: There is nothing here which would suggest so. The wording is very clear indeed. Noble Lords may say that those are technical drafting points. But the fundamental objection is to importing into Statute a definite requirement that there should be a Select Committee of this sort. Matters of this kind are not really suitable for statutory provisions. They have never been thought so appropriate. It is far better that they should be left to be worked out flexibily in the ordinary way in which Parliament does these things. But I should like to say this. The sort of proposal which the noble Lord has embodied in the Amendment, which I could not ask the Committee to accept, affects the kind of area which the Government are only too willing to have examined by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. referred to the ad hoc Committee proposed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place, to look at the possibilities of Parliamentary supervision and to make proposals in this respect. That offer is open. This area and the area of secondary legislation, are very much areas which require looking at. We are anxious to have this looked at by agreement with the major Parties. What we are anxious not to do in default of that examination is to import into Statute an inflexible and rigid requirement for a particular Select Committee. In fact we think it would be highly undesirable to import this requirement into Statute at all. But we are perfectly willing to have this possibility: that some Parliamentary control should be exercised in this general area, looked at by an ad hoc Select Committee or indeed by any other machinery which is agreeable to the two Parties.
LORD GLADWYN: I may appear very stupid, but may I ask one question? As I understand it, Treaties of the type we are discussing will not be regarded as Community Treaties unless they are so specified, or unless they are specified and a draft Order in Council has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. The noble Earl the Leader of the House explained why he does not
574
agree with the supplementary suggestion from the noble Lord opposite, that they should automatically be submitted to examination by a Select Committee before Parliament takes a decision. But, rightly or wrongly, is there any reason why, if the Bill stands as it is, either House of Parliament should not in its wisdom, if it wanted to, submit any draft regulation for Treaty to investigation by a Select Committee; and therefore, surely, the Amendment is otiose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is quite right in what he said. Parliament can submit anything; either House of Parliament can submit anything to a Select Committee, to a Standing Committee or to any other sort of committee and no court can stop them.
LORD SHINWELL: Am I to understand from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said, that even if there is nothing injected into the Bill about the creation of a Select Committee Parliament can decide to refer a draft Treaty to a Select Committee? Is that what he is saying, that it has jurisdiction to refer any matter coming before it to a Select Committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Either House of Parliament has full jurisdiction to refer to a Select Committee of that House any matter which is before Parliament, and by parallel Resolutions the two Houses have rights to submit it to a Joint Select Committee.
LORD FOOT: We have now been discussing this Bill in Committee for six hours or more and we have reached Amendment No. 11. Every proposed Amendment has been successfully rejected by the Government Front Bench. May I repeat a question which I asked the Leader of the House at the very beginning of this debate: Have the Government already decided that they are not going to allow any Amendment to this Bill to be carried? If that is so, if they have decided that in order to comply with the Government's timetable this Bill has to go through unamended, then all talk of a discussion of the Measure on its merits is hypocrisy.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD FOOT: If the Government have really decided to reject every Amendment, whatever its merits, it is nonsense to talk of discussing things on their merits. I should like the Leader of the House to tell us directly whether the Government have already decided that no Amendment will be allowed to pass.
LORD SHINWELL: Before the Leader of the House replies I would make a submission to him. During the course of his remarks on the Amendment he said more than once—and it was just repetition because he had expressed the view during discussions on other Amendments and during the Second Reading debate—that it was desirable to have a measure of Parliamentary control. I think he would agree that he is sympathetic to that point of view. If he is rejecting the proposition that a post-accession draft Treaty should be referred to a Select Committee and yet is in favour of some measure of Parliamentary control, what is the alternative to a debate in both Houses of Parliament on an Affirmative Resolution? As noble Lords are well aware, such a Resolution may be scrutinised but not amended; it is open to rejection or acceptance. Obviously if there is a majority Government holding strongly to its point of view, any proposition to reject will be rejected and the Government will carry the day. That is the position.
I am not pressing for the point raised by my noble friend Lord Foot because I do not believe the Government have made up their minds definitely to reject every Amendment. It may well be that something will come along to which the Government will feel sympathetic. After all it will be a minor modification; the Government will concede the point and claim credit for it. They will say, "Always a liberal Government making concessions." So I do not accept the view, put forward even by noble Lords on the Front Bench on this side, and by my noble Friend, Lord Foot, that the Government have made up their minds that no Amendment will be accepted. If on the Government Bench there are noble Lords who say that there is something to be said for a measure of Parliamentary control, and if the Government reject the proposition for a Select Committee to deal with a post-accession draft Treaty,
576
what is the alternative? That is a fair point. Have they any other proposition to put forward? This gives them an opportunity to show how liberal-minded and sympathetic they are. There must be a measure of Parliamentary control. If the Government make a concession of that kind, however minor—even in muted tones—we can leave here at 10 o'clock, or hopefully before then, feeling that everything in the garden is lovely.
EARL JELLICOE: Let me reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, first. I would reaffirm the Government's belief that there should be Parliamentary control, and that is already provided in Clause 1(3). What is more, as I have said, so far as important Treaties are concerned, the Government of the day may well decide to proceed by Bill, and they could be forced to do so if the Order in Council Affirmative Resolution were rejected. But I have also said, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, quite correctly recalled, that there are areas here—I think this applies particularly to secondary legislation—where it is clearly desirable in these circumstances that means of Parliamentary scrutiny should be worked out and elaborated. That is why we have proposed the ad hoc Committee, and that is why we hope that this ad hoc Committee or some other mechanism can be set up and get to work as soon as possible.
Turning from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, all I wish to say, quite categorically, is that I made my position absolutely clear on Second Reading. No such decision as the noble Lord is crediting me and the Government with has been taken. I said on Second Reading that we wished to look at Amendments which might be moved on their merits. Quite frankly, we do not think a great deal of the merits of the Amendments that we have had so far. But we will wait and see.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Before the noble Earl sits down, has he answered my noble friend Lord Greenwood's question about what controls the French, Dutch, German and Italian Parliaments have on matters of this Bill, which takes the powers away from Parliament, except by an Order in Council?
EARL JELLICOE: We are, if I may say so, on a definition clause here. There

577
will be plenty of opportunity to come back to this particular point on Clause 2.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I do not wish to press the point too hard, but if the noble Earl could answer that question now we might save a lot of time next week, because the information is important in relation to the matter of sovereignty, powers of Parliament and so on.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: I apologise for coming late into this debate, but I should like to support one point made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I would say with some feeling that, whereas I very much hope there will be some means of Parliamentary scrutiny that will be worked out by the ad hoc Committee, none the less I must support the Leader of the House in saying that it would be an unhappy precedent to put a Select Committee of the House of Commons into a Statute. I believe that the whole strength of the Select Committee system—certainly the system in the House of Commons as I always knew it—lay in the fact that Select Committees were set up by the Parliament of the day and did not depend on some previous statutory enactment.
I would just add this. To a real extent, and more than perhaps is always realise, I believe that each Parliament has its own individuality. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recall, there came a time—and he and I were both sympathetic—when there was a stronger demand than ever before for a Select Committee on the subject of science and technology. I think that was justified. But the whole strength and initiative for new Select Committees comes from the House itself. I believe that we should not be strengthening the power of Parliamentary scrutiny, and certainly not the power of Parliamentary control, but would be weakening it if we put this in a Statute and established this new precedent. Therefore, while I do not think too much of the point about Mr. Michael Foot, I think that a Select Committee here will work perfectly well in practice. None the less, I should infinitely rather see the initiative taken by each House of Parliament individually rather than to attempt to solve this by a statutory addition to the clause.
LORD SHACKLETON: I will just make this point right at the beginning. I think it was a little unfortunate—I will say no more—that the noble Earl suggested that a Select Committee under the chairmanship of certain of our colleagues in this House and another place would not get on with the job. I regard that as an absurd and unfortunate statement.
EARL JELLICOE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, if I caused offence to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I immediately apologise. I did have my tongue a little in my cheek. If it was not visible, I will try to make it more so in the future.
LORD FOOT: No member of my family ever takes offence at anything.
LORD SHACKLETON: The reason why I think it is unfortunate is that it was rather bad from the point of view of the noble Earl's case, because to me it suggested a misunderstanding of how Select Committees operate. Furthermore, he used as an argument that there might not be time to refer such Treaties to Select Committees before they became Treaties. That is what I understood again the noble Viscount to say. But they are going to have to go, under our existing procedures—admittedly not determined by Statute but by Order of the House—to the Special Orders Committee of this House and to a Committee in another place, so that totally destroys the noble Earl's argument. As we well know, and as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees will make clear, the Special Orders Committee in our House are not in a position to give the sort of scrutiny and report that we are seeking.
A main argument of the noble Earl—and indeed one that was used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and obviously it attracted some support on that side of the House—is that we have never before set up Select Committees by Statute. But neither have we ever signed a Treaty of accession comparable to this. As noble Lords know, I happen to be in favour of this, but I am really very sad that when we are embarking on such a revolutionary step—and it is a revolutionary step; indeed it is perhaps the most important constitutional step. for good or for evil that this country has,

579
ever taken and it is comparable with one of the great constitutional Acts—the Government are prepared to argue that it is inappropriate to build into a Statute, admittedly a short Statute, an additional Parliamentary safeguard, the only purpose of which is to prevent the tyranny by Government majorities operating through the system of statutory instruments.
I congratulate the Government on their initiative in setting up the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It is an extremely important Committee and is going to look into this whole question, but I would be more confident, and critics of this step would also be more confident, if there were the sort of protection which ensures that Treaties are not brought into force simply by statutory instrument. The noble Earl quoted as justification past action; for instance, the fact that there is no statutory control over Extradition Treaties. We are well aware of all this. There are a lot of things which may have been appropriate in the past but are wholly inappropriate to-day, and there are a lot of thing which were inappropriate in the past and are even more inappropriate to-day. The argument in favour of this is simply that if we can put this into a Statute it will ensure that Parliament will not be confronted with the sort of situation that we get time after time to-day with regard to our own statutory Orders.
It is perfectly open to the Government to say that if they do not wish to proceed by Statute—which I find perfectly satisfactory, and if it had not been done before I see no reason why it should not be done now—they would accept a Resolution to this effect. Will they say that now? But all we have received is a sort of sympathetic idea that the Government would like this sort of thing, yet they have totally dissipated such arguments as they had in this respect by saying, for instance, that there might not be time to deal with it. I hope that noble Lords opposite, whom I know to be concerned for constitutional rights, will see the force of this argument.
We do not expect to carry this Amendment, nor would we necessarily assume that the Amendment would ultimately remain in the Bill in this form. It would be a blow for the type of Parliamentary
580
control which this House is particularly fitted to exercise on a Government. If noble Lords are particularly content to do this with a Conservative Government, will they be content when my "lot" are in power? I suspect that they will not. Therefore, I advise them to vote for this Amendment. We will return to it at later stages; if it is not satisfactory the Government can always put it right. I entirely reject the argument that has been used in this House and in another place, that it is not done to make provision for Select Committees by Statute.
9.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether I can add a word on this matter. I wish that I could persuade the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this particular procedure is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is not a mere coincidence that there never has been, so far as I know, even in the jungle that our Statute Law is becoming, a Statute which set up a Select Committee of either House, let alone a "Select Committee of Parliament", whatever that may mean—and that is the phrase used in the Amendment—as a condition precedent to the validity of a legal situation. It is not a coincidence, nor is it due to the fact that no unique situation has ever occurred earlier in our long history—many situations of equal uniqueness have occurred, if I may use that rather illogical phrase.
I come back to the basic facts of legality and of the Constitution, which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was going to deal with at one moment of his speech. It is a fundamental concept of our Constitution that each House of Parliament is master of its own procedure in this particular sense; that no court can inquire what goes on inside our walls. If we chose, for instance, to alter our fundamental procedure as to the number of Readings a Bill should have (and we have from time to time in Parliamentary history done that very thing) no court could question it. The effect in law, as I see it, of introducing an Amendment of this kind is precisely the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, suggested it might be.
In order to decide upon the validity of a treaty instrument of direct application under this Statute, when it becomes law, a court would have to inquire as to the

581
very thing from which by privilege of Parliament it is debarred from inquiring. It would have to inquire whether a Select Committee had been properly set up, whatever the obscure and meaningless phrase "Select Committee of Parliament" means. I think it means nothing, because a Select Committee must either be a Select Committee of one House or a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses. It cannot be a Select Committee of Parliament.
The court would have to inquire as to the due constitution of a Committee and the propriety of its procedure, and as to whether the Committee was a Select Committee, a Standing Committee or a Committee of the Whole House. In other words, the very conflict which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, would be so anxious to avoid—and rightly so—is inherently built into the Amendment. I am in favour of the kind of scrutiny not only in this clause, and not particularly in this clause, but more particularly in Clause 2, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock talked about on Second Reading. But this must be dealt with by the machinery of Parliament and must not be built into a Statute; otherwise you are insisting that the courts will have to pronounce upon the validity of the procedure inside Parliament and that would be subversive of the whole Constitution.
I wish that I could persuade some people who are putting down Amendments—and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Foot—that it is not sheer bloody-mindedness which leads some people on this side of the Committee to resist these Amendments. It is not due to some decision to accept nothing. It is because we do not want this Bill to be used as a means of subverting the very thing which the critics of this Bill are—I doubt not sincerely—anxious to preserve. This Amendment is far more serious and far more subversive of our Constitution than the supporters of it have realised.
LORD FOOT: Would the noble and learned Lord, since he made a particular reference to me towards the end, state whether, if at the end of the proceedings in Committee on this Bill we find that the Government have not been prepared
582
to accept one single Amendment of any kind, detail or substance, we are to regard that as a pure coincidence?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord should regard it as a matter of profound shame that he has not by that time thought of an Amendment which meets with the approval of the Committee.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether I might express a word of surprise at the tone and attitude of the noble and learned Lord. He has endeavoured to put to us the case that everything is quite all right in the Bill as it stands, and that everything has been honestly and sincerely done. The phrase "Parliamentary control" has been repeated over and over again, and the impression is created that we are about to move into a new form of democracy. The democratic content of this Bill is sound, but the procedure is a little different. I confess that I am completely unable to recognise the Bill about which they are talking when I look at what is said by other people about it. I am not referring to bloody-minded people whom the noble and learned Lord appeared to think are the only people who criticise this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. The bloody-mindedness to which I was referring was the bloody-mindedness which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was seeking to impute to the Government. It was not I who was seeking to impute it to noble Lords opposite; far be that from me.
LORD FOOT: Except that I do not use that kind of language.
LORD BESWICK: May I quote from an article by the legal adviser of the European Community, who explained what was happening here? He put a somewhat different complexion upon the procedure that we are expected to adopt. He said:
"The E.E.C. Treaty provides for three different forms of binding acts, the force and content of which widely differ. In this sense there is a certain gradation of powers as expressed by the different Community acts. A regulation"—
we are dealing here with regulations, although the word "treaty" is used by

583
noble Lords opposite almost as if it were something that happened only now and again and not as a continuous flow of regulations—
"is the most powerful act typical of the Community legal order. It is binding in every respect and directly applicable throughout the entire Community without any intervention whatsoever on the part of the member States. It may impose obligations or confer rights on member States and individuals alike. By its content a regulation is a veritable Community law."

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.[Teller]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Gardiner, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Abinger, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, Lord

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Polwarth, L.

Beaumont, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Belstead, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L. (L. Chancellor)

Redesdale, L.

Blake, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rhyl, L.

Brentford, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Chelmer, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Hemingford, L.

Sackville, L.

Coleraine, L.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Selkirk, E.

Cowley, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kemsley, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Stradbroke, E.

Croft, L.

Limerick, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Listowel, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lothian, M.

Tanlaw, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Terrington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Drogheda, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

May, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Mills, V.

Vivian, L.

Dundonald, E.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Elles, Bs.

Mottistone, L.

Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
I am unable to understand what noble Lords opposite are talking about when they say that we will have full Parliamentary control of the future legislation governing the life of this country.
9.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 123.
9.57 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("which is related to the purposes for which the Communities have been established.")
The noble Lord said: I shall move this Amendment briefly, and largely to hear what excuse is put up by the Government. I can see absolutely no reason why these words should not be incorporated. Over and over again spokesmen on behalf of the Government have said that nothing would be put down on the Statute Book or brought forward, either as an Order in Council or a regulation or a direction, or any of the other matters of obtaining a legal enforcement in this country, unless it was related to the purposes for which the Communities have been established. We have been assured of this over and over again, and therefore I am suggesting to noble Lords opposite that it would be reasonable if, within the Bill, it was clearly stated that the Treaties and the regulations would be within the purposes for which the Communities have been established. Even a company in this country would have within its articles a similar clause to this, and therefore I hope that noble Lords will have no difficulty in accepting it. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps I should say that while I quite understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has moved this Amendment, I am afraid I have to tell him that it is in fact unnecessary, because Clause 1(4) is already a definition provision concerned with the whole description of a Treaty. The necessary link which he desires (just as we all do) in the Community context is in fact already achieved by Clause 1(2). Perhaps I should describe it a little further. The whole idea of subsection (4) is that it is a definition provision, just as, indeed, is the whole of Clause 1. It does not try to introduce any kind of change of any substance. Its whole point is to try to avoid any doubts about the meaning of "Treaty", which is exactly the meaning behind the Amendment. It tries to make it clear that this term is not limited to those international agreements that are entitled "Treaties" but it also includes protocols and annexes to the Treaties.
586
I can understand the noble Lord saying that he wants to be quite certain that everything which is in subsection (4) is, in the terms of this Amendment, related to the purposes for which the Communities have been established; but the definition of Community Treaties has of course to be linked with the purpose of the Communities and this has been already achieved under subsection (2) of Clause 1. Any agreement which is entered into by a Community must, by definition, be an agreement connected with the purposes of the Community, because otherwise, of course, the Community would have no power to conclude it. Therefore, agreements entered into by member States and their connection with Community purposes is, I think, secured by the use of the word "ancillary", which we debated earlier, in line 7, on page 2, and line 26, on page 19. It is for that reason only that I would advise the Committee not to accept an Amendment which is unnecessary because the provision is already in the Bill.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Will the noble Baroness kindly tell us what her objections are to adding it? She has said that it is already in the Bill. I have seen many contracts and many Bills with repetitive paragraphs. Could we know the reason for refusing it? It seems to me that it cannot do any harm if it is added.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I feel deeply disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, did not apparently hear what I thought was a fairly clear explanation of why it is unnecessary to accept this Amendment. Briefly, to sum it up, Clause 1(4) is a definition provision concerned with description of a Treaty, and the necessary link with the Community context is already achieved in Clause 1(2), which we have discussed at great length.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I thank the noble Baroness for that, but she has not answered my question. My question did not relate to whether it is already in the Bill, but what was the objection to adding it to this clause.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If I may speak for the third and, I promise, the last, time, the objection to including the words in the

587
Amendment is that they are unnecessary because the provisions sought to be secured by the Amendment are already in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: Although there are a number of noble Lords opposite who have come in and been entirely convinced by what the noble Baroness has said, there are a a lot of other people, probably equally informed who are not convinced.
588
I am very sorry indeed the noble Baroness did not feel able to accept this Amendment, but in view of the attitude of the Government in refusing to consider any addition, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.3 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("(5) This Act shall not come into force unless a consultative referendum has first been held to enable the electorate to express its attitude upon the accession of the United Kingdom to the Communities.")
The noble Lord said: Having regard to what has happened to all the Amendments that have been moved this afternoon, and the political attitude of the Government as to willingness to accept anything proposed from this side, it may seem a matter of supreme optimism that at this hour of the evening I rise to move this Amendment. In doing so, I make it quite clear that I have no claim to legal expertise, but I do not think one needs to be a constitutional lawyer to feel that where the vital interests of this country are concerned, the vital issue of national sovereignty, the people have a right not only to the fullest consultation but a right to play a part in making a decision. It is generally agreed in all parts of this Committee that the Bill affects the future of this country, for good or for ill, in the most profound way. I think it is generally conceded that there has been before Parliament no issue of greater importance. It introduces changes which will colour and determine the future lives of our people in a manner not paralleled in peacetime or at any time. On Second Reading some notable speeches were made. One which received well deserved tributes was that delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. The case he made for allowing the people to speak was overwhelming, and I think I am justified, in the light of what was said in that debate, in saying that the case he made was not, on that occasion at least, effectively answered.
The Amendment I move is designed to allow the issue to be put to the electorate. To date no one can claim they have been fully consulted or give the opportunity to declare their will. The Tory Party Manifesto as quoted by the noble Earl showed the limits of the Government's mandate. It says, as the noble Earl quoted,
"Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less."
The Government have negotiated and the people should have the opportunity to say
590
whether they are satisfied. At a General Election they could be given the opportunity to declare their views by way of a consultative referendum. All the signs we have to judge by indicate that on this issue on the Common Market the majority of these people who have declared a viewpoint are unhappy. I do not wish to weary the Committee with details of public opinion polls that have been held, because they are pretty generally known; but the latest poll shows that the majority of the people of this country remain unconvinced and remain extremely unhappy. If we had a consultative referendum it would provide an opportunity whereby the case for and against might be fully put and the public themselves given an opportunity to indicate then, in the light of information laid laid before them, what their reaction might be.
I have no doubt at all that whatever our views in this House may be the people of this country ought to be given an opportunity to say what they think about this vitally important issue. This House is very different to the other place. May I say that I think that the overkill that is exhibiting itself in Divisions in this Committee is no indication and will not be seen by the people of this country as a reflection of their opinion as a people. I doubt that many people abroad will be persuaded that the very large majority that your Lordships opposite are putting on the Record this evening will impress anyone outside this House. Here we enjoy great privilege; we are not elected, we inherit our seats or we are appointed. In the end, we are unlike the people in the other place. There they are responsible to the electorate and the electorate can pass censure on them. In this House we are answerable only to our own consciences. I believe that the limit that our consciences should permit in the circumstances of our unrepresentative position is to make sure that people have the right to govern themselves. The late Sir Winston Churchill put it in that way. I think it right that the Committee should have the opportunity to accept this subsection in Clause 1 and thus justify its acceptance as a protector of the right of appeal.
At this late hour I have no intention of speaking at any greater length. I will

591
conclude by saying that the people of this country have a right to play a major role in the determination of their own destiny. I think it proper to give your Lordships' House the opportunity of indicating that that is your view also. If it be not your view, then I think the time will come when the people of this country will determine the usefulness of this place. I beg to move.
10.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: With due respect to the noble Lord, I really think that he is speaking nonsense. The elected representatives of the people have spoken. They have agreed to this Bill. The noble Lord was talking about the great majority in this House that there has been on these Amendments. I would remind the noble Lord—I am only speaking from memory, but I think I am right in saying this—that there are 200 Labour peers. Where are they? If the noble Lord's supporters felt so strongly on this issue, surely they would be here. I do not want to overstress that point; indeed, it does not require overstressing.
Regarding a referendum, this has never been the custom of this country. The Treaty of Rome and the Common Market is a very complex subject, and I should doubt if a percentage of.000001 of the population have read the Treaty of Rome. Such a referendum would be decided completely on emotion—I would hesitate to call it the Yellow Press". Therefore, such an exercise would be quite pointless. You might as well ask the people to hold a referendum on the fluoridation of water. That is just as technical a subject as the Common Market.
Again it would be pointless. Or you might as well have a referendum on brucellosis in cattle. With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Lord was really "on the ball."
LORD GLADWYN: The Liberal Party, as a Party, regard a referendum on major political issues as quite extraordinarily unwise. It has often been said that if you had a referendum on whether to reintroduce capital punishment you know perfectly well what the answer would be
592
on that, or even on any other major issue of that kind. What the noble Viscount has said is quite true; these issues would be decided by momentary emotion. There would have been a series of murders, or whatever it may be affecting that issue, and the public would not judge the matter on rational grounds at all. The whole system of a referendum would be a denial of our present system of democracy. The will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, and they presumably elect people they can trust.
In Norway, and perhaps even in Denmark, the Government by a majority would probably come to a conclusion after a long debate, and taking everything into consideration, that they should join the European Economic Community. It may be that someone will then make a demagogic speech, the referendum will go wrong, and they will not be able to join the Common Market, although it is in their interests. I think that I need say no more. The enormous majority in this House, and I am sure the enormous majority in Parliament, would be dead against the Amendment now before us.
LORD BLYTON: I shall try to answer the two preceding speakers in the course of my remarks on this issue. I want to say that I support my noble friend who moved this Amendment. This Amendment is to give to the people of this country a say as to whether we are going to give up sovereignty and take away from the people the democratic rights that they have had for over half a century, and hand over to others remote from the people the power to govern and tax them for years ahead. The Amendment before the House is not concerned with whether we are for or against Britain's entry into the E.E.C. It is concerned with whether the electors, the British people, are to be allowed to express their wish at the ballot box. Many people have said that it is not merely unwise but a disaster to join on the terms that are before us, which the Government have accepted. The Government, on the other hand, say they will bring prosperity unknown to us before, and give security to the nation. It is these two views which should be submitted to the electors for their decision, and the case for this is exceptionally strong.

593
There are very few who will dispute the gravity of the changes which membership of the E.E.C. means to the lives of the British people. They mean a great departure from our national history and also from the history of our Parliament. We are asked to approve treaties and regulations grounded in the belief that, in the foreseeable future, we will bind ourselves in close association with Western Europe and with any other nation or group of nations in different parts of the world. We are asked to tie our island to the Continent of Europe, to give preference in all our future dealings to the nations in the Community, and to treat as third countries all those in the Commonwealth and elsewhere with whom we have had the closest ties for many years. The people are having imposed upon them, without a voice on the issue, the acceptance, not just of closer alliance and friendship with the Common Market countries which many would welcome and accept, but of an arrangement which will make us part of a single European Community, a single Economic and Monetary Union and, probably, a political union as well in the future.
As part of this policy, or new destiny, we have to change the Constitution of our country at its heart and at its centre. The people are being forced by the Government to accept the end of an edifice on which our democracy was built—the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. When the country goes in, agencies in Europe will have the right under this Bill to make laws binding on the British public without their consent, and even, as I read Clause 1, without the knowledge of the House itself. Those same agencies will have the right to impose taxes on the people and determine how those revenues will be spent, and in all matters of law it will be the courts of Europe covered by the treaties and not the courts of Britain which will decide.
For the first time, we shall have a Constitution writen in the text of the Rome and other Treaties, not a word of which we have helped to write, and on top of that there will be a substantial amount of Community law, the result of 13 years of Common Market regulations and directives, which is destined to be extended as the Community exercises its
594
undoubted right to further legislation. This Bill concedes, unnecessarily in my opinion, a device to the Community; the requirement that only an Affirmative Resolution is needed to sanction major new advances which could progressively bring the British economy under their control.
What is the importance of what is at stake? What is envisaged is totally unprecedented, giving away great powers from Parliament and thereby diminishing the rights and power of every man, woman and child in Britain. Another important reason why the people should be consulted is that the Government have no mandate for this Bill. All that the Conservative Manifesto said was that their sole commitment was to negotiate—no more and no less. And in the last Election all the political Parties swept the Common Market under the carpet until the Election was over. The situation is now different. The Government have negotiated—if they can be called negotiations. To me, it seemed like a French and British affair; and there are very few in the country, except the Common Marketeers, who would not say that the French exacted a price that they are not ready to pay.
It cannot be said that the full-hearted consent of the people or of Parliament has been given. In fact, in another place, had it not been for dissident socialists the Bill itself would have been defeated on many of its important provisions; and the Opposition, the Labour Party, is opposed to the terms of entry. This provides an important reason why the people should have a voice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill cannot bind the Government's successor in power, whenever the Election comes. It is in these circumstances that I believe it is not sensible, and certainly it is not in the national interest, for the Government to go on as they are. A decision of this kind, if it should have been taken at all, should have had the support of the major Parties in the State. But if this cannot be obtained, and if the Government are to go ahead with this as the policy of the Government of the day, and of only one Party, then it is surely all the more important that the Government should get the consent of the British people before they embark on it.

595
All my life, as a democratic Socialist, I have strived for the extension of political power to the economic, industrial and social affairs in order to create in Britain a more just society. Now the people of Britain, who have believed in this, face a new situation: one in which Parliament ceases to be supreme and one in which laws that our own people may wish to change cannot be changed because the power to make these decisions will no longer rest in this Parliament. This will have a profound and damaging effect on our political life. People outside today say that there is too little democracy in their lives; they wish their views to be heard on an ever increasing number of matters, and they wish Governments to be closer and more sensitive to their needs. How, then, can we expect to achieve this when, without their consent, there is the transfer of powers to such remote and bureaucratic agencies as the Commission in Brussels and the Council of Ministers in Paris?
The question of consent has figured prominently in all the debates ever since the proposals were made. In fact, in 1962 Hugh Gaitskell said that if there were any major groupings in the country, and major difficulties, then the proper and democratic way was to let the people decide. He also said, answering Mr. Macmillan, about the ordinary working-class folk not understanding what it meant:
"We are being told that the British people are not capable of judging this issue, the Government knows best, the top people are the only people that understand and it is difficult for the rest."
He went on to say:
"This is the classic argument of every tyranny in history. We did not win the political battles of the 19th and 20th centuries to have this reactionary nonsense thrust upon us again."
That was Hugh Gaitskell in 1962. In 1963, the late Lord Attlee said this:
"It is the electors who have the right to decide on a vital matter of this kind."
I know that some people put up their hands in horror at the idea of a consultative referendum, as if it had never been suggested before. Yet Sir Winston Churchill, on May 18, 1945, said on seeking a two-year prolongation of the War Parliament:
"I am conscious, however, in the highest
596
degree, of our duty to strengthen ourselves by direct expression of the people's will. Let us discuss means of taking the nation's opinion—for—example—a referendum on the issue of whether in these conditions, the life of this Parliament should be further prolonged."
So I happen to be in good company tonight. The then Mr. Attlee refused this, and we had the 1945 Election.
How profoundly different is this from the present Government's attitude, which seems to have little regard for the direct expression of the nation's will! Even the Liberal Party in February, 1969, voted in the House of Commons for a referendum in the case of self-determination for parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Scottish Liberal Election Manifesto spoke of a referendum on the Common Market as a "further democratic step which might be taken". So I am really in exalted company to-night. And this Amendment before your Lordships to-day is not something new, but something that has been explored before. This brings to the forefront the Prime Minister's statement. His argument was that the people and Parliament must give him full-hearted consent. But he has shifted his ground. He has lopped off the people and talks now only about Parliamentary consent. That is the interpretation, after careful research, of the statements lie has made over the last 12 months.
There are many noble Lords in this House who would argue that there is something improper about the consultative referendum but it comes mighty strangely from noble Lords who have frequently carried through referenda for other people. Nearly all the colonial territories have had a referendum built into their Constitution—territories like the West Indies and Gibraltar. In fact, Gibraltar had a referendum whether to stay with us or with Spain. If these people could be given the opportunity to decide—and Gibraltar decided to stay with us—what is wrong in asking the British people whether they wish to be submerged in Europe or not? The point is that these referenda were applied because it was thought desirable, in view of subsequent rule and conduct of affairs, that sanction should be given to what was done.
I want to conclude by saying this. There is plenty of evidence, if you look

597
for it, of statesmen who have argued for a referendum. This issue was not decided at the last Election. All that was asked for was negotiation. My Party has declared that it will have a referendum when it comes back to power—as it will at the next Election; and we shall negotiate our way out if the terms are not acceptable. And we shall ask the people of the country, by referendum, whether they agree with us. I support the Amendment.
10.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. I think it typical of your Lordships' House that noble Lords have listened so attentively to the speech which he made. For many years the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has given more attention to this subject than anyone I know. When I was Member of Parliament for Slough, I remember his coming to Slough, many years ago, and addressing a meeting. The thoroughness of his examination of this subject is something that we should all appreciate, whether we agree with him or not.
I apologise for arriving rather late in the discussion of this Amendment; I did not appreciate that it had been reached. I was not deeply interested in many of the Amendments which preceded this one. I am not one who takes the view that Britain should view with repugnance the loss of its sovereign rights for the sake of wider sovereign rights. We are now living in a world where national sovereign rights must be coordinated with the much greater rights of the world as a whole. Therefore I have often been in disagreement with those who have opposed our entry into the Common Market on the ground that Britain was losing sovereign rights. We are living in the last century if we think that today sovereign rights can be placed against the rights of a smaller world.
My opposition to our entry into the Common Market is on the grounds not simply of the surrender of sovereign rights but their surrender of them to a Community which I believe will be a reactionary one. Not only will the multi-capitalistic system in Europe cause vast unemployment and low conditions of
598
life, but it will be a rich mens' club that will exploit the peoples of the developing countries. I want to say seriously that this Bill represents the biggest constitutional change that has taken place in this country for centuries. It means that the rights of our own people about their own territory will be coalesced in a wider Community. When one has a measure of that character it is tremendously important that not merely Parliament but the people should be carried with one in the decision. While it is claimed—and I do not challenge this—that a large majority was obtained in another place. for the Second Reading of this Bill, and while I resent very much the Party Pressures which are put on individual Members of Parliament, either in another place or here, not to reflect their own convictions in the Lobbies, I would ask whether anyone in this Committee would deny that the Government have no right to make this deep constitutional change on any mandate which they received at the last Election. This mandate at the last Election was only to consider and to negotiate; no one can claim that it was a mandate to go into Europe on the present terms. One has no right to make this deep constitutional change in the whole of our territory without some reference to the population.
I am not one who pays very great attention to public opinion polls, but all the public opinion polls indicate that the majority of the people of this country are against this great change. I am submitting, I hope in reasonable terms, that when one is making this vast constitutional change one should be sure that not only Members of Parliament—often succeptible to party pressures—but also the people of the country understand and support it. Throughout my life I have stood for the principle of self-determination of peoples. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, referred to various colonial countries in which referenda have been taken. I would point out that they are taken not only in colonial countries. They are taken, for instance, in Scandinavia and in the Republic of Ireland. The Common Market referndum in the Republic of Ireland showed a majority in favour of joining Europe. I do not complain; all we are asking in this Amendment is that the British

599
people should have the same opportunity to declare their view before this great and historic change is made.
I do not reject the principle of this deep change in our society, because we must give up national sovereignty for wider sovereignties. But a nation of our centuries of democratic growth, of our own Parliaments, of our sovereignty is being asked, without any mandate from the people—without their voice; one might almost say without their understanding—to change to the new loyalties, disciplines and restrictions which entry into Europe will demand. One of the pathetic things about our present situation is that this vast change is being made without the people of our nation even understanding what it involves. In that situation, surely your Lordships will agree that the people of our country ought to have the opportunity to make the decision—a decision which would be reached after a campaign upon the issues, and which they might be ready to understand. It is that plea for democracy which I am making in supporting this Amendment.
10.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would regret the last sentences in his speech proposing this Amendment. I think he must realise that the number of people who have voted in the Government Lobby tonight are not adequately referred to by "overkill". The large numbers in the Government Lobby this afternoon and this evening have been due to the deep feelings which are held on this side of the Committee and the great conviction with which we are voting, and nothing else. I thought it was an extraordinary proposition to put forward that if we do not accept an Amendment which proposes a totally novel introduction into our Constitution—novel in the sense that it has never been accepted before—the House of Lords should be abolished. That was his last proposition. I hope that we shall vote upon the merits of a referendum according to our honour and our opinion, as it is our duty to do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble and learned Lord will forgive me for
600
interrupting. He is a pretty formidable political figure, and no doubt he has resources which will enable him to answer me without imputing to me words that I did not use.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not anxious to impute to the noble Lord words which he did not use; but that is what I understood him to say, and what I understood him to mean. When he reads Hansard tomorrow I think he will discover that to what he did say can only be imputed the impression that I gave. I am very glad to learn from the noble Lord that it was a false impression. It was none the less the impression that I think many of us on this side of the Committee received.
Of course the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is perfectly correct in saying that a referendum is a device which has often before been proposed in this country. It has always been rejected. It has been proposed many times during my public life, and I have always spoken against it, whether in private or in public, and whether the suggestion came from my own side or from the side opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, reminded us that in this respect Sir Winston Churchill had not been as constant as I upon this particular issue. He was answered by Mr. Attlee (as he then was) in these words, which I respectfully adopt:
"I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism. Hitler's practices in the field of referenda and plebiscites can hardly have endeared these expedients to the British heart."
LORD BALOGH: Does not the noble and learned Lord—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me, but I wish to finish my sentence. I think, as in so many things, Mr. Attlee's sound British instincts more accurately reflected the judgment of the British people on this matter than any words that I am likely to use this evening.
LORD BALOGH: Does the noble and learned Lord not think that this Bill introduces into the British Constitution something completely alien to the British Constitution? How does he dare to

601
speak about Mr. Attlee's opinions when he introduces something that is completely alien to the British tradition?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that that was a reasonable intervention. I dare say what I say because it is my opinion; and though the noble Lord may disagree with me, it remains my opinion and I shall continue to express it. Nor, for the reasons which I gave in my Second Reading speech and in the two previous speeches that I have made on this subject, do I agree that this is in the least alien to the traditions of the British people. So on both those grounds I reject the noble Lord's intervention, which in any event only reproduced in rather briefer form the speech that we heard and enjoyed from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
It is, I think, one of the pathetic things about this debate that the opposition, the anti-Marketeers in this country, have consistently (though, as we say, falsely) accused us of undermining the authority of the Queen in Parliament by adhesion to the Communities. That is the charge against us. It is wrong, as we say, because the Bill we are now endeavouring to pilot through Parliament is itself an exercise of that sovereignty on which alike our liberties, our reforming tradition and the efficacy of our laws depend. But this Amendment, proposed by the same anti-Marketeers, would (if I may coin a phrase) undermine at one stroke the authority of the Queen in Parliament by the introduction of an instrument of government wholly foreign to our institutions and subversive alike of the responsibilities of Government and of the sovereignty of Parliament.
It is wrong, to speak of democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, attempted to do, as if it was a single system. There are as many types of democracies as there are other types of Government. There are democracies with a written constitution; there are democracies composed of voters who choose to attend an assembly or a popular gathering like those of ancient Athens or Rome, or like the Canton of Schwyz to this day. There are democracies based on a strong presidential system; there are democracies based on an assembly popularly elected,
602
democracies based on proportional representation. But ours is a democracy through Parliamentary representation, based on an asembly popularly elected but presided over by a Government responsible to that Parliament and composed of members of the majority Party. Whatever the faults of our system, it is this which preserves its orderliness, which ensures coherence in policy and government by discussion and not by ignorance or emotion. It is in fact the most successful form of human constitution that has yet been devised by human kind.
The instrument of referendum, on the contrary, is spurious democracy, based on specious and fallacious reasoning and productive of ridiculous or disastrous results. It has been, as Mr. Attlee reminded Sir Winston Churchill, the favourite instrument of dictators, with the 99 per cent. majorities they are able to engender. More insidious still—and this is what astonishes me about the attitude of some members of the Party opposite in supporting it—it has become in some countries the instrument of blind and ignorant conservatism, even reaction. It is this instrument which denied women for so long the vote in Switzerland. Except in conditions of dictatorship, it is almost invariably productive of a negative answer. It substitutes the error and timidity of the market-place for the boldness of rational and informed discussion.
It would be a mistake to believe that its introduction in this context could ever be made a solitary or unique exception to our practice. It would be too easy an escape route for a Government which wished to duck responsibility without resigning for introducing or rejecting a particular policy. It might, as one noble Lord said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—prove an irresistible demand in the hands of a demagogic populist, desirous, say, of re-introducing savage punishments or racialist programmes. It is a dangerous and specious weapon and should be firmly resisted on this, as on other occasions.
I am the last to deny the importance of the Bill we are now discussing in Committee. But it is not quite the uniquely important decision which it is represented to be. Far more lasting and

603
far more formidable in their results were the declarations of war in 1914 and 1939, the decision to proceed with the nuclear bomb, the creation of N.A.T.O. and the programmes of the Labour Government in 1945 nationalising our major industries.
In the context of Europe the carrying of this Amendment would destroy our credibility and, if the referendum failed, dishonour our people whose honour has been deeply committed. What guarantee have the opposition that the campaign would be carried out on rational and sober lines, or that the issue of entry could be precisely isolated in discussion? What guarantee have we that voters would not be stampeded by appeals to working class solidarity, the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Bill, the crisis in the docks, Party or class prejudice or other irrelevant appeals to demagogy or emotion? My whole experience of public life leads me to believe that no referenda are decided on merits. It is ns impossible to confine an Election to a single question as to restrict a debate on a referendum to the merits of an issue.
I am appalled at the want of logic in the description of the proposed referendum as "consultative". What on earth can sponsors conceive to be the merits of this ridiculous anomaly? Do they seriously think that, having obtained one answer from the electorate, we should be able to perform the opposite? There is no purpose in consulting the electorate if the electorate is not to be treated as sovereign and its verdict binding. No-one has voted for this Amendment in the Commons unless they were determined to prevent our entry at all costs—even at the cost of introducing an unconstitutional chimera into our working institutions—or else, in the case of the Labour Party, because they were coerced by their Party Whips or fearful of the fate of Dick Taverne. One of the things, as Burke once observed, that Members of Parliament are elected for is their judgment. Even more in this House of individual counsellors we should pride ourselves on the use of ours. If we are to exercise logic in the light of informed discussion surely Parliament would be unwise to abandon its right to do so on matters of the utmost weight where informed discussion is more and not less important.
604
I have not so far mentioned the practical difficulties. This is because I oppose referenda on principle. But the practical difficulties are none the less formidable. Who, for instance, is to settle the question? In what form is it to be cast? What size of majority is required? Are England and Scotland to be separately assessed? What is to be the position of Northern Ireland? Nobody has ventured an answer to any of these conundra.
Noble Lords opposite are sometimes sensitive when I have referred to what seem to me to be the unusual somersaults executed by the Leader of the Opposition in another place on this and a variety of other issues. But it is inevitable that on this occasion I should be entitled to refer to his attitude in this of all subjects.
As Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson refused a referendum on entry when the terms were known (see Hansard, Vol. 792, col. 199). He reiterated his objections as recently as July last year. As for the Government's attitude, it has been consistent and not as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. During the last Election, in a passage only part of which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, referred to, Mr. Heath said this:
"We as a Party are committed to negotiate, no more and no less"—
LORD BLYTON: Hear! Hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let the noble Lord wait until the whole quotation is finished, and then cheer. The Prime Minister said:
"We as a Party are committed to negotiate, no more and no less. We will report the whole time to the country, through Parliament, what is going on in the negotiations; at the end, when they see what has been negotiated, Parliament can judge completely as to whether it is in the interests of the country to go into the Common Market or not."
I do not hear quite the same cheers from the noble Lord at that stage of the quotation.
On another occasion, when asked whether he had said that no Government would take the country into the Common Market against the will of the people, my right honourable friend gave this answer:
"Yes, this is my view, the view I have held for the last ten years. I held this when I was doing the negotiations myself. I always said that you could not possibly take this country into the Common Market if the

605
majority of the people were against it. But this is handled through the Parliamentary system."
I do not think that there could be a plainer statement of what we are doing now than that.
I do not want to say very much more, except that we set out exactly in this Parliament the course which we were going to follow. We said that we were going to negotiate. We said that we were going to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. This is a statement made, I think last June, by the Prime Minister in another place:
"Second, Parliament should be invited to take a decision of principle on whether the arrangements so negotiated are satisfactory and whether we should proceed to join the Communities. If that be agreed, we have, third, to resolve the remaining issues in the negotiations. Fourth, a Treaty of Accession has to be prepared and signed. Fifth, legislation to give effect to that Treaty has to be drafted, considered by Parliament and enacted. Finally, we and the other parties to the Treaty have to deposit instruments of ratification of the Treaty."
When that statement was made did the Opposition challenge this programme? Did they demand instead at that stage the different and unprecedented step of a referendum? Of course they did not. The Leader of the Opposition welcomed and endorsed what the Prime Minister had said about the proposed arrangement. This is the programme which the Government have followed.
On October 28 last year both Houses of Parliament approved the policy of entering the Community on the terms obtained. It was in compliance with this verdict by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament that the Treaty of Accession was signed in Brussels on January 22. The Government have now brought forward the measure which will enable the Treaty to be ratified. That measure has now been endorsed by another place. Not merely is the course advocated by this Amendment impracticable; it would mean doing the very thing of which we are being accused—wrongly—by the Opposition: it would mean abdicating Parliamentary responsibility. It would be profoundly damaging to the constitutional traditions of this country, quite apart from representing a reversal of policy on the part of all three parties. For all these reasons I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment wholeheartedly.
10.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I could not understand at first why the noble and learned Lord was so angry about the alleged use by my noble friend of the term "overkill". I did not follow him. I did not see why he should be so cross about the use of the word. By the end of his speech I realised why: the noble and learned Lord wanted to pre-empt the use of the word, otherwise I might have applied it to his speech. I am reminded of the story of a vicar who stayed at our house and left his sermon on the bedroom floor. The wife picked it up. She saw there was one part sidelined with a little note, "Argument weak here; shout loud". I think this is kind of philosophy behind the noble and learned Lord's speech.
May I say at the outset how pleased I am to be able to agree with something that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said? I am so happy about that that I should like to put it on record. I agree with him that a referendum would be inappropriate on an issue like capital punishment. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chancellor, and others in this Committee, I have fought a number of Elections. At every Election I have been asked whether I would submit a particular issue to a referendum. Always, like the noble and learned Lord, I said that it would be wrong. I said that it was against our tradition to have referenda and that I thought Members of Parliament were sent to Westminster for the purpose of exercising their own judgment. But there has been absolutely nothing in our tradition and practice like the prospect that we now have before us as a result of this legislation. We have had nothing before in our history which proposed to hand over to others control of our legislation. It is no use the noble and learned Lord getting so hot under the collar about the virtue of their proposed legislation. It really does not conform with the facts. It is not, again I say to him, what we, the anti-Marketeers, think about the denial of democracy that is inherent in this Bill: it is not we alone.
I quoted a little earlier—and have had absolutely no reply—the analysis of the Legal Adviser to the Commission itself. Just to put in someone else's words, may I quote from an article in The Times of

607
Tuesday, May 2, by T. J. O. Hickey. He says of this Bill. a Bill of which we have been hearing so much and which provides for such detailed Parliamentary control:
"This is by common consent the bit of the Bill"—
he was referring to the clause we are discussing—
"which is of greater constitutional significance than any other bit. It affects the one really large constitutional innovation in all these European proceedings. It confers on authorities other than the Parliament at Westminster—authorities external to the State—confined but undoubted powers of direct legislation and taxation within the United Kingdom. There has been nothing like it here since the Pope's privileges and jurisdiction within England were repudiated in the sixteenth century."
That is the view of someone capable of looking at the issue in a balanced way, and he comes to a conclusion very different from that of the noble and learned Lord and his friends opposite. And the noble and learned Lord must not get so hot under the collar if there are some of us on this side who think that Mr. Hickey has more of the truth than he has.
So I say that the precedent argument against the referendum just falls. We have not had a precedent of this kind before. Although I have been consistently against the use of the referendum on issues such as capital punishment, homosexual practices and so on—absolutely against it on those issues—when we come to this issue I think we are dealing with something on which the people themselves, instinctively, are as likely to come up with as good a judgment as any noble Lord opposite. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to listen with patience to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, when he sets himself up as being so superior in his judgment to the busman outside and the policeman on his beat. I believe that on this kind of issue the policeman or the busman, or the miner or the carpenter—the man who does not spend his time here—is as likely to be right as is the noble Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I ask the noble Lord a question? If he is so really convinced of this, why did he not resign in 1969 when Mr. Wilson refused a referendum on this very topic?
LORD BESWICK: I am quite prepared to go into the history of that whole period, but it would not be profitable at the present time. But wait a moment. At the time when Mr. Wilson was talking against a referendum we never had a Bill of this kind before us. There was never any possibility of the Labour Party, I assure the noble and learned Lord opposite, approving a Bill of this kind. There was never any chance at all of that being done by the Labour Government of which I was a member. I say that with absolute conviction. So we are dealing with a different situation.
The noble and learned Lord quoted in aid Lord Attlee. Lord Attlee was against this proposal to go into the Community. But, in any case, what he said about the referendum was said at a time when we had no Bill of this kind before Parliament. Had he been confronted with a piece of legislation of this kind, I am fairly convinced that Lord Attlee might well have taken a different view. So I am saying that the question of the precedent does not here arise, because we have had absolutely no precedent of the present situation in the whole of our history. It would have been preferable if we could have had a General Election on the issue; that would have been straightforward. Why did not the present Government go to the country to get a mandate? They have had no mandate on this. They have spent enormous sums of money on propaganda, and still the people of this country instinctively and stubbornly say, "We do not want it". The majority of the people in this country are against this action.
I think that it is very dangerous indeed to transfer decision-making further from the people who are affected by those decisions. Yet that is what is proposed. As I say it is dangerous to do that, but I think it is doubly dangerous to do it when the people so clearly say that they do not want it to be done; and in the long run it may well prove that it would have been better to have the support of the people expressed in one form or another before this piece of legislation was brought before us. I do not accept the precedent argument. I do not accept that the issues before us are such as to be incapable of judgment by the people

609
who are to be affected by them. It is my belief that it would be better in the long run to have a verdict from them.
It is proposed by this Amendment to submit the issue, if the Government of the day refuse to have a General Election, to a referendum. In the circumstances, I regard that as a reasonable suggestion. The noble and learned Lord was indignant about the whole respectability of a referendum. Is it really so unrespectable—or disrespectable—in Switzerland or Norway or Denmark? Are they not democratic countries? And if the procedure is so bad, would the noble and learned Lord like to get up and tell me why it is proposed to apply it to Ulster? Why is it so wrong to have here what we are asking for in Ulster? Why is it so wrong for us if M. Pompidou was prepared to put the thing to the test by this means in France? The noble and learned Lord really should not get quite so angry about the evil character of this "alien instrument". After all the lectures we have had about being "little Englanders", and about being prepared to adopt Continental ways, why should this be a terrible thing? And why should it be called an "alien instrument"? really think the noble and learned Lord overdid it a little.
Well, we have had the discussion, and I think there is probably not a majority in the House who would support us. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Amendment moved by my noble friend was worth putting on the Marshalled List, and it would be interesting to see what the result would be if we had a Division.
11.8 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I express appreciation that the Committee have shown so much interest and devoted so much time to this Amendment? Having said that, may I return briefly to the point where the noble and learned Lord attributed to me words which I think I did not use—though let me say right away that I might well have given the impression. Certainly the point I intended to make was that the House would bring about its own demise. If I have been able to make that point clear, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for
610
giving me the opportunity of doing so. If I erred and did use the words that he attributed to me, let me say that I regret very much having intervened to attempt to correct them when I ought not to have done so.
I have no wish to speak at any great length. My noble friend Lord Beswick has made a fairly full reply, but I should like just to add one comment. I have been very impressed by two speeches: one by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the other by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I am very impressed that they should compare an issue like fluoridation with the issue of joining the Common Market. And I believe that the people will be very interested that they should dare to do so: because, of course, there is no valid comparison, and they must know it. I am impressed by the line they took and what they said, by the limited degree of trust (and this goes, too, for other noble Lords; indeed, to some extent it applies to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor) they place in those on whom eventual power, as is so often claimed, rests. When it comes to the issue, they appear to be very anxious not to give them an opportunity to express their view on something that is going to play such a tremendous part in determining their future lives. I have no wish to press this Amendment to a Division; I am prepared to leave it to the voice of the House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It appears that Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed in pursuance of Standing Order No. 51 and a Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
House resumed.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS