Sitting of 7 August 1972

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

  Jersey
  Mr. Alfred Morris: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present two Petitions. The first bears the signatures of people from every walk of life in the island of Jersey, from manual workers to company directors and from housewives to horticulturists. The second Petition is from Jersey fishermen. Each of the Petitions speaks of the serious effects for the islanders of Jersey if the United Kingdom enters the EEC on the terms negotiated. The two Petitions have widespread support from Jersey.
  I am informed that the House has not received a Petition from the Channel Islands for more than a century. The Petitions are therefore of historic importance.
  The first Petition
  Showeth that serious difficulties are likely to be encountered by the people of Jersey, arising out of the United Kingdom's proposed entry into the EEC…and that whereas the Island Government, by majority vote, did
  In December, 1971,
  approve of the special terms and arrangements…for the Channel Islands, such decision was taken without the Island being given a fair opportunity of considering the full implications of the said terms.
  The fear is expressed
  that Jersey's economic and social position would be endangered as a result of the United Kingdom's inability to recognise fully Jersey's ancient constitutional rights, arising from its most ancient bonds with the Sovereign.…The Islanders are extremely fearful that the terms …would be repugnant to Jersey's constitutional practice. …
  1224
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge Her Majesty's Government to seriously reconsider the advisability of taking the final step into the EEC. Jersey is mindful of the serious effect that such a decision is bound to have on the constitutional bonds which have existed from time immemorial with Jersey and the other Channel Islands, as also with member States of the Commonwealth.
  The second Petition
  Sheweth that after 1st January, 1973, there will be no protected fishing limits at all for the Island due to the fact that whilst some provisions were negotiated…for the fishermen of the United Kingdom at Brussels, no provisions were made or negotiated for the fishermen of the Channel Islands at all, due to an oversight of the negotiators at the time, and that whilst at present the Island has a very unsatisfactory limit of protection of three miles only around the shores of the mainland of Jersey and only 150 yards on its outer reefs and islets, after the United Kingdom's proposed entry to the EEC Jersey…will have no provision in those terms for its fishing industry or its fishermen's future livelihoods.
  It is therefore essential that some form of protected limits be established for the Island of Jersey which will exclude the EEC fishermen from these proposed established area protected limits. The fishermen therefore suggest that an all-round limit or protected area of a minimum of six miles from low water be laid down and be negotiated for with the EEC.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that immediate steps to protect the Channel Island's fishing rights be established by your Honourable House forthwith.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Ship Repairing Industry
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aid he is at present giving to the ship repairing industry in Great Britain.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The ship repair industry, in common with other industries, receives taxation allowances on capital expenditure and regional employment premium. It shares with the shipbuilding industry Customs concessions on imported materials. Under the Industry Bill it will be eligible for regional development grant and selective assistance.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are quite different, that both are strategically important to this country and that because of the standby the ship repairing industry is bleeding to death?
    Mr. Grant: I realise that the industries are different and I understand the difficulties of the ship repairing industry. However, what they have in common is that they will both benefit from the Industry Bill which is now before the House.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman take special note of the ship repairing industries in areas outside development areas, like Southampton, which are experiencing considerable difficulty in making themselves go?
    Mr. Grant: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. But the greater difficulties are in the assisted areas where there is a high degree of unemployment and not as great a diversity of industry as there is in the non-assisted areas.

    Stansted Airport
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the long-term future of Stansted Airport.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): When Maplin becomes operational we see the possibility of closing Stansted as a public transport airport and perhaps of dispensing with it altogether. We are in close touch with the BAA and the CAA about employment there in the interim.
    Mr. Steel: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of how long it will be before a definite decision is taken on the future of Stansted?
    Mr. Onslow: I cannot give a definite forecast but we expect Maplin to become operational in 1980, which fits the time scale. In the interim we are asking the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority to see what possibilities there are of encouraging the deployment of traffic to Stansted with a view to its ultimate transfer to Maplin.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he says will cause a consider
    1226
    able amount of gloom among many people in and around my constituency? Certainly they will all welcome the quietness of less flying, but already there is a substantial number of men unemployed who worked at the airport and who want to go on working there. Will my hon. Friend see to it that jobs are retained in the aviation industry for those working there?
    Mr. Onslow: I hope it will not cause gloom in my hon. Friend's constituency to know that we want to keep jobs going at Stansted against the time when men will be needed at Maplin.
    Mr. Mason: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may indicate, therefore, what future there is at Stansted and what developments will take place when it is closed down. Secondly, what will be the future of the Civil Aviation Flying Unit which, I understand, operates from there?
    Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman is right: the CAFU is based at Stansted and could continue to be based there, even if the airport is not used as a public transport airport. Another possibility will be its increased use as a general aviation field which improved road communications might make attractive.

    North Sea Oil and Gas (Scottish Participation)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied that the Scottish economy and Scottish companies are sharing as fully as possible in the benefits accruing from the development of North Sea oil and gas; and what new plans he has to increase Scottish participation.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The Government are taking all possible steps to draw the opportunities to the attention of industry. It is for industry to grasp these opportunities and a number of Scottish firms have already won orders for equipment. The report I have commissioned from consultants, which I expect to receive in the autumn, will assist me in identifying in what further ways the benefits to industry and the economy may be promoted.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentlemen undertake to make that report available to the House? Does he recognise, in view of the statement today that Royal Dutch Shell has made a very major discovery of, I think it is, 1,000 million barrels of recoverable oil, which represents about 15 per cent. of our current needs, that this is an extremely important development which underlines the need for revising the legislation on the granting of licences? Can he say what Royal Dutch Shell paid for this particular licence? Will he take steps to make sure that the infrastructure is provided in large measure by the Scottish Department and that it will insist that the oil companies use more indigenous industrial products for their oil requirements?
    Mr. Davies: If, as I sincerely hope, and I am sure the whole House does, the oil find to which the hon. Member has referred is of the dimensions he has mentioned, then indeed this is a vindication of the principle which both Governments have followed of trying to ensure that the maximum prospection of the North Sea area was undertaken. At the same time I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have made it plain, and I do so again now, that the treatment by licensees of the British supplying industry will certainly be a consideration in the award of future licences.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the possibility of transferring to Aberdeen the approximately 90 members of the petroleum division of his Department so that they can be on the spot at the earliest moment to identify the problems and opportunities met for Scottish and British industry?
    Mr. Davies: I have a feeling that the real demand for work requires them to be located more here than there, but it will be necessary—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises this also—to maintain close relations with the developing interests in these fields.
    Mr. Benn: While I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him whether the Government will now make a conscious effort to develop support for these industries in Scotland so that they can meet the needs arising from
    1228
    these new finds in the North Sea, rather than leave it simply to the application of the Industry Bill which, we hope, will shortly receive Royal Assent?
    Mr. Davies: That is part of the purpose of my having commissioned the special consultancy report. The right hon. Gentleman should not lead the House to believe, however, that Scotland has lost a great deal of work in this field. Scotland is doing a great deal of work in the development of the oil finds in the North Sea. For instance, of the total number of mobile drilling platforms built for use in the North Sea no less than half, nine out of 18, were built in the United Kingdom, four of them in Scotland. So it would be wrong to form the impression that Scotland has literally made none of the supply.

    Generalised Preferences Scheme
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to agree to Israel, Rumania, Spain and Turkey being regarded as developing countries for the purpose of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development generalised preferences scheme.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): We are not willing to extend the list of beneficiaries of our generalised preferences scheme unilaterally, but if these countries are accepted in the scheme of the European Economic Community we shall consider including them to the same extent as the Community does.
    Mr. Chapman: While I am grateful for that reply may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will, therefore, make the strongest representations that these four countries, which by any stretch of the imagination must be industrialised rather than developing countries, do not receive preferential treatment, so that those most in need will receive maximum help? Would my right hon. Friend agree that if the list is to be added to, it should not be before the closest re-examination of those manufactured goods and semi-manufactures which are to be allowed duty-free into this country?
    Mr. Noble: Yes, I can assure my hon. friend on both those points.

    Coal (Imports)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he can now state when the existing arrangements for the importation of coal will be concluded.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Imports have fallen sharply in recent months but we are keeping a close watch on the position.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that there is a strong rumour running through the coal mining industry that there is a possibility of 50 pits being closed in the next two or three years even though there are coal reserves there? is he not aware that at the present time the Government are converting coal-fired power stations to oil and that there is a continuation and an increase of imported foreign oil and that the mining industry has to compete with North Sea gas and North Sea oil? Does he not therefore think it time that we had a national fuel policy on terms favourable to our home-produced indigenous fuels?
    Mr. Boardman: I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to comment on speculative reports which may be going around. On the question of imports, I am sure he will also agree that it is necessary to keep extra flexibility as an insurance by way of imports, and that he will recognise that some imports, for example of coking coal, will be needed to supplement United Kingdom supplies on quality grounds.
    Mr. Normanton: Will my hon. Friend inform the House about the excellent opportunities which will be available to an efficient coal mining industry in Britain, and that those opportunities might well be at risk were protectionist policies to be promoted by the Government?
    Mr. Boardman: Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. For example, in Europe alone imports are some 30 million tons per annum of which at the moment we supply only 2½ million tons. I hope that this is a market of which we can get a greater share.
    Mr. Varley: While agreeing with a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright)
    1230
    has said may I ask whether the Minister realises that there is a great deal of hostility in the mining industry to the import of coal? Can the Minister tell us what guidance he is offering to the Central Electricity Generating Board and the British Steel Corporation about their coal imports? Would it not be advisable if the Minister could talk not only to those two industries but to the National Coal Board to see how best an overall importing policy could be co-ordinated to safeguard the position of all three industries?
    Mr. Boardman: I believe it is right to put the figures into perspective. While imports of coal last year were running at a high level following the immediate post-strike period, they have been falling rapidly and were only 500,000 tons in May and 400,000 tons in June. Arrangements between the National Coal Board, the CEGB and the BSC are for each of those industries to consider. They have been considering and discussing them, and I believe that there can be proper commercial arrangements in the interests of all three industries.

    Concorde
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has received from the French Minister of Transport in connection with the budget for Concorde's future development.
    Mr. Onslow: None, Sir.
    Mr. Edelman: Is there not undue secrecy in this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties of the aero-engine workers in my constituency that an arrangement has been made with the French Minister of Transport to reduce the production of Concorde in the future? Will he give an assurance that this is not so?
    Mr. Onslow: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a question not of undue secrecy but of undue anxiety. I know of no such approach.
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is able to give an assurance that the Concorde simulator contract will be placed with a United Kingdom firm.
    Mr. Onslow: All British manufacturers will be invited to tender and

    1231
    although I cannot anticipate the outcome of the evaluation of submission, I know that our industry is very competitive in this field.
    Mr. Hunt: Will my hon. Friend go a litle further and agree that there is every justification for a British firm being awarded this contract on the basis both of our expertise and our balance of payments?
    Mr. Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that I am very hopeful that a British firm will put in a successful tender for this project. We have asked BOAC, which will be placing tenders, to keep us closely informed of progress.
    Mr. Millan: Is it not the present intention that there should be a simulator only in France, so that BOAC will have to go to France for simulator training? Why should we not have simulator facilities here?
    Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It has been decided that the simulator will be situated in this country.
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Concorde aircraft will have to be sold to recover research and development costs based solely upon numbers sold and their present price.
    Mr. Onslow: We have already made clear that there is no prospect of recovering all the research and development costs on this aircraft but we shall make every effort to recoup as much as possible of the country's investment.
    Mr. Mason: That is not the answer to the Question. Now will the hon. Gentleman give the answer to the Question? How many will be sold to recover research and development costs based solely upon the numbers sold and their present price either of £13 million at 1971 prices or £21½ million at 1974 prices? What is the figure? Why cannot the House be informed?
    Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman asks for details of a levy which I assure him it would not be in the interests of the project to make public. If he is saying that he doubts the sales prospects of this aircraft, he is not doing anything to help us to recoup the country's investment. If the right hon. Gentle-
    1232
    man is saying that he would like more information on this subject, perhaps he would like to ask the House whether we can have a debate on the subject.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we on this side have questioned the Government vigorously over the last three months trying to extract information on the Concorde project, but we have failed so far. The Government are deliberately hiding facts and information regarding the Concorde project. We do not know the truth about the escalating costs of the project. The Select Committee on Expenditure chastised the Government and the Department on the subject. The hon. Gentleman and the Department are not kidding the airlines, because the airlines are doing their own arithmetic—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Mason: We have pressed for a debate, but will the hon. Gentleman now agree to publish a White Paper explaining the whole of the Concorde project—research and development costs, production costs and its likely sales?
    Mr. Onslow: I have no knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has pressed for a debate. He has been told that there will not be a White Paper. In answer to his question I must tell him again that it would not be in the interests of securing the best return on research and development to make public the rates of levy applied. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the reply given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 26th January, 1970, when he showed that he was aware of the extreme difficulty of presenting meaningful estimates of this kind.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that we consider the remarks of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) purely mischievous? The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Administration which must have known that research and development costs could not and would not be got back from sales of the aircraft. Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that many people feel that questions of this sort are designed purely to hurt Concorde at the moment of sales?
    Mr. Onslow: I am sure that most people in this country and in France will have drawn their own conclusions from the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I think that people everywhere would welcome some positive indication of support from the right hon. Gentleman for this project.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that in his original answer he misled the House by distorting the facts? He said that all the research and development costs would not be recouped. Will he say whether any of the costs will be recouped? Is he, in what he has just said, saying that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagrees with the all-party report of the Expenditure Committee?
    Mr. Onslow: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that if there are to be comments on that Committee's report they will not be made by me in the first instance at Question Time in the House but in the form of departmental observations, and quite rightly so. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the matter, no doubt he will go on putting down Questions of his own.

    Manchester
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries from industrialists with regard to the Manchester travel-to-work area have been received since the designation of the new North-Western intermediate area on 22nd March, 1972; and how many new jobs in total, and for men and women, respectively, are expected to result from these inquiries.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: The number of inquiries about factories and about our new incentives have continued to increase since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development answered the same Question on 17th July. I would hope that many of these inquiries will lead to benefit to Manchester.—[Vol. 841, c. 14–5.]
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that that is a totally unsatisfactory answer? He has not told us of a single new job announcement, a single new inquiry or the granting of a single new IDC since the reply of the Minister for Industrial Development. Is he aware that
    1234
    in Manchester redundancies are outnumbering new job creations by more than three to one, that thousands of redundancies are certain to come from closures at Irlam and Churchill's, apart from those already announced, that job creation is nowhere near keeping pace with redundancies and that, unless the Government do something, Manchester will be turned into a disaster area?
    Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman has sung that song before, quite recently. I agree with the Chairman of the North-West Industrial Development Association who said in June that there were very encouraging signs that both consumers and producers were responding to the stimuli that the Government had provided, that business confidence was rising, that the number out of work was falling and that job vacancies were increasing. I believe that that more truly represents the position in Manchester than the gloomy prognostications of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Despite the lyricism of the Under-Secretary, will he cast his eyes up to North-East Lancashire, particularly to the serious position in my constituency of the 40 apprentices who have recently lost their jobs and are unable to find opportunities to finish their apprenticeships? Will he see whether there is a way by which these apprentices can be financed so that they do not have to go into dead-end jobs? While he is at it, will he also reconsider his earlier answer to me about not granting full development area status to North-East Lancashire?
    Mr. Grant: I appreciate that North-East Lancashire has special problems in the context of the North-West as a whole, and we are keeping it carefully in mind. Nevertheless, North-East Lancashire, as well as other parts, will benefit from the policies we have announced in the Industry Bill.
    Mr. Kaufman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment.

    Slimming Aids (Advertisements)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

    1235
    whether he will now take steps to supress misleading advertisements for alleged slimming aids.
    Mr. Noble: It is already an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, to use a false or misleading trade description in advertisements for goods of this kind.
    Mr. Janner: In those circumstances, and having regard to the clear evidence produced by the Consumers Association, may I ask how many prosecutions have been brought in respect of these advertisements?
    Mr. Noble: As far as I know, none, but the local weights and measures authority is under a statutory duty to enforce the Act and has all the necessary powers of inquiry.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if there were prosecutions, individuals who pay cash for these so-called aids find great difficulty in getting redress for their grievances and have to go through the civil courts? Cannot a better way be found for people who are taken in by these misleading advertisements to get redress?
    Mr. Noble: In many respects I agree with my hon. Friend, but the Advertising Standards Authority is well aware of this problem and is hoping shortly to be ready with a new publication about it. Slimming advertisements vary enormously, from taking exercise to eating less and every conceivable method in between. It would be a good thing to have a proper code of advertising practice and for the newspapers to accept it.

    Ilkeston
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will pay an official visit to Ilkeston.
    Mr. John Davies: I have at present no plans to visit Ilkeston.
    Mr. Rost: I regret that my right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the Stanton iron works in my constituency. Is he aware that the British Steel Corporation has so far not produced any substantial factual evidence to support the proposed closure of part of the works and its removal to Workington? Does he agree that the 1,500 workers
    1236
    who are likely to be affected are entitled to have a detailed explanation of the economic position and that the British Steel Corporation has an obligation to make a commercially viable decision rather than the one it has made?
    Mr. Davies: I am sure that the British Steel Corporation realises how necessary it is, in the course of the consultations which it has imposed upon itself by its own arrangement, to make abundantly clear the reasons for which it makes its decisions. The BSC has made it clear that the remaining activities at Stanton, which command a much bigger work force, are likely, on the contrary, to be pursued energetically.
    Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when he does visit my constituency—and I sincerely hope he will—he will receive a much friendlier response than did the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) who was literally hooted off the stage at a demonstration where he had no right to be. Will the Secretary of State refrain from paying an official visit to Ilkeston until such time as he has given a directive to the BSC to go for expansion, which will resolve the main problem arising in my constituency?
    Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is my firm hope that the strategic plans of the BSC will be forthcoming shortly. I hope, therefore, that when Parliament reassembles after the summer break there will be an opportunity to talk with Parliament about the expansion plan and its importance for constituencies like that of the hon. Gentleman.

    Footwear Production
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes he expects in the level of boot and shoe production in the last two quarters of this year.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Forecasts of future production of boots and shoes are not available.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that any check in production such as might be occasioned by uncertainties over value added tax might be disastrous in an industry with such a finely balanced

    1237
    economy? Will he therefore ask his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to expedite negotiations between the retailing and manufacturing sides of the industry?
    Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend rightly defines questions relating to VAT as matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will certainly see that he takes notes of what my hon. Friend has said. The industry is in touch with Customs and Excise about its problems with VAT.
    Mr. Heller: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what action the Government are taking to stop imports of footwear, particularly rubber footwear, from Hong Kong, Portugal and Korea? Footwear is coming into the country and being stamped by local manufacturers and sold as being of local manufacture. Is not this a disgrace, and is it not time that action was taken to protect the work force in the industry?
    Mr. Grant: My immediate reaction is that if what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct it sounds like an infringement of the trade description legislation, but I will certainly look into it. On the general question of imports, I have said that we will act quickly and flexibly to provide safeguards for the industry. We are in touch with the industry and are awaiting further information from it.

    Cotton Yarn (Imports)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received regarding the Government proposal to remove the ceiling on cotton yarn imports on 1st January; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Noble: I explained the position in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond) on 21st April. Representatives of the Lancashire textile industry have urged the retention of quotas.
    Mr. Allaun: That is not surprising. Will the Minister ensure that we are not forced to comply with the EEC system of yarn imports, as this direct consequence of joining the Common Market would finish off many of the remaining Lancashire cotton mills?
    Mr. Noble: As I have said before, we shall be discussing these matters with the EEC in the coming months.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be disastrous for the industry and for employment in it if he waits until after 1st January, 1973 to make a decision? It is vital that he now takes the opportunity to use the powers which are available to him to ensure that quotas are retained, and it is important that he says so at an early stage.
    Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir. I said "in the coming months", and I hope to make some progress before January.

    Unit Trusts (Management)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, as a result of his review of company law, he will seek powers to end the practice whereby merchant banks and other financial institutions warehouse lines of stock in unit trusts managed by them.
    Mr. Noble: I take the hon. Member to mean a practice whereby a merchant bank arranges for a unit trust under its control to acquire shares for whose issue the merchant bank is responsible. If the hon. Member has information to show that the practice has been followed to the prejudice of the unit trust, I will consider it.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful for that answer but the right hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point. I am referring to the normal practice whereby merchant banks and other financial institutions can put into a unit trust lines of stock for which they may have subsequent use. Are there not two possibilities for abuse which he may consider: first that there will be an avoidance of disclosure under the 10 per cent. rule; and secondly that serious conflicts of interest can arise in takeover situations whereby stock is voted, not in the interests of ordinary members of the public who subscribe to the unit trusts but in the interests of merchant bankers who control them?
    Mr. Noble: I am in some difficulty in answering this question, not because I do not know the answer, but because the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman has no recognised meaning. Therefore, I had

    1239
    to make the best guess I could about what was behind his Question. As for the point which he put in his supplementary question, I think that in most cases this could not happen because the merchant bank would be acting as principal, and that kind of action would be in breach of the trust deed. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind a particular point and would like to write to me about it, I shall certainly give him a full answer and tell him whether there are actions that we can take.

    Rolls-Royce Limited
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he now expects negotiations over the purchase price of the assets of Rolls-Royce Limited to be completed.
    Mr. Onslow: This issue has now been referred to an independent expert, and I cannot forecast how long the hearings will take or the time which the expert will need to make his award.
    Mr. Whitehead: In the event of a favourable answer to later Questions on the Order Paper in seeking to remove some of the remaining doubts about the future of Rolls-Royce Ltd., may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will grasp the point that many thousands of shareholders and worker shareholders, particularly in Derby, cannot see why this matter should drag on for so long without any apparent indication of when it is to be resolved?
    Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate answers to later Questions on the Paper, but I must say that in this case there is no question other than that very large sums of money are involved. It is clearly right that the determination should be done in the most painstaking way, even though all parties involved are conscious of the need for speed.
    Mr. Rost: Since an initial payment of £30 million has been made, and in view of the delay in negotiations continuing, will my hon. Friend agree to the making of a further interim payment so that creditors at least can have partial distribution from the liquidator?
    Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend will remember that I told him earlier this year
    1240
    that the liquidator hopes to be able to make an interim distribution of at least 10 per cent. this autumn. I cannot take his point about a further interim payment.

    Quiet Jet Aircraft Engine
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government now have for giving financial assistance to the aircraft industry to enable it further to develop a quiet jet aircraft engine.
    Mr. Onslow: The House is already familiar with the support which is at present being given to the RB211 engine. In addition we are negotiating with the industry with a view to giving some support to a programme, based on this engine, aimed at demonstrating some further noise reduction techniques.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that, as he himself has indicated, great strides have already been made in this direction with the RB211 engine? Surely we owe it to the people who live near airports to make funds available to the aircraft industry for the further development of quieter engines.
    Mr. Onslow: I agree that this is a most important matter. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that initial work on the RB211 is aimed at a reduction of 5 EPNdB over the present noise level, which should halve the number of people around airports adversely affected by noise from this aircraft.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that positive discrimination in favour of the manufacturers of quieter engines will be welcomed in many parts of the House?
    Mr. Onslow: The most important thing to do is to encourage operators to buy quiet aircraft.
    Mr. Mason: Since it is recognised that the development of the RB211 and the TriStar are paving the way to quieter aircraft, can the Minister say what technical progress is now being made towards the development of a quieter engine for the aircraft which will be continually in use after the present generation of aircraft, namely, the Concorde?
    Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are devoting great effort to reducing the noise of the

    1241
    prototype engines fitted in Concorde. As he has more than once been told, it is the forecast that Concorde when in service will compare with existing noise levels in long-range jets.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning negotiations with the European Economic Community over trade liberalisation.
    Mr. John Davies: During the accession negotiations last year, agreement was reached on transitional arrangements for our implementation of the Community regulations embodying the common liberalisation lists, consisting of items which are free of quantitative restrictions in all six member States. During this year we are consulted under the interim procedure about proposed additions to the lists.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1971 France, under trade liberalisation agreements, imported not one ounce of cotton yarn from Asia while Britain under her quota arrangements imported £160 million worth of textiles from Asia? Once quotas are off in the EEC, does the Minister intend Britain to use the trade frustration tactics employed on the Continent? If not, how does he intend to prevent 20.000 jobs in the cotton yarn spinning industry from being wiped out?
    Mr. Davies: I am very concerned about the industry in Lancashire. However, it is not helpful simply to make general charges about the administrative and, inferentially, underhand methods used by other countries to avoid imports. If hon. Members have specific examples which they can bring to my attention, I hope they will do so.
    Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to use prospective membership of the Community as a means of encouraging trade liberalisation with the developing countries of UNCTAD?
    Mr. Davies: The generalised preference scheme in which we have been quite the forefront operator is one which we shall seek to pursue, though it will need some major adaptation so that there will
    1242
    be harmony between the acceding countries and the existing six members of the Community. There will have to be adaptation, but the purpose of that liberalisation and all that lies behind it will endure.

    Post-Apollo Programme
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the British Aircraft Corporation on the subject of British participation in the post-Apollo programme.
    Mr. Onslow: The Department is in close touch with the United Kingdom space industry, including the British Aircraft Corporation, on the subject of participation in the post-Apollo programme. The views expressed to us by industry are fully taken into account during discussions with our European partners on the merits of participation.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the most recent discussions with the British Aircraft Corporation, would the Department care to modify in any way the advice it gave to the Prime Minister in answering a Question from me that perhaps high technology was not involved in what is now offered by the Americans?
    Mr. Onslow: I think that advice was correct.
    Mr. Dalyell: No, it was not.
    Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me but I adhere to the view that the advice given was correct and that the differences in technology undoubtedly placed the original work in which we might have had a chance of participating very much higher than that which has been left by the latest American decision.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of North American Rothwell in obtaining a contract for the Orbiter vehicle puts BAC of all the European manufacturers in a supreme position to get an advantageous contract, if only the Government will go ahead?
    Mr. Onslow: I see that the hon. Gentleman has on the Order Paper a later Question on this subject.

    Leather (Imports)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken to protect the British leather industry against unfair foreign competition.
    Mr. Noble: Import duties on most leather from developing countries were suspended at the beginning of 1972 under the UNCTAD generalised system of preferences scheme. The industry has just applied for them to be reimposed on certain imports and I am considering the matter urgently.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind especially imports from South American countries where there are highly protected and developed tanning industries? Will he consider restricting the export of domestic raw hides to 10 per cent. of last year's kill as is done by countries such as West Germany and others?
    Mr. Noble: I met a deputation from the tanning industry a few days ago. I am considering its representations to me. My hon. Friend is correct. The Argentine, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico, Yugoslavia and South Korea have all tended to be restrictive in their leather exports.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman now had from the industry the representations about which he spoke to me, especially in regard to the effect on our domestic manufacturing industry of the importation of dumped goods from Hong Kong?
    Mr. Noble: Yes. I have a certain amount of information, and the formal application was made to me on 24th July.

    Coal (Gasification)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will name the 11 United States companies which are to join in a £2 million experiment in Scotland aimed at developing gas from coal as a substitute for natural gas, a project for which his approval is required.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: My approval is not required for this experiment. I will however circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    1244
    the names of the companies which I understand to be associated with it.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that investments leading to jobs are welcome in job-hungry Scotland. Can he say what rôle the Gas Council plays in this project? Will it have any patent rights, or will it have to depend on the benevolence of the 11 American companies if the project is successful?
    Mr. Boardman: I too welcome the jobs that it provides. The Gas Council has been able to come to this arrangement which involves the use of capacity surplus to its requirements. The Gas Council indirectly will benefit from these experiments. Therefore from all points of view it is welcome.
    Following is the information:
    Arrangements with the Scottish Gas Board and the Gas Council have been made by the Conoco Methanation Company, with whom the following other companies are understood to be associated in the experiment:

    Amax Coal Company

    Cities Service Gas Company

    Colorado Interstate Corporation

    Columbia Gas System Corporation

    Gulf Oil Corporation

    Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America

    Northern Natural Gas Company

    Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company,

    jointly with the Peabody Coal Company

    Rocky Mountain Energy Company

    Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company.

    Industrial Development (London)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of new industrial industries which have been established in the inner London area in the last three years.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: I regret that the information in the form requested is not readily available.
    Mr. Cox: While I take note of that reply, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the deep concern now being expressed throughout London about the continual closure of industries and about the thousands of jobs that we continue to lose. In view of the reply that I was given last week about IDCs, will the hon. Gentleman seek an urgent meeting with the representatives of the 32 London boroughs so that this matter may be discussed with a view to putting forward

    1245
    proposals for the re-establishment of industries in London?
    Mr. Grant: I am always willing to consider requests for discussions. However I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the loss of job opportunities in manufacturing industry in London has been offset by the growth of job opportunities in service industries and in commerce, which is not a state of affairs that the rest of the country enjoys.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has received representations to the effect that greater London should be converted into a special development area?
    Mr. Grant: No, Sir.

    Inflatable Craft (Marine Hazards)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will establish an inquiry into the hazards and accidents at sea involving floating air beds and other inflatable craft; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Onslow: The dangers of using airbeds and unsuitable craft in the sea should be generally well known, particularly to parents of young children, but we are keeping this problem under review to see whether further action is needed.
    Mr. Judd: Quite apart from the dangers to those using these craft, especially to young children, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable danger and inconvenience to the public services involved in rescue operations, in addition to the considerable public expense involved? Would not a thorough inquiry be helpful from every angle?
    Mr. Onslow: I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the rescue services are prepared to put up with considerable danger and inconvenience if it means saving lives. When accidents are caused by articles which are no more than floating toys, I think any sensible parent should see that no child is allowed to drift from the shore in one of them.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As it is possible for the unfortunate victim to travel a great distance and rapidly to become out of earshot and hard to discover, and as the cost of launching air-sea rescue heli-
    1246
    copters under RN or RAF auspices is very high, will the Department examine the possibility of supporting an institution like the American Civil Air Patrol which might be of great value as an auxiliary air-sea rescue service?
    Mr. Onslow: I will look at that suggestion. However it is still my view that prevention is more important than cure. I hope that parents will take my warning very much to heart, especially at this time of year.

    RB211 Engine and TriStar Aircraft
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much noise is made by Lockheed TriStars.
    Mr. Onslow: Under the conditions specified by the United States Federal Aviation Regulations, the noise levels in EPNdB for a Lockheed TriStar are: flyover 98; sideline 95; approach 103.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend say how these figures compare with those for other engines? Will he also consider, further to his reply to my supplementary question on Question No. 17, what action can be taken to encourage airlines to buy aircraft with quieter engines?
    Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend may know that new certification regulations have been introduced which impose limitations on the noise which may he made by aircraft coming forward for registration now. As for my hon. Friend's first point about comparative performances, since it is the aircraft with all its engines which matters, the TriStar is quieter than the average of the present generation of four-engined aircraft—the 707, the DC8 and the VC10—by about 15 EPNdB at end of the three measuring points. Even compared with the average of the much smaller Trident 3B and the BAC 111–500, it is quieter by between 5 and 12 EPNdB at the various measuring points.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As the certification requirements are that an aircraft shall be safe on take-off if one engine fails, will my hon. Friend confirm that a twin-engined aircraft has a higher rate of climb than a three-engined aircraft and, therefore, that the noise on the ground after take-off diminishes more quickly with twin-engined aircraft than with three or four-engined aircraft?
    Mr. Onslow: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is correct about these technical matters. However for comparative purposes the noise of various types compared with the TriStar is as I gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: How do these noise figures compare with the present noise level of the Concorde and that hoped for in the future?
    Mr. Onslow: Noise figures on the Concorde have been given already. If the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) cares to put down a Question, I shall answer it again.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now able to state when the British Airways Board will place an order for TriStar aircraft for British European Airways.
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice the British Airways Board have given to British European Airways concerning the purchase of the Lockheed airbus powered by Rolls-Royce RB211 engines.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he can now announce the Government's decision regarding funding an uprated version of the RB211 engine, as proposed by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the British Airways Board about the purchase of TriStars.
    Mr. Onslow: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace will answer these Questions at the end of Questions.

    Industrial Development Certificates (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial development certificates have been granted in Derbyshire, both in
    1248
    the grey areas and the non-grey areas, since 1st January, 1972.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Between 1st January and 30th June, 1972, 57 in Derbyshire of which 29 were approved outside the intermediate areas.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a certain amount of confusion about the circumstances in which IDCs are given and that there is an underlying uneasiness in Derbyshire that insufficient job opportunities are being given in view of what is happening there? Will my hon. Friend look at the matter with a view to seeing whether the situation can be improved?
    Mr. Grant: I take note of the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Of course, the exact locations of IDCs must be kept confidential. The general picture is much improved since my hon. Friend last asked me about it. Last year the figure was 75, and it shows an encouraging improvement.

    Oil Pipe-line Fracture (Staffordshire)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish his inspector's report on the fracturing of an oil pipe-line at Ashley, Staffordshire, on 7th July; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: The inspector's report is confidential. I am however arranging to let the hon. Member have a copy of a factual statement which is being made available to interested parties.
    Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Genleman aware that this accident revealed a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs in terms of safety? Is he aware, further, that his Department is being too secretive about the hazards of conveying both oil and gas? Will he rethink his position and make the full report of the inspector available to the general public?
    Mr. Boardman: When the hon. Gentleman sees the factual statement that I have undertaken to let him have and when he bears in mind the reply to his Question on 26th July, I believe he will see that the cause of the accident is identified clearly and that it is established that the emergency procedures proved completely

    1249
    satisfactory. I think that answers the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to make.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet come to a conclusion as to the attribution of responsibility in his Department for the safeguarding of consumer interests.
    Mr. John Davies: The allocation of Ministerial responsibilities within my Department is reviewed from time to time, but I have no announcement to make about this at present.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that in the next Session more priority will be given to consumer protection legislation? Is he aware that in the Queen's Speech this year we had an assurance that legislation would be forthcoming? We have not had any. Can we at least look forward to legislation on the Crowther proposals and the Sale of Goods Act next year?
    Mr. Davies: I will give close attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Jay: As it is the Government's present practice to reverse their policies of a year ago, will they now re-estabish the Consumer Council?
    Mr. Davies: No, I have no intention of doing so at present.

    Companies (Returns)
    Mr Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give for the latest and most convenient stated date the number of registered companies which have failed to remit their returns as laid down under the Companies Act; and whether he will classify these in such a way as to show how many of such companies are in arrears with such returns for periods between six months and 12 months, 12 months and 18 months, 18 months and two years and more than two years.
    Mr. Noble: Until the process of computerising these records, which is now under way, is complete, it will not be possible to answer this Question without disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that proves that there
    1250
    must be so many hundreds of these cases that his Department cannot find them without disproportionate time and effort? If that is so, why are these people allowed continually to break the law year after year, whereas when it comes to the dockers within a matter of hours the full majesty of the law is set in train and every action is taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to ensure that the law is enforced against these lawbreakers?
    Mr. Noble: I heard that argument early one morning last week.
    Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will hear it again on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has, as I said then, my sympathy in that this is an enormous problem. It has been building up over the years.
    Mr. Lewis: Do something about it.
    Mr. Noble: We are at present, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, computerising the whole of this information. It will, on the rate being developed at present, take a year to complete. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs but detailed information about ½ million companies cannot be collected in a few minutes—[Interruption.] I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman and to give him the information he seeks. Last year we sent out 130,000 reminders to companies which were, for one reason or another, late. This is a very considerable effort on the part of the staff, and the process will be quicker when it is computerised.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has accidently answered part of the question: he has shown that 100,000 firms are in arrears, or questions would not have been sent to them. He has a statutory obligation to Parliament to give the House information about companies which have not filed their returns. If the information is being computerised, that is a mechanical matter and does not in any way alter the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has the responsibility to keep the House informed about this matter.
    Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I did not give the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) the answer by mistake. I

    1251
    gave it to him on purpose. I said that 130,000 firms had had reminders that they were late. What I cannot do is answer the hon. Gentleman's Question, which covers an enormous range far beyond the number. This could not be done on the information which at present exists. I am trying to improve the situation as fast as is humanly possible. As the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to say, this has been building up over the years.
    Mr. Blaker: Has my right hon. Friend any information about what the position was in this respect in June, 1970?
    Mr. Noble: Approximately the same number of companies and exactly the same action was taken.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), I will try to raise this matter when opposing the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess.

    Bolton
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries for industrial sites and buildings have been passed to the industrial development officer at Bolton by his Department; how many of these have been from United Kingdom firms and how many from overseas since 1st April, 1972.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: In consultation with the industrial development officer, the Department has suggested Bolton in reply to 21 inquiries for factory space, four of which came from overseas.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Was it fair for the delegation from the North-Western Trades Union Congress to issue a statement to the Press after meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talking about gloom over jobs in the North-West?
    Mr. Grant: It is not for me to comment on what statement the deputation made or did not make. All I can say is that the Department and Bolton work extremely well together and there is considerable optimism in my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Pyramid Selling
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of Mr. Justice Megarry's comments in the High Court of Justice that pyramid selling was capable of being operated dishonestly and could amount to swindle of a far-reaching nature, he will, as a matter of urgency, seek powers to make the practice of pyramid selling illegal in Great Britain.
    Mr. Noble: I have taken note of the judgment. It relates to the two companies for which winding-up orders have been made. Any wider implications it may have will require further examination. A study of pyramid selling is in hand and I hope shortly to reach decisions on any further measures that may be necessary to regulate the practice.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the Miniser aware that numbers of people have been and are being swindled out of their life savings by slick operators in this field, that the practice has been made illegal in a number of States in the United States and that Mr. Justice Megarry referred to Koscot operating a scheme which reeked of cunning and fraud and was a swindle of a far-reaching nature? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman speed up matters so that more people are not swindled out of their savings? What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Noble: In this case the Department acted quickly and, I am glad to say, very effectively. There is a large variety of dealings in franchises. The sort that was carried on by Koscot was a particularly bad one. There are variations. They are all being examined. I shall take whatever action is suitable as soon as I can.
    Mr. Lipton: Can we have an assurance that the Minister will not computerise this proposition, otherwise it will take at least a year before anything happens?
    Mr. Noble: I shall deal with it as quickly as possible. I see no need to use a computer for this purpose.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister for Aerospace, to answer Question No. 33.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is aware that there is a great deal of controversy and speculation about the nuclear power industry. Have you had any intimation from the Minister that Question 46 on the nuclear power industry will be answered today?
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no such intimation.
    Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. An item of news has appeared on the front page of the Financial Times indicating that the Minister was going to make a statement to the effect—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Chair. I had asked the Minister for Aerospace to answer Question 33.

RB211 ENGINE AND TRISTAR AIRCRAFT
The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 33, 44, 50 and 51.
I wish to inform the House that two major decisions have been taken on the RB211 programme. First, we have accepted proposals from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. to develop the engine from 42,000 to 45,000 lb. thrust. Rolls-Royce (1971) estimates the development cost to be £31 million. It will meet 25 per cent. of this from working capital. If the development cost should exceed £31 million it will meet 50 per cent. of any increase up to a total project cost of £61 million. The remaining development costs will be met by the Government. Production costs will be met wholly by Rolls-Royce (1971) and arrangements will be made for recovery of the Government's development contribution.
This stretched engine to be known as the RB211–24 will be used in the first instance in an extended range TriStar—the -2—which Lockheed is determined to develop with a view to introduction into service in 1975. Development of the engine, on which some preliminary
1254
work has been done by Rolls-Royce (1971), will start at once because it will take longer than the modification of the airframe. Continuation of this programme will, of course, depend on a final decision by Lockheed to develop the -2 on which they have already started preliminary work and on the conclusion of satisfactory contractual arrangements between Rolls-Royce(1971)and Lockheed.
Secondly, the British Airways Board has decided that the introduction of the TriStar into its fleet best suits its particular commercial requirement. It has therefore decided, provided Lockheed decides to develop the -2, to place an initial order for six TriStar -1s with an option on six more aircraft which might be -1s or -2s. My right hon. Friend has approved this decision which is primarily one for the commercial judgment of the board.
There are possibilities of a European application of the RB211–24 in versions of the A300B Airbus to which the Hawker Siddeley group is already making a substantial private contribution. I have made it clear to the French Minister of Transport and Rolls-Royce (1971) have made it clear to Aerospatiale that we are very willing to consider specific proposals for suitable applications of the RB211. In doing so I explained to M. Galley my view that for the future it will be essential for European countries to develop a more coordinated procurement policy for aircraft and a more integrated manufacturing capability. I have made clear my readiness to enter into discussions of these wider issues at any time with the French and other European Governments.
I believe that these decisions should give a substantial new impetus to the RB211 programme. They will also play a major rôle in securing the future prospects of Rolls-Royce (1971) which we are determined to maintain as a major manufacturer of aircraft engines in its own right and in due course as part of a wider European grouping.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, in particular because I know that BEA hoped that it would be allowed to buy this aircraft and, secondly, because it is powered by Rolls-Royce engines. When does my hon.

1255
Friend expect the -1 engine to come into service, is it the intention, when the -2 engine is in service, that both BEA and BOAC should operate the same aircraft in different versions because of the economic savings that will be had from operating the same airframe on the same aero engines?
Mr. Heseltine: I accept my hon. Friend's view that the decision was based upon the decision of the British Airways Board. It is likely that 1974 is the date for the introduction of the -1. I remind my hon. Friend that future acquisitions must be a commercial decision for the board.
Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be widely welcomed in Derby by Rolls-Royce workers who have had a most anxious and worrying time waiting not only for this decision but the decision of BEA to purchase the TriStar? This order from BEA will go a great deal further and help considerably in the sales of Lockheed, because other airlines have been waiting for BEA to place an order.
Mr. Heseltine: I very much hope that the news will be warmly welcomed by the management and workers of Rolls-Royce wherever they are involved in the production of this engine. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not just in Derby, but in many other centres, that the news will be welcome. Naturally, in their decision to support this programme the Government are aware of the sales implications.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said. It is an excellent statement, from every point of view. Is he able to say a little more about the development of the stretched version? This will not depend, will it, entirely on Lockheed orders being confirmed for the -2 version of the TriStar, but development will go ahead regardless of that?
Mr. Heseltine: The British Airways Board has made its view clear that the decision to order the TriStar -1 is conditional upon Lockheed's going ahead with the -2. It believes that the whole programme should be seen as one, and in the event of Lockheed not deciding to go ahead, although it is that company's
1256
intention to do everything in its power to do so, the British Airways Board will review its position.
Mr. Whitehead: May I add my heartfelt support to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) about the Government and the British Airways Board having come round to share the view of the whole aerospace industry on the merits of the RB211 engine? Has the hon. Gentleman any estimate from Lockheed of the potential sales figures for the -2 stretched version? Secondly, is the sum of £60 million which the hon. Gentleman mentioned a finite sum? Thirdly, does that sum include all the development costs of the adaptation of the -24 engine if this should be used in some form for the A300B aircraft?
Mr. Heseltine: It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government have lately come to support the 211. As he knows, the Government have committed £195 million to the support of the engine, and I should have thought that that was a slight gesture of confidence.
As to future sales, I have seen a number of figures given by the Lockheed Company and one has to take these into account together with any future price which the company may determine on. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Lockheed thought in terms of 220 for the TriStar -1, and now see a substantially higher figure in respect of the -2.
As to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the initial £60 million deals with the initial six aircraft for which a firm order will be placed by the BAB. In the event of its exercising its option for either the -1 or the -2 for six more aircraft, additional sums will be payable.
Air. Haselhurst: Is it fair to infer from my hon. Friend's statement that he understands the consequences of the decision to Hawker Siddeley who have, as my hon. Friend says, contributed a fair amount of private capital to another project? Is it fair to assume that he recognises that, and is prepared to have negotiations to try to mitigate future consequences?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely aware of the consequences of this decision for

1257
Hawker Siddeley, and have had long discussions with Hawker Siddeley and with European colleagues of mine about this decision. That is why I am sure the House will understand my words, which I have carefully chosen in my statement. These make it perfectly clear that I believe there should be on-going discussions with the French and other Governments, which, I believe, should be of an urgent nature, and which should play a part in avoiding this sort of difficulty and conflict in making decisions of this kind in the future.
Mr. Millan: May I also welcome the British Airways Board order which I think is right, particularly as it has been taken on the commercial merits of competing aircraft and not as a result of Government pressure? There seems to be some uncertainty about the development costs of an uprated version of the development engine. The Minister has mentioned figures of £31 million and £61 million: which figure does he think is the likely cost? Further, at the end of his statement the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was the Government's intention to merge Rolls-Royce with the European aeroengine industry. That is a very major statement to be made at the end of an announcement like this. Can he elaborate on it, because if the Government have this in mind we shall have to consider it carefully, and debate it.
Mr. Heseltine: I fully accept the hon. Member's point, and I agree that it was a decision based on the commercial judgment of the British Airways Board. As to his second point about the apparent discrepancy between £31 million and £61 million, Rolls-Royce estimate that to stretch the engine will cost some £31 million and that is a figure with which we are broadly in agreement. It is on that figure that we have agreed to contribute three-quarters of the development cost, expecting Rolls-Royce to find 25 per cent. themselves, but one can never be totally precise about estimates of this kind, as the House will be aware.
I therefore have negotiatetd with Rolls-Royce that if its estimates are wrong there is a very severe financial penalty built into the arrangements, in that the Rolls-Royce contribution rises from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. for the additional overrun expenses up to a figure of £61
1258
million. It would be perfectly fair to ask why we should not continue that on, and I have to say to the House that I am of the view that if for some extraordinary reason one were to reach figures of that sort in my judgment, it would be beyond Rolls-Royce's capability to meet such expenditure. So it is better to anticipate that situation now rather than have a situation of crisis in the case of that extremely unforeseen circumstance arising.
One other thing I would say is that work on the stretched version of the RB211 involves modifications to about 25 per cent. of the existing engine. Therefore, one ought to have better grounds for confidence in the estimates on this occasion than perhaps on other occasions when one is starting a new engine from scratch.
Mr. Rost: Would my hon. Friend agree that the most significant point in his welcome statement is that the order has come after an independent assssment by the airline and the British Airways Board of the technical and commercial potential of this engine and this aircraft? Is not this a most important pointer towards future orders that are likely to come from other airlines?
Mr. Heseltine: I can only repeat my support for the general argument. This was a decision reached by the BAB in its commercial judgment of its own requirements, and it will be for the companies to develop any arguments that flow from that decision.
Perhaps I may now, Mr. Speaker, answer the third part of the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craighton (Mr. Millan) relating to a merger of Rolls-Royce with a European aero-engine group. There should be no reading into my statement of any announcement of such a decision. What we have said is that we believe that there is need for an integrated European aero-engine manufacturing industry and that conversations to this end would be extremely profitable, but it would be unthinkable that such a decision should he taken without the House being made fully aware of the circumstances.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Minister pause before counselling his friends on the BAB to look for an allegedly interchangeable aircraft, as suggested by his

1259
hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson)? Will he reflect on the fact that more than one airline has had reason to rue such an apparently sensible decision.
Mr. Heseltine: I did ask the British Airways Board to carry out a survey for me as to the economic penalties or advantages of operating a mixed fleet, and I have to tell the House that the board advised me that there would be economic penalties if there were to be such a mixed fleet. That is why it felt unable to recommend a mixed fleet of TriStars and A300Bs.
Mr. Benn: While welcoming the Minister's statement, which fully justifies the original decision to go ahead with the RB211, I should like to ask one or two questions. First, why have the Government given support in anticipation of firm orders for the stretched airframe? Second, does the provision for the support he has announced include intramural costs in the gas turbine establishment? Third, will he publish the contract with Rolls-Royce in this case? Fourth, what is the cost of the modification of the A3003 if the engine is put into it? Fifth, will he give an assurance that there will be no forced merger between Rolls-Royce and any European aero-engine company?
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I may deal with the last question first, as to a forced merger. I do not think that there would be any purpose in dealing with a totally hyopthetical situation in the circumstances Certainly there are no proposals which would give grounds for answering any questions about them. All one says is that it would be profitable to have discussions such as I outlined in my statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we should move ahead of firm orders. There is a chicken and egg situation here. If one is to be in the business of selling engines or airframes, at some time someone has to take a firm decision. I think that the directors and management of Lockheed take the view equally with the management of Rolls-Royce that in this case the present level of sales is sufficient to enable a decision to be arrived at on the creation of a family of aircraft which is the normal thing in this industry.
1260
As to intramural costs, to my knowledge, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, the figures I have given include all the costs involved in the development I have mentioned.
As to publication of the contract with Rolls-Royce, it would not be the intention to publish what is strictly a commercial contract negotiated between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed.
As to the cost of modification of the A300B were it to be fitted with the -24, we have seen, as I understand it, a number of propsals but I think that at this point where there is no firm proposal from any British manufacturer there would be no purpose in going on to one alternative. There may be a number of other alternatives, but I think that on this subject profitable discussion could be held.

UGANDA (BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS)
Mr. Richardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent events in Uganda in relation to holders of United Kingdom passports.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): In a speech to troops on the 4th of August, President Amin is reported to have said that he will ask the British Government to take over responsibility for all Asians in Uganda who are holding British passports, because they are sabotaging the economy of the country.
Our High Commissioner in Uganda has asked to see the President to establish the reason for his statement and to obtain an indication of Ugandan intentions. I now understand that he will see the President on 9th August. We have had no official communication from the Uganda Government. I am in touch with other East African Governments concerned.
Mr. Richard: It is, of course, to be hoped that the meeting on 9th August will clarify the position, but will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the action of the Uganda Government is quite extraordinary, precipitate and irresponsible, if the result of it will be the expulsion of what I think have come to be called

1261
British Asians from Uganda within a period of three months? The United Kingdom has a special responsibility for these people since many of them altered their position upon the word of successive British Governments and such difficulties as they now face, whatever else should be said about them, are certainly not of their making.
As a result of this is there perhaps not a special obligation on our part to treat them humanely and sympathetically in the difficulties that have now arisen? Will the Foreign Secretary consider whether there is not a case for having initiative now, in the event that, unhappily the reports over the weekend about the Uganda Government's position proved to be accurate, to call a conference of East African nations concerned in the problem, together with the United Kingdom and India so that the problem may yet be resolved?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his question. He will understand that I cannot make newspaper reports a basis for an answer from this Box. I must wait for President Amin's considered statement. If this action was to be taken, it would be highly irresponsible. We accept a special obligation forthese people who are British passport holders but I would emphasise that there is no other way of dealing with the problem humanely than by the kind of scheme we have, providing an orderly quota arrangement over the years. I can think of no other way. I would consider any necessary meetings on this subject—a conference if need be. It is a little early to be specific about a conference.
Sir D. Renton: These Asians have been well settled in East Africa for a number of generations. Very few of them have ever been to Britain and if they came there would be difficulties in finding homes and jobs for them and in providing educational facilities for their children. Will the Foreign Secretary use his diplomatic skill to save General Amin from a later accusation of blatant racialism?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, these Asians have made Uganda their home. It was precisely for these social reasons stated by my right hon. and learned
1262
Friend that we arranged the quota system, which is pretty generous. It provides for 3,500 passport holders each year with a special arrangement for 1,500 to cover those particularly in need. It is therefore a good arrangement. We shall certainly use all the diplomatic arts to try to get General Amin to alter his mind, supposing he meant what he said.
Mr. Bottomley: These Asians are British citizens and we have a responsibility for them. Did the Foreign Secretary see that the Uganda Foreign Minister is recorded as having said that some might be welcome in Australia and Canada, and has he considered that matter?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should have thought it was for the Australian and Canadian Governments to say on a matter such as that. I have already said that we accept responsibility for those people who are British passport holders, but we must insist that the matter is dealt with in an orderly way.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether General Amin has produced any evidence of what, on the face of it, is an astonishing assertion that these Uganda Asians are in the mass sabotaging the economy of Uganda? Is it not much more probable that they are making a very real contribution to it, and if they are forcibly expelled as a result of any racialist act will not that make Uganda a much less attractive area for international investment and in other ways in the eyes of the world?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, and it the ban is to be proceeded with we, among other countries, would have to review the whole of our economic arrangements with Uganda. Of course, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, it is the usual experience that Asian communities in Africa bring a lot of business to the country concerned.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I recognise the difficulties that clearly confront the Government and the loathsome racialist nature of President Amin's speech. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will support to the full his recognition of the assurances that were given by successive Governments that we will not renege on assurances we have given to these unfortunate people? Will he

1263
also consider an increase in the number of quota vouchers that will be made available—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if these people are faced with the consequences of this evil action?
Will the Foreign Secretary recognise that if he listens to some of his hon. Friends the Government and, indeed, this country might be charged with responsibility for the same sort of situation that occurred before the war when a number of Jewish people might have escaped their eventual plight if the Western countries had responded more quickly to their difficulties?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already said that we accept an obligation for these people. This country can in no way be accused of doing other than giving the most generous treatment to these unfortunate people. It is for us and for the other East African countries concerned, and for India if she will, to convince General Amin that this treatment is inhumane and that he must continue the plan we already have or some variant of it.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Foreign Secretary be very wary of the risk of an absurd demand leading to a less absurd compromise and will he ensure in any negotiations that this outburst does not result in any more Indians from this source coming here as immigrants than otherwise would have come? Will he confirm that many if not most of these people were born in India—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that now they have the same kind of citizenship as they had when they were made subject to the control of the 1962 Act.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would hope today that all sides of the House would conspire not to create any panic amongst these people in Africa or they might well decide to come here in great numbers before we have had a chance to exercise diplomatic pressures on General Amin.
Mr. David Steel: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's reaffirmation of our ultimate responsibility for those who are our citizens. Will he confirm that there are two groups of Asians in Uganda—those who are Uganda citizens and those who are United Kingdom citizens? Will he give figures for the two groups? Is
1264
not a fairer analogy the patrial and the non-patrial status of people in this country, and just as it is unthinkable that we should require non-patrials to leave Britain within three months, it is unthinkable to allow another country to treat them in that way?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are some 57,000 British citizens in Uganda.
Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that a substantial proportion of the Ugandan Asians have already expressed a preference to go to India rather than to come to this country? Does not this underline the importance of the round-table conference, which has already been proposed, and might not that conference also give an opportunity to point out to General Amin the moderate and responsible way in which his neighbours in Kenya have been handling an identical problem in recent times?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, that is why I am in touch with the East African Governments, who have a considerable interest in seeing that this matter is handled in an orderly way. As for the proportion who wish to go to India; I think that I will not get involved in that today: it is a matter of whether the Indian Government will agree to take them.
Mr. Judd: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely plain that if the reports of General Amin's speech are accurate, no hon. Member in any part of the House would be prepared to condone what is the most obscene racialism imaginable? Would he further appreciate that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise that we have special responsibilities to these British citizens? Would he take the first opportunity to consult the Commonwealth as a whole on a possible sane solution to this problem and also take the earliest opportunity to make a full and reassuring statement to the House about the specific ways in which we intend to protect the lives, interests and property of these British citizens?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If this act is carried out, it will be nothing other than a racial action to be condemned. I am certainly willing to make a statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I will not get a report

1265
from the High Commissioner until after the House has risen, but of course I will make a full statement to the House at the earliest possible moment. Whether it will be satisfactory rests elsewhere.
Mr. Deedes: Notwithstanding the latter part of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), does not my right hon. Friend accept that the attitude of the Government of India to this point has not been uncooperative and that it is important that it should remain that way? What action are we taking in that direction?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. We are in touch with the Government of India about this matter. I have no doubt that the interests of the Government of India are exactly the same as our own—that the matter should be handled in an orderly way.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does not this show how unwise the Prime Minister was to welcome the replacement of Milton Obote by a military dictator capable of doing this kind of thing? Although the situation is wholly the result of the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), would he acknowledge that the numbers involved are relatively small in relation to the capacity of this country, and would he recognise our responsibility by enlarging our intake?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else approves or disapproves of a country's choice of Prime Minister or President—we should get into very deep water if we did.
The numbers are comparatively small, but with the size of our immigration programme, this would be a formidable number to take on and it would create the social conditions that some of my hon. Friends described earlier.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Wallace: On a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I trust will be of some general interest to the House.
Twice recently I have attempted to put down Questions on consumer protection,
1266
particularly related to my Motion of 10th May, 1971, carried by the House without a Division. On each occasion my Questions have been rejected by the Table Office on the ground that the subject of consumer protection had been recently raised at Question time. On the last occasion I was shown an extract from HANSARD, dated 18th July last, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) asked a supplementary question about the Government's policy for consumer protection. As a result, I accepted the decision of the Table Office. After some discussion and advice, I reworded my Written Question No. 16 on the Order Paper for today.
However, following a report in today s The Guardian, I noted that the hon. Member for Cathcart had put down Oral Question No. 30 on the very subject on which my original Question had been rejected. I am not imputing inefficiency to the Table Office, or criticising it, and I have often been grateful to it, but on this occasion I should be grateful to receive your advice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this subject. Having considered the advice that I have been given and having had notice of what he intended to say and having heard what he has said, I think that I should be wiser to think the matter over. I should therefore like to consider it and to give guidance on another occasion.
Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could help us. We are in a difficulty with Question Time and it is a difficulty which has gone on for a considerable time. It results from the practice of some Ministers and it has now extended to Members of the Opposition Front Bench. I refer you to a supplementary question when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) sought information from a junior Minister and when you very properly reminded the House that it was Question Time. With respect, it seems to some of us that Ministers should be reminded that it is also answer time.
Some of us have been put into difficulty when we have been genuinely seeking answers because some Ministers—not often and even rarely, but sometimes—avoid giving answers. The result has

1267
been that a number of supplementary questions have had to be put to extract information, as such questions were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley. You have had to tell the House that only questions must be put, but the logic of that must be that Ministers must honestly attempt to answer. The practice of evading questions has given rise to the difficulty. The result has been that a number of supplementary questions have been put and you have justifiably rebuked us, Mr. Speaker.
I acknowledge, of course, that you always protect the rights of backbenchers but I respectfully ask you to consider stating that it is also answer time.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his help. I was not in any way attempting to rebuke the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), but pointing out that it was Question Time and not statement time. The right hon. Member was making a series of statements although it was Question Time—and answer time.

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
4.6 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Second Report and the Fifth Special Report from the Expenditure Committee and of the subsequent evidence reported from the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of that Committee.
I make but one observation, without in any way detracting from any of the observations to be made by any hon. Member, particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), who is the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which made this report. My observation relates simply to time and I make it chiefly to reinforce a view that I know to be already in the mind of my right hon. Friend and about which the Select Committee on Expenditure will be reporting shortly.
This is the third opportunity that the House has had to debate reports from the Select Committee on Expenditure and at the conclusion of the debate there will have been some one and a half days debating those reports, half of that time having been taken up debating old reports of the previous Estimates Committee. The Expenditure Committee will be reporting its views on this state of affairs in due time. In 18 months we have published 10 reports and it would be a happy idea for the future to have more time for our reports and for the timing to be better arranged.
4.7 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I am sure that the whole House will welcome a defence debate in the summer. We usually crowd all our defence debates into the spring and then leave the subject for 11 months of the year. This report is of course from the whole Select Committee on Expenditure, but in fact it is a report of one of its six Sub-Committees, that dealing with defence, of which I have the honour to be Chairman. It was published in February, 1972, just in time for our defence debate, when vigorous comments were made about it.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who serve on the Expenditure Committee feel that their work is of growing importance. I should like to underline what my right hon. Friend the Member

1269
for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has said: we hope that in future when planning their legislation for a Session the Government will see that plenty of time is allowed for discussing these reports. More have recently been published on topical subjects which I know would interest the House.
The substance of the report was evidence taken up to last December. The Committee has sat since the report was published, and I am glad that we are today also considering evidence published since. In that evidence we have found some answers to the problems which we met earlier.
I am most grateful to the members of the Sub-Committee, all of whom have experience of the Services of one kind or another. We are all motivated by the well-being of the Services and wish to see, as I am sure the whole House does, that the large Defence Vote is properly and efficiently administered.
The Sub-Committee's report was unanimous—there was never a suggestion of a vote—and it was unanimously endorsed by the whole Expenditure Committee.
We owe great thanks to the Clerks of the House who have helped us. I should also like to record that since the publication of the report we have obtained the services of Brigadier Kenneth Hunt, who had a most distinguished military career and is now a well-known lecturer and writer on military subjects.
We have found in particular that visits have been most rewarding. Since the report was published the Committee has been to Cyprus, an ordnance factory at Leeds, the R.A.F., at Lyneham and naval establishments and dockyards at Portsmouth. We have also been to the new Headquarters, United Kingdom Land Forces at Wilton, which as far as we could see is cutting out a great deal of administrative detail, to the advantage of the Service. A fortnight ago we paid a most interesting visit to HMS "Fife", when she was on manoeuvres up to the north of the country. We were flown up in an executive jet aircraft to Lossiemouth, where all six of us had to don survival suits because we were to go 100 miles in a helicopter. Fortunately, it did not ditch in the sea. We were winched down to HMS "Fife" which was a novel experience, and spent five hours there.
1270
We saw the firing of missiles, including the Seacat, and then returned to London.
An outstanding factor these days is that the pay and allowances of our troops are absorbing a higher percentage of the Defence Vote than ever—over 50 per cent. No one will quarrel with that. Both rates of pay and terms of service have been brought on to a footing comparable to civilian life. Many more men can live out of barracks, for example, and this is welcomed by all ranks. But the higher percentage taken up by pay and allowances means that there is a smaller percentage to spend on weapons, and all the time weapons are becoming more sophisticated and complicated. Money spent on weapons must be scrutinised even more carefully if the Vote is to remain constant, or even if it is to be an increasing figure as a percentage of the increasing gross national product.
Every hon. Member will agree that the setting up of the Defence Department was a right and forward-looking step. Although the three Services have kept their identity and their tasks are very different, there is much and increasing common ground, particularly in research for modern armaments. We feel that the Committee's task is to keep pushing to find more common ground. This may be over training and courses, for example.
The report covered the first half of an overall survey which we have made of the Services. We are just completing our evidence for the second half, and we hope that this will be published at the end of November. We have only recently received the Minister's comments on our report and recommendations of last February. We realise that it takes him some time to work them out, and we posed certain problems to him, but we hope that the period of five months which the answers have taken can be cut down in future. The comments have been available in the Vote Office only for the past fortnight. If we publish at the end of November, we hope most strongly that we shall receive the Minister's comments on our recommendations before the defence debates next spring.
I should like particularly to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 31, headed "Standardisation", because it concerns not only our defence services but the whole House and the whole

1271
nation. We say in it that we could reduce costs if there were more standardisation of equipment between the NATO allies. We add:
"The Sub-Committee were very concerned about the virtual absence of progress in this direction and questioned the Secretary of State who admitted that 'one of the most disappointing aspects of NATO since 1949 has been the lack of any real advice in the standardisation of weapons.' A certain amount has been achieved but the obstances are formidable and well known. Some countries can afford more sophisticated weapons than others. Different countries have different requirements and tactical assumptions.…The Secretary of State told the Sub-Committee that collaborative projects with more than two or three countries were inclined to break down and that projects such as the multi-rôle combat aircraft, the Jaguar, and the Anglo-French helicopter, which could then be sold to other NATO allies, were the best way. There is, of course, no need to stress the importance of selling British equipment, too, whenever possible."
There is now a very important section of the Defence Department selling British equipment. I recommend to hon. Members a fine exhibition in a hall within the Department of the goods that firms can sell.
I turn to the comments on the various suggestions we made. Our first recommendation was about the existing security classification procedure. We were very grateful for the comments of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, who gave evidence to the Sub-Committee on 9th May. This has helped to clarify the situation. All members of the Committee are conscious that there are matters of vital security which obviously cannot be published, but they feel that knowing what many of them are has enabled them to have a clearer and more valuable view of defence problems. There are now nine hack benchers who have this understanding, and we think that we can play a more valuable part in our debates as a result.
In our report there are asterisks in innumerable places. We thought at the time that perhaps it should have been possible to publish a little more information. We wanted to be certain that nothing was scheduled as classified and secret which was already known and published in foreign journals on defence matters. Nor, too, should classification be a cloak for inefficiency. I do not think for a moment that it is, but there might well
1272
be a temptation. I know that when we write our second report in the next few weeks we shall have the willing co-operation of the Permanent Under-Secretary, who promised to help us to cut down the number of blanks, and possibly to have another turn of phrase. We are most grateful to him for the help we have been given, and for the reply.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those of us who were not on the Sub-Committee might be curious to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as chairman, tried at any time to insist to the Department that something that was starred should not be starred. Would he care to tell the House whether there was any disagreement, and what happened?
Sir H. Harrison: I would not say that there was any disagreement. The matter was more general. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Permanent Under-Secretary gave evidence after we published the report. We feel that we are now much closer together, and that we shall be able to give a better second report, which we hope to publish in November. But I think that my colleagues would agree with me when I say that we felt it right to push this point and ourselves to get the information and get as much of it published as possible, except, of course, that which was critical to the country.
Our second recommendation was that more figures should be available to the Sub-Committee. We are very glad to note the comment that the Minister has reconsidered not only giving a breakdown of expenditure under the 57 headings for the current Estimates year and the year immediately following. In future it will be for four years under the 57 headings. This will be a great help to the Committee, as well as to hon. Members generally and to the country. It will mean that they will be able to look back and see the out-turn. We are also very interested in paragraph C of the observation on the forecast of major approved weapon projects which the Committee is examining. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could take this a little further. We were told in evidence that many projects take 15 years to come to fruition and the expenditure on them has to be decided at intervals. The Committee already realises that it is possible that one could get a

1273
period of perhaps five or six years ahead when this could escalate very much in a few years and then fall off again.
We have recently had the good fortune of hearing evidence from Mr. Rayner, of the Procurement Executive. The Procurement Executive was set up following his excellent report. As a result, far more detailed study and costing, we understand, will be given to this very important side and we trust that the Committee will get these long-range forecasts, not just in a global sum but for the individual projects.
I am sure that I speak for the Committee as a whole when I say that we were most impressed with Mr. Rayner, his outlook, his grasp of essentials and the way that the Procurement Executive has been set up. He realises the importance of both time and money. We were naturally sorry to hear that he will be returning to industry by Christmas.
I turn now to our third recommendation and the comments. My Committee, when visiting Germany, was staggered to find the large amount of time and money spent on the dependants and families of Service men—padres, welfare officers, wives and others have all played an admirable part in this. A very large proportion of the defence budget which the public naturally thought was going on armaments or pay was in fact going on health, education and welfare of ordinary civilians. Whilst we agree that absolute control should not be taken away from the Ministry of Defence, we feel that there should be a greater appreciation of where 5 or 10 or 15 per cent. of the defence Vote is going—that is, on civilian needs. We have subsequently heard that military hospitals are used by National Health patients and it is very debatable whether a full and appropriate charge has been made for them.
We are delighted to see that 12 extra Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens' Families Association nursing sisters have been authorised following our visit to BAOR, and it is reported that they are doing most excellent work.
We found that bus services were not altogether good for those quartered a long way away, and these are being looked at. Also—and this is vital to the troops—the relaying of British televi-
1274
sion services is being looked at. En Cyprus, perhaps because it is so much further away, no one raised with us the lack of television but we found it a real need in Germany.
Next, I turn to recommendation 5. Although I accept the observations and that improvements are being made, there is still a lot of paper work which may be unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister would expand on the sentence about the activities of the newly created Directorate-General of Internal Audit. Our concern here, endorsed by the Commander-in-Chief, RAF, in Germany, was to cut out the needless letter work over small losses going back to the Ministry of Defence. The Commander, British Forces Near East, and the General Officer Commanding, near East Land Forces, both felt that although the amount of paper work at their level was not excessive their powers of write-off should be increased and more particularly that the powers of write-off of commanding officers at a lower level should be raised. By a lower level, they meant lieut.-colonel and wing-commander upwards. The present powers are £35 for theft, fraud and arson and £100 for other cases. Probably a more realistic figure would be £100 or £200, particularly in view of the depreciation of money. We fully admit that a proper system of control is needed, but do not let us waste time on tiny details and miss some of the bigger ones. As we say in our report, having properly qualified accountants is always valuable.
I will say nothing about married quarters in Germany as another member of my Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) is particularly knowledgeable on this point and hopes to catch the eye of the Chair in the debate.
I am concerned about recommendation 8, that more consideration will not be given to the use of helicopters in Germany in substitution for vehicles many of which are now old. I hope that there may be a little reconsideration of this and, coupled with helicopters, possibly the use of hovercraft. We were glad to see that their use was now being considered at Wilton. I should like to know that these have not altogether been abandoned.

1275
Recommendation 9, concerning the question of spare parts, raises what is always a difficult problem. I am glad that the Ministry is fully conscious of this. Computer simulation is being studied but the Ministry must never be satisfied; it must be continually probing around.
In regard to recommendation 10, now that we have one Ministry of Defence we feel that the three Services can combine under one Command Secretary. This has happened in many places and it should also happen in Germany. Even if these are minor difficulties, it could well be under the control of one man, with perhaps a special section for the Royal Air Force, which is so much smaller in numbers.
We are grateful for these observations. If they are carried out, as they may well be, our Services will be more efficient and happier. We are sure that much money as well will be saved. We were most impressed with the fine spirit of all our Services and the men and women in them. They believe that they are doing a first-rate job, as indeed they are. It was gratifying to find recently that when a poll was taken of our civilian population, the majority thought that our Services were very essential and good. Until the world is a far more peaceful place it is on our Services' efficiency and determination that the peace is kept. We are grateful to them.
I should also like to mention all those civilians, apt to be forgotten, who work in one section or another of the Ministry helping to keep our Services efficient. They include civilians in the Ministry of Defence at all levels, the non-industrial and industrial civil servants in the Royal Ordnance factories and dockyards, and the civilians employed in camps and barracks.
The Army today is living under peacetime conditions at home and in Germany —this is not the time to discuss Northern Ireland. However, the Army can quickly mobilise as a fighting force. The more determined it looks, the less likely that is to have to happen.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: It falls to me to have the good fortune to be the first Member of
1276
the House to congratulate the Sub-Committee and its Chairman and the Committee as a whole on what I regard as a special, indeed spectacular and in some ways an epoch-making piece of work. Despite that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee will understand that his report presents the House with the substantial temptation. The report is not very much wider than matters of expenditure but the evidence is. Indeed, the evidence is so wide and the spectrum it covers so diverse that the House would be within its rules of order were it to debate virtually any aspect of defence policy.
There may be hon. Members who will make no complaint about that; there may be some who will take advantage of it. I intend to restrict myself pretty closely to defence costs, but before doing so I want to refer to the other major element in the report—certainly a major element if the Sub-Committee is intending to carry on according to the programme it specifies—namely, the ruling on security classification and the evidence which it is entitled and enabled to publish according to its agreement with the Ministry of Defence.
I hope I do the report justice—I intend to pay it a compliment—when I say that were I to choose a single sentence from it which summarised its attitude I would choose that which appears in paragraph 6 and reads:
"…the sub-Committee are convinced that the Ministry of Defence has nothing to fear from a freer discussion over Defence expenditure and that greater disclosure would lead to more informed debate."
I certainly share that view. I shared that view when I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence but then, as now, I went further. I believe that the Ministry has a great deal to gain from wider and freer discussion and disclosure of such matters. That becomes increasingly evident if we look at this against the realistic background which the Ministry of Defence and the defence establishment are bound to find in the next decade. Whatever Government is in power between now and the early 1980s the defence budget will be under enormous pressure. Personnel and equipment costs will rise. The resources with which to meet those rising costs will grow

1277
increasingly scarce. Not only that, but taxpayers are increasingly likely to expect explanations and justifications of the expenditure which they finance.
The days have permanently gone when people said "If the defence establishment believes that this expenditure is necessary then we will willingly finance it." The defence establishment—and in this context I do not mean the Minister and the serving officers; I mean all those who take some sort of interest in defence matters—has to justify theories, justify and explain our practices, too. Unless that happens the essential support that is needed will not be forthcoming.
That process of explanation and justification has to begin with the Ministry of Defence taking a much more relaxed view about the sort of information it gives out. In that context I say in parenthesis that one part of the report which I regretted, not for its content but for what some people will regard as being its implication is paragraph 17 on page 11. This refers to the very first question the Sub-Committee asked of the first witness. That paragraph could be read to imply that the strategy of flexible response is in part the result of needs to meet a limited budget.
One could perhaps even read into that that it was decided upon as a cheap strategy or a cheaper strategy than the one it superseded. We have to consider the defence budget against the opposite judgment. Wisely in my view, we decided to supersede the doctrine of the trip wire with the doctrine of flexible response. That places an additional financial burden upon us. We have chosen the correct but the expensive defence strategy. Having taken that decision we have an overwhelming obligation to demonstrate its value, to defend, explain and justify it as much as possible. In that belief I go on to add my support of a sentence appearing in paragraph 9 which says:
"…care must be taken to ensure…that as much information as possible is made available to Parliament, so that those decisions can be properly judged."
I am sure that the Committee and the House is grateful that the Ministry of Defence talked to it with such frankness. The main object of this exercise must be to enable the House of Commons to
1278
debate defence matters with some degree of authority. I very much hope that the suggestion which the Chairman of the Sub-Committee has made, that the Ministry is likely to be much more forthcoming about classification of information, turns out to be correct. As I understand the situation, the encouraging session in which the Permanent Under-Secretary made his last appearance before the Committee pre-dates the writing and publication of the Ministry's response to the recommendation.
Therefore, I think that the Ministry's last word on the confidentiality of information is what it produced in a rather hurriedly constructed document a fortnight ago. If this is its last word I regard it as a rather depressing last word. Its spirit is enhrined in that single sentence which no doubt the person who wrote it intended to be a reproach either to the Committee or to others and which says:
"Requests that evidence should not be published are not made without good reason…"
I am sure that the Ministry believes that to be so. I know from my experience that the good reasons of the Ministry of Defence for keeping things to itself are not perhaps reasons which the rest of the population would regard as good. I hope that we may hear something from the Minister about that.
Of course if information has to be taken out of the report because of a genuine security need, no one in his right mind would complain about that. I will express my own reservations about how much the niceties of diplomatic convention should result in necessary information being withheld, and that is certainly indicated in some of the paragraphs. I suspect —again I an open to correction—that there are occasions when it is neither security nor diplomatic convention which has resulted in the deletions—nor the Mini-try trying to cover up its deficiencies. I suspect that it is the Ministry being traditionally over-cautious. We cannot afford that if we are to have informed debate and if as a result we are to take the House and the country with us.
By "with us" I do not necessarily mean agreeing with Government plans but at least having the degree of sympathy which comes for understanding. From that we all have a great deal to learn and to gain. More information in particular on the costs side is clearly essential.

1279
That is why the observation 4(a) by the Ministry, which clearly goes a long way to meet the Committee, is the one which the House must welcome the most. By that I mean the provision of a functional analysis of expenditure under 57 headings over four, or, I suppose, sometimes five years, as they appear in the Public Expenditure White Paper.
While I give that an unqualified welcome, we ought to make it clear —by "we" I mean the House as a whole—that in terms of cost that is only the beginning of the guarantees the House needs. For one thing, four years is only a moment in the life of the defence plan. The report points out that the Jaguar aircraft, not yet in service, is already in such a condition that its replacement, which will not fly until the late 1990s, is already being planned. Against that background, four years of figures is a help but not a substantial help. While I express the gratitude of this side of the House for how far the Ministry has gone in that respect there are other things in which it might well go further.
Sir H. Harrison: That is why I made reference to paragraph C. We would on these longer-term projects, require much more information than is given in this answer and we shall certainly, as a Committee, press for this in future.
Mr. Hattersley: I am delighted to hear it. May I suggest two arguments which I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well, as to why it is especially important that the admirable plan should be carried out. For one thing, the normal constraints on spending which are faced by civil Departments do not bite in the same way on the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry in its evidence frankly admits that PPB techniques are difficult to apply in their purest form to defence spending and that it is impossible to quantify the success of the defence input. We do not know how things would have been different had we spent £50 million more or £500 million less. This places a special obligation upon us to provide and understand what information we can, to provide and obtain information so that the situation which operates with paragraph 41 of the report does not operate again. That paragraph has been so bowdlerised
1280
that it is rendered gibberish. There are only two words about which I express surprise—"increased" and "reduced". It astounds me how those indications of attitude were allowed through by the Ministry of Defence scrutineers. Reporting of this sort is almost intolerable and unacceptable if we are to make our judgments and assess the evidence on that basis.
I hope that when the Sub-Committee turns to the second stage of its work under the extraordinarily important agenda which it has announced in the report it will be able to tell us two basic things. First, I hope that it will give a clear indication of when costs are escalating and, if so, whether they are escalating to such a degree that it feels that there is cause for concern. Secondly, it should be allowed to understand and report to the House the alternative spending options. We cannot see these projects in isolation. Unless the Committee is able to tell us not only what is being done and what might happen in terms of the percentage increase in cost but what could happen as an alternative spending programme, much of the importance of the Committee's work is vitiated.
Those new techniques and relaxed attitudes are essential if the next stage of the Committee's work is to be carried out successfully. The next stage—and I mean no discredit to the present stage—covers some areas of even more dramatic importance than those on which today's report is based. I pick out two on which I particularly want to comment. In the evidence published in the bound volume there is some enormously important information about the relative strengths of the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces. I very much welcome the Sub-Committee's intention to examine those figures in more detail because it means that when the House debates the question of mutual and balanced force reductions, as I hope we shall soon—and three weeks ago I was told by the Minister at Question Time how enthusiastically the Government were pursuing this matter—not only will the information in the report we are debating be at our disposal but we shall have a great deal more information which will ensure that our debates are better informed.
A great deal of nonsense has been talked over the last 10 years about the

1281
relative troop strengths of the Warsaw Pact and NATO Forces. Some of the evidence submitted to the Committee—and not least the memorandum of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)—has helped to clear away some of the misconceptions. We have a great deal further to go if we are to discuss this crucially important topic with information and authority.
Three other items in the published agenda at the end of the report about which something should be said are the Committee's intention to examine the progress on three equipment matters, all of which involve enormous cost; namely, the MRCA project, the cruiser project and the Seawolf/GWS25. All those are not only potentially major items in the defence budget but items which are likely to appear as major elements in the budget at virtually the same moment. There is already a great deal of evidence which suggests that the costs of all three items are beginning to escalate. There are references in the body of the report to escalation in the MRCA costs. I hope that when we debate these matters in the spring next year we shall know a great deal more about the costs than we have known about the costs of other projects which have caused similar difficulty.
May I say in passing that, looking at those three huge items of equipment expenditure, it seems to me inconceivable, desirable though it undoubtedly is, that the Ministry of Defence will essay a major programme of helicopter support for the Harrier force. I am sure that the strategic military arguments for doing that are overwhelming, but I cannot imagine that another major expenditure item on the equipment side will he added to the already escalating and enormous programme.
However, I say to the Minister—and I hope he will be forthcoming on this matter when he replies. If, as we all expect and as some of us fear, there are enormous cost escalations in those three areas, it is in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to give the House and the country some warning rather than present us with an all-too-familiar Ministry of Defence trauma about some apparently sudden increase in costs which makes dramatic defence cuts necessary or
1282
additional budgetary items essential and which places the House in an intolerable position when it must decide whether it votes for cuts or for additional expenditure and what its attitude should be to the future security of Great Britain.
We need to be taken into the Ministry's confidence a great deal earlier than we have been in the past. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give me, the Sub-Committee and in fact, the entire Expenditure Committee specific assurances about four things which must happen.
The Sub-Committee says in paragraph 43 of its report that it intends to make a comprehensive review of the costs and completion dates of the MRCA project. It says that it will monitor those things. Will the Committee be able to tell us the results of the monitoring? Secondly, the Committee says that it wants to look at the review of Seawolf. Will it be allowed to do that? Thirdly, the Committee promised to keep the House informed about escalations, or possible escalations, in the costs of the cruiser programme. That promise appears in paragraphs 51 and 52 of its report, and no doubt the Committee wants to keep it. Will the Ministry allow it to do so?
Fourthly, the Committee talks in paragraph 46 of its report about reporting after monitoring the programmes for the hardening of airfields in Germany. Will it be allowed to report, as it clearly intends to do? May I—for the third time in parenthesis—make a plea about this matter to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is Chairman of the Sub-Committee? I am sure that he is absolutely right to concentrate time and energy on the question of airfield hardening in Germany. However, we often draw a false distinction between the defence needs of airfields in Germany and of airfields in the United Kingdom.
Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to aircraft shelters?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, we are talking about the same thing. We are talking about the criteria of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for the right sort of defence for airfields. I hope that when the Committee considers the question of improvements to airfields in Germany it will consider at the same time—for it is

1283
the same problem—the question of improvements for airfields in Great Britain, because in the same way as airfields on the Continent of Europe need defending, so airfields in the United Kingdom need defending. Their problems are sometimes divided, but they are identical. I hope that the Committee will be allowed to consider both matters simultaneously and that it will report to the House on what it has found.
As I have indicated, those three projects will absorb huge sums of defence expenditure. But the report makes clear that within the defence budget they will have to compete—and I mean compete" in the light of the knowledge that both parties believe in the doctrine of defence costs ceiling—with many other demands, the most important being escalating personnel costs, which, as the report makes clear, take more than 52 per cent. of the entire defence budget. That amount is likely to increase within the total.
There is one area in which my hon. Friends and I are anxious that personnel costs should increase; namely, in the costs of remuneration of the lowest-paid civilian workers in the defence establishment. My hon. Friends and I were horrified to learn at Question Time three weeks ago that there has been no substantial increase in pay in this respect since the agreement which was signed in early June, 1970. There will be no complaint from this side of the House about an escalation in that element of costs.
However, a much more substantial amount, in terms of gross totals, of the personnel budget is bound to go on items of Service expenditure—salaries and other matters—which was greatly increased as a result of the military salary review two years ago. That is not simply money handed over in terms of salary but all those improvements in living standards and the rules governing the living standards of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, which were part of the package of the military salary.
I refer specifically to the removal of the bar on young Servicemen getting married. The Commander-in-Chief of BAOR in answer to question 1148 made the point about two particular difficulties he thought were facing his command, and
1284
the first was the tremendous increase in the dependent population and the second was keeping the single soldier happy. I believe that accommodation is centrally and crucially relevant to both these things, married quarters for one and barracks for the other.
That is why I particularly regretted that the plans for improving barracks, about which we were told in the report, were not submitted to the Committee for reasons about which the Minister may like to tell us they were
"withheld from publication at the request of the Ministry of Defence".
I suspect—I put it no higher than that—that the Ministry of Defence is now taking substantial steps with some urgency to improve barrack accommodation in Germany, and if this is what would have been revealed had those plans been published it seems to me to have been a wilful act of self-inflicted wounding that we should be in the situation where the barrack accommodation may be improved and yet for some reason—I cannot pretend to know what it is—it was thought that those improvements should not be published and should be kept from the House and the country at large.
Good as those improvements may be—I have no information about them—we shall still have a desperate—I think that a not unfair description—quartering situation in Germany—3,000 families in married quarters, 2,000 in private rentings, which the Sub-Committee felt, from many visits to them, to be totally inadequate. I think the word "squalid" was used about some of them and the word "excessive" about virtually all the rents.
I make no party point about this because I think that every time Committees have inquired into married quarters in Germany they have been critical of the Ministry of Defence. I remember that when I occupied the position which the noble Lord now occupies the then Member for Kingston-upon-Thames had some very hard things to say about some of the quarters in Germany and the way we paid for them and our efficiency or otherwise in managing them. It seems to me that an inquiry is necessary into the way we manage our married quarters on the Continent of Europe. What is very clear is that no matter at whom we should aim the responsibility, no matter who is

1285
responsible for what happens at the moment or who was responsible two years ago, some very unsatisfactory things are now going on. It is unsatisfactory that a soldier may be posted to Germany and may not get a married quarter for the entire time he serves in BAOR.
That seems to me particularly important in the light of what is happening now in the British Army of the Rhine and in Northern Ireland. If a soldier is to be taken virtually every year from Germany and sent to live in intolerable conditions in Northern Ireland and to face an intolerable task in Northern Ireland. It seems to me we have a special obligation to make sure that during those times when he expects to be living with his wife and family in a decent married quarter in a situation appropriate to married life it should be the rule that he does so, and not only sometimes the case.
I say again that one may be able to argue that the Ministry of Defence has not over the recent past been very efficient in providing adequate married quarters in Germany. I do not share this view which the Committee advanced that perhaps we should build our own quarters, but I do very strongly take the view that if we are to carry on with this situation—and I see no alternative to it—of a soldier spending perhaps one-quarter of his theoretical German service in Northern Ireland, this places an added obligation on us to get the married quarters situation right in Germany, and I hope the Minister will tell us what real steps he and his colleagues are taking about that.
If one were to point out two parts of the Sub-Committee's report which were most important in the short-term they would be the attention it focussed on the Germany married quarters situation and on standardisation. The Committee is to be deeply congratulated upon doing so.
Standardisation seems to me one of the ways in which we might in the near future be able to obtain some sort of defence rationalisation which would lower defence costs. I do not know what studies are now going on in the Ministry of Defence but I suspect the Ministry is considering some ways in which there could be standardisation throughout Europe and the opportunities which could be used to cut costs. The emphasis which the
1286
Sub-Committee placed on that is all to the good, and also what it said about better aircraft utilisation through standardisation of services available at airfields. It was staggering at least to me to read how the efficiency of the Royal Air Force in Germany could be so improved by simply making sure that airfields were generally usable by one national air force and another. That seemed to me a point of central and crucial importance.
It is because of the importance of that sort of recommendation that I feel particularly strongly that what the Committee does this year or next year should not be hampered by unnecessary restrictions and over-sensitivity about the security implications of what it says.
I would say one other word to the Minister of State. I hope he will accept it in exactly the spirit in which I say it. If he is to allow, as I know he will, his permanent officials to give evidence to the Committee it should be published, and if he and the Secretary of State will give evidence to the Committee and it is published, there are bound, in a report of 400 pages, to be points at which there appear to be marginal contradictions, and sometimes figures of which one may be right and another wrong, and points where there may be marginal political embarrassments caused by a frank answer. I can assure the Minister that we on this side of the House—I think, both sides of the House—while having political differences over defence, would regard it as violating the spirit of such an investigation if we were just to make cheap political points out of such contradictions. We are deeply enthusiastic that more information of the sort which the Committee has placed before us should be given, and we offer the Minister that assurance. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell the House frankly that he intends to be as relaxed as he possibly can be about the provision of information in the future.
4.57 p.m.
Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I have rightly been told to keep my remarks short. I apologise, therefore, that I shall not follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said a great deal with which I agree.

1287
I should, however, like to support the remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), the Chairman of our Sub-Committee, and particularly what he said on rationalisation and standardisation. This point was vividly brought home to the Sub-committee in Germany by the Royal Air Force on the subject of inter-operability. Its aircraft—Harriers, Phantoms, Lightnings—are owned by us and none of our allies, and this means that the only airfields where these aircraft can be serviced, maintained or rearmed are ours, and were there a larger measure of standardisation among our NATO allies in aircraft the overall efficiency would be far greater. This is why we welcomed the introduction of MRCA.
We examined or took evidence about transport aircraft. Although the inter-operability of Hercules and Britannias is a lesser problem one point arose which was a cause of a certain amount of worry. These transport aircraft are scheduled to last throughout the decade, but at the time we shall be faced with their replacement we shall be paying for MRCA as well.
The Sub-Committee was upset by the escalation in cost, the delays, and the failure to interest our NATO allies in the naval surface-to-air missile Seawolf. Rationlisation can cover not only major equipment but minor equipment, training and administration. I have examples to give, but time does not allow me to do so, except for one minor example.
The Sub-Committee was asking about the newly-formed Anzuk brigade group in Singapore, consisting of men from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Committee was told that the British contingent was hiring Australian wireless sets because the frequency bands obtainable on our sets were not the same as those obtainable on the Australian ones. This trouble was only temporary, and I understand that that matter will be put right by a new range of wireless sets. Nevertheless this is an illustration of the necessity for standardisation of arms, ammunition, vehicles and equipment in a mixed force.
Early on in our deliberations we took evidence about the reserves. The reserves can be divided into two parts, the TAVR
1288
—the current name for the old Territorial Army—and the reservists, who are men who have completed their colour service but still have a reserve liability. Both bodies have an operational liability for service in Germany.
Certain points worried us about the reservists. They receive no annual training and no practice call-out. The Sub-Committee wondered, in view of the introduction of modern and sophisticated equipment, how up-to-date these men would be without a period of re-training. In an emergency, no one knows what form the war will take or how hurried the call-out will be. The Sub-Committee was worried on that score. How many reservists will receive their call-out telegrams in time? What percentage will be physically fit? No check on physical fitness is kept. Will the time available be sufficient to get the reservists and the TAVR out to Germany in time?
The TAVR is an extremely efficient, well-trained force. The military authorities in Germany and Cyprus when we were there reported favourably on their standards of training. Many had received training overseas. There are three particular points to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister.
The first concerns the call-out of the TAVR. The impression we gained was that there was no partial call-out for the TAVR; it was all or nothing either at a time of war or at a time of preparation for war. For that reason I was delighted to see that the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is a TAVR formation, was called up for 10 days and is serving in Northern Ireland at the moment. I hope that this will mean that in the future a call-out of the TAVR can be partial and not necessarily total and that "emergency" need not necessarily mean war.
My second point concerns the operational role of the TAVR. In Germany the conventional strength of the British Army depends on the Chieftain tank for its hitting power. There is no Chieftain-armed TAVR regiment. It would be difficult to have one because the Chieftain tank is expensive and the areas in this country where it is possible to train on the Chieftain tank and to fire the main armament are limited. We do not want a regiment, but we do want a reserve of Chieftain-trained crew men.

1289
The only other people on whom we can rely are the few reservists who have been trained on the Chieftain. I suggest to the Minister that there should be established a pool of crew men on the lines of a sponsored unit, trained on existing equipment at the Royal Armoured Corps centre or in the Royal Armoured Corps training regiment.
I make one final plea on behalf of the TAVR and the new infantry type units formed last April. The recruiting is going extremely well but their equipment is not on the same scale as the older units, neither is their scale of permanent staff. I realise that it is no use crying for the moon and that the permanent staff cannot be increased, but at limited expense the mobility of the units could be increased by the provision of a few Land Rovers, which would encourage the men enormously.
I leave the Minister with thoughts of further rationalisation, a sympathetic approach to the TAVR, particularly on call-out, and a further look at the effectiveness of the reserves.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) was perfectly right to draw attention to the need for standardisation of arms and equipment. A large military and financial dividend is to be gained from standardisation. Two attitudes are required; great political pressure from Ministers in Western European Union and NATO to make standardisation, co-operation and harmonisation possible, and infinite pains and patience to fulfil the detail. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) that this is an absolute must for the political leaders of the NATO countries.
I wish to make three points on the general nature of the Committee's proceedings and inquiries. Progress has been made in relation to classified material. It is a precedent that a Committee of the House should be given access to secret material. I agree with the Chairman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that maximum publicity is in
1290
the interests of the Ministry of Defence. Only in this way can intelligent discussion about military matters take place. That is not against the interests of the Ministry of Defence.
It may appear strange to the outsider that the military commanders whom the Committee interviewed, particularly those in Germany, were very frank in discussing security matters. My experience as an Army Minister was that commanding officers and GOCs never held back on matters of ordinary discipline and ordinary goings-on in which the Minister might be nobbled. But in the Ministry of Defence there grows up a barrier between the real needs of public discussion and over-cautious attitudes towards classifier material. The Permanent Secretary's contribution to our requirement of maximum publicity was helpful. I am sure that the Committee will go on to make still further progress in this.
My mind goes back to what I have always thought of as the Ferranti scandal of 1963–64, when the Government of the day were seriously damaged by certain revelations. Had a more reasonable attitude been taken earlier by Ministers and by the Ministry of Defence much of the scandal and damage to the Government would have been avoided. It is in Ministers' own interests that they should take note of these points.
My second general comment is that it is not always realised by witnesses who appear before the Expenditure Committee that the nature of its inquiries is constructive. It is not setting out to save money at all costs but seeking to make the best use of expenditure for the good of the Department and of the country at large. I sometimes feel that if witnesses understood this attitude, they would give rather better evidence to the Committee. I do not intend this as a criticism of Service commanders who in their evidence showed a complete understanding of the nature of the Committee's task.
My third general comment is that the civilian view of military matters is often very helpful to military commanders. The civilian looks at problems from a different angle, and perhaps from a wider social experience than that possessed by the military commander. A civilian is often able to make constructive suggestions

1291
which are helpful to Parliament, Government and the people who run the Services.
I turn to deal with some of the recommendations. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook about married quarters and barracks. This point is dealt with by recommendations (6) and (7) of the Committee's report in paragraph 25. The private hirings in BAOR often are expensive and are situated at a great distance from the centre of activity of the regiment, such as the NAAFI, the club, swimming pool, the gymnasium, which are too far away for young wives, who often do not have motor cars, to take their children to regularly.
I was rather disappointed at the Secretary of State's reply on the provision of buses, and I feel that this calls for a rather more forthright attitude. I cannot understand how "little local difficulties" should be allowed to prevent a complete coverage of those areas where married quarters are away from the centres of unit and regimental activity. One caravan site at Bruggen proved to be an absolute scandal, and I believe it has now been closed. There may be other places like that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the need for better management of married quarters and of the services connected with them.
In my days in the Army Department there was a drive to see that detailed estate management matters were put on the best possible footing, with a proper provision of caretakers and information about how to run married quarters. For example, in some very new married quarters at Aldershot excellent gas and electric central heating systems were installed, but families had little idea how to get the most economic use from them. A little bit of assistance to prime families about these pieces of apparatus would go a long way to cut fuel bills and make families much more content.
Difficulties are often experienced by young married Service wives when they are with their husbands in a foreign country since the wives often have no knowledge of the local language, no experience of life abroad, and little experience of how to bring up families. The young woman who marries the
1292
typical soldier or airman is very young and defenceless in a foreign land and there is a particular need to look after the interests of these young people who may experience difficulties in a foreign country with which they would adequately deal if they were living in a council estate in England. I should like to see better estate management, plus a rather more aggressive attitude in providing welfare facilities in a broad way.
I wish to dissent from the Committee in putting particular stress on the English television service in Germany. This is a very expensive exercise, and I would rather see the money spent on various amenities, such as the provision of swimming pools, better transport facilities and even in the organisation of holidays and excursions. I would put greater emphasis on the learning of a foreign language and providing more social facilities. Some are provided by NAAFI, but the Services themselves need to provide them in a more bountiful and efficient way.
In regard to recommendation (3) relating to defence expenditure on social services, the Secretary of State was right to say:
"The standard of these services is of the highest concern to servicemen…"
It is an open question whether these services are better to be provided from the Ministry of Defence budget rather than in some other form of budget. The Ministry of Defence properly takes the attitude "It is better for us to look after our own facilities." I feel that it would help the Committee and parliamentary discussion generally if these costs were isolated.
Dame Joan Vickers: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boyden: I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) agrees with me. If this expenditure were isolated, we could then more easily see what was being spent and could press for action if we thought that the expenditure was not adequate.
I am convinced that the cost of providing military salaries and these social services must rise. I deplore the view that is to be found in some Western European Union countries that social expenditure on conscripts is a somewhat

1293
doubtful bargain. In other words, the conscript is a cheap soldier, and this appears to be a basic factor in military expenditure. In Britain we now have a proper military salary and we treat the ordinary serviceman in a proper manner. Since we have a voluntary service scheme, we can only maintain the strength of our Services by concentrating on the topics with which I have been dealing. I very much hope that the Minister of State will say something constructive in his reply about extending the services provided in married quarters and improving the social amenities which are so vital in terms of the key figure in recruiting for the army—namely, the young wife of the soldier.
More must be done in the provision of barracks. In my days in the Ministry of Defence there was some argument about whether soldiers wanted single rooms. It was my impression that unless more was done in providing single rooms in barracks, it could be argued that soldiers did not want these facilities. I gather that there has been some improvement in this direction and I hope that the amenities provided in BAOR for single soldiers will continue to improve.
I turn to another important aspect of Service life, the provision of education. The Service family is particularly vulnerable in this respect since of necessity the family moves around the world. One advantage of a child moving around with his parents is that he has a certain social confidence. I was always surprised when I met Service children to find how easily they stood on their own feet, how friendly they were and how well versed they were in social contacts. But there is no question that there is a decidely negative side to the fact that children have to move around the world, and this is reflected in a loss of educational attainment. These children are sometimes not up to standard in terms of the three R's or GCE requirements and tend to drop behind. In my days I tried to get the Department of Education and Science to apply the Plowden Rules to the local education authority schools which were responsible for a large number of Service children. I was not very satisfied with the enthusiasm that the Department of Education and Science showed for this. I hope that there has been some progress. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say that there has
1294
been a move forward in those areas where the Army certainly is at risk because teachers change very rapidly, because there are very large numbers of Service children and because the general education of younger children especially is disrupted seriously by their constant movement.
Where the Services have complete control, as they do in the Service schools and the apprentice colleges for recruits, the education is first-class. In many cases it is superior to LEA education. This is partly because there is a higher pupil-teacher ratio and because some of the teachers are paid better. If any Minister in the Department of Education and Science tries to fudge off the fact that the pupil-teacher ratio is significant, he or she should look at Service schools. It is because of this fundamental and rather expensive fact that education in the schools controlled by the Services is so good. I do not criticise that. I criticise those LEA areas where because of local difficulties, especially that of movement, the standard of education is not what it should be.
The needs of these social services for the Services arise out of the nature of the Services and are nothing to do with feather-bedding the Service man. One of the aims of this House always should be to see that Service men are in no worse position than their civilian equivalents. It is because of this that I am very pleased with the way in which the Committee has stressed a number of points, with a view to improving the social conditions. The one about the increase in the number of SSAFA sisters was quickly taken up by the Ministry of Defence. But the Ministry of Defence should look at the whole range of social facilities constantly.
Mr. Patrick Wall: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman about social services, may I remind him that the Services exist to fight? They fight with weapons. The more that we spend on social services, the less money we have for weapons. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that all three Services are becoming dangerously deficient in modern weapons? How do we reconcile this contradiction?
Mr. Boyden: Perhaps I might repeat what I was often told by the Army. It is

1295
that the key to the soldier's good morale and contentment is his wife. Admittedly, sailors used to tell me that they were not so much concerned with the comfort of their quarters so long as they had good weapons. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can play that one as well.
With a voluntary Army and the difficulties that Service men have to put up with it would be very difficult for Service commanders or the Ministry of Defence to spend too much money in this way. Naturally, the Committee and the Ministry will always look at the cost. But if I am asked whether we should have an English television service in BAOR or spend the money on more active social welfare, I shall go for the latter. It is a fundamental dilemma which worries the WEU members of NATO, but it is one in which I hope the Ministry of Defence will be on the side of the angels by ensuring that the British Service man in terms of both pay and social facilities is never inferior to his civilian equivalent. The Ministry of Defence has a network of civilian advisory authorities and committees. In discussing these matters in a broad, informed way, this House is more likely to reinforce my view than the opposite.
5.25 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I agree that it is tempting to regard this as a wide defence debate. I intend to resist the temptation, except perhaps to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about our troops. He made a point about the big proportion of the Vote which is now spent on pay, allowances and social benefits. Of course our troops earn every penny that they are paid, especially those at present serving in Ulster.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the need for the greater availability of information. Will the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) agree that a positive security vetting for Members of Parliament would be a useful preliminary before the wide disclosure of this information by the Ministry?
Mr. Hattersley: It is easy for the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and me to
1296
agree about this since, in our different ways, both of us have been through it. I do not regard it as an indignity. But some hon. Members might, and, while I do not share their views, understandably. I think.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am interested to have that comment.
I wish to make only two points. The first concerns that section of the report which deals with financial planning and control. In the Ministry of Defence there is too much emphasis upon preparations, albeit inadequate ones, for fighting wars rather than on the prevention of wars. One recognises, of course, that the two functions cannot be separated entirely and that the deterrent forces are essentially a part of the prevention of war. Nevertheless, the balance between quality and quantity is too much towards quality and not sufficiently towards quantity.
Enormous complications arise from weapons and equipment being designed for use in conditions of full-scale war, which is not what we are likely to face. The Ministry of Defence has a splendid "staff requirements" system. Each department is circulated, and each adds its own little bit of perfectionism: the end result is a very complicated piece of equipment.
One example is the difficulty about the Harrier in the maritime rôle. It has been flying now for 10 years. But it is still doing trials. According to the latest information, it is now doing "Project Definition". All this adds up to gobbledygook for not spending money, rather than getting on with it and buying some. We do not need to discover all over again whether the Harrier can fly from the decks of ships. We know that it can. Many countries, including the United States, are buying them with that idea in mind.
Another example concerns the new through-deck cruisers. They, too, are now doing project definition. Largely because of the delays, the cost is now estimated at £50 million. I do not like to think what it will be at the end of the decade when we get one or two of these ships.
In the context of quantity versus quality, the action taken to scrap HMS "Eagle" was quite wrong. I was told

1297
about a recent signal—I believe that it was unclassified—from the enthusiasts at present ripping the "Eagle" apart. It ran:
"We have now got out her heart and kidneys. We are going on to do a little transplant."
In that connection, what might be termed a Freudian slip is to be found in one passage of the evidence given to the Sub-Committee. The discussion concerned the "Eagle" and the "Ark Royal". In answer to Question 1186 the Sub-Committee was told:
"Perhaps I should add the reduction of HMS 'Ark Royal' was repeatedly urged on the Ministry of Defence by SACLANT."
I am sure that the word should be "retention", not "reduction". I hope that the appropriate alteration will be made.
Mr. Wall: May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that SACLANT also wanted to retain "Eagle"?
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
A different overall control is needed to purge the constipation of the Ministry of Defence's system.
Instead of immensely sophisticated through-deck cruisers, we need much cheaper ships on merchant ship hulls—more ships for the money, more up-to-date, better living conditions, and quite adequate for peacekeeping purposes.
I believe that in each generation some unrecognised battle is fought which sets the pattern for the future, but that nobody realises at the time that this is the pattern for the future. In this generation it was at Cuba in 1962 when President Kennedy had enough information to get on the Hot Line and stop World War III because he had adequate seaborne reconnaissance facilities available to him. After all, missiles can start wars or can continue wars, but they cannot readily and directly prevent wars, whereas surveillance aircraft can do so.
Finally, on this aspect, it is much easier for us politicians to obtain the willing compliance of the taxpayer to spend money on defence if it is for the prevention of war rather than buying what the taxpayer sees as immensely complicated equipment just to keep up with the
1298
Joneses in the armaments race between Super-Powers.
My second point concerns chapter V of the report—the Royal Navy nuclear strategic forces and the general purpose combat forces.
Much of the report is taken up with a comparison between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. The mass of statistics are concerned almost entirely with Europe, with the relative size of divisions, with relative tank strengths, and so forth.
I believe that the Expenditure Committee and the Government have their hands firmly buried in the sands of Europe. I am unhappy that, despite all that was said about East of Suez at the 1970 General Election, the Government show so little concern about the protection of overseas trade. We seem to have followed the late Government's obsession with Europe and to have forgotten the point that defence of the trade is the most fundamental task of the Royal Navy. This has been true through the centuries, but it was never more true than today, when we are faced with about 400 Soviet U-boats distributed world wide.
On page 383, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), in his very interesting memorandum which is, again, rather preoccupied with Europe, makes a comparison of naval forces and gives the total of Warsaw Pact submarines as 202. The true figure is much nearer 400. I should like to discuss with the hon. Gentleman at a convenient time whether those figures are correct, because I do not think that they are. What sticks in my mind is the statistic that one brand-new nuclear submarine is being delivered to the Soviet Navy every month.
For trade protection we need seaborne aircraft in some shape or form, because shore bases are obviously no longer available. Another Freudian slip appears on page 176. Question No. 1187 states:
…"commitments now to NATO as our bases round the world have contributed to such a great extent".
They have contributed, and I can only agree! But what I think that the shorthand was meant was—
"have contracted to such a great extent"
To get down to brass tacks, I am glad that the Expenditure Committee in its

1299
future deliberations is to look at the question of cruisers. I am not sure whether it means through-deck cruisers or existing cruisers being converted, because "Blake" and "Tiger" are monstrosities, as the Committee will find.
To sum up on this question, we must get away from our obsession with European waters. We must have shipborne aircraft. New ships must be built to carry them. We must have VSTOL aircraft. I will not tease my hon. Friend any more about Harriers. A conventional ship such as "Blake" or "Tiger" has a range of 10 miles effectively and, therefore, 'an effective area of surveillance or influence of 300 square miles. A ship with a VSTOL capability with aircraft which can fly over and see for themselves can control an area of about 120,000 square miles—400 times as great.
Finally on the question of the Navy, the report says in paragraph 52 that
"the nuclear Fleet submarines 'will certainly come to represent the Navy's primary surface strike weapon'".
I put it to the Minister and to the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee that these submarines, valuable though they are, are not effective for trade protection. They are the wrong weapon for trade protection. They are the wrong weapon for conventional war. They can fight wars, but they cannot perform either of these two functions which I have argued are the most important ones.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: The Committee members and the civil servants concerned are to be warmly congratulated on their 27 sittings and on the bulky report which emanated from them.
I have the feeling that somewhere within this vast Ministry, with its annual expenditure of £2,854 million, there is brewing another Ferranti-type case, that kind of scandal where an armament manufacturer is double charging several million pounds of its costs. Somewhere in the Ministry, too, there may be weapons which will turn out to cost £100 million and not the £2½ million originally estimated, as happened in the production —or, rather, the non-production—of certain other weapons. This shrewd scrutiny by the Committee will one day bring facts of this kind to light.
1300
Among the eight subjects listed for future investigation or continuing monitoring there are two of great importance

"(3) The relative strengths of the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.

(4) The multi-rôle combat aircraft."

Even more important, however, is the question which needs to be broached: why should Britain spend a higher proportion of her gross national product on arms than any other country in Western Europe, with the single exception of Portugal which is deeply involved in its colonial wars in Africa?
Last month the Labour Party issued its 50,000-word policy statement. It is remarkable that one of the most vital sections in this statement—that on cuts in military spending—received no mention at all in most newspapers. Perhaps this was because they disliked the idea and tried to bury it. The attention given to cutting a few million pounds off the cost of the Health Service—for example, by imposing prescription charges—should be contrasted with an almost complete silence on defence cuts, where we could effect vast savings.
The question posed—I hope that it will be considered by the Expenditure Committee in future—is: why is Britain spending 5·7 per cent. of her gross national product on arms as against an average of 4·2 per cent. for the other West European NATO Governments? I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the Labour statement. It says:
"The defence spending of Britain's European NATO allies indicates that we are still carrying a disproportionate amount of the cost in Western Europe…If British defence spending were cut to 4·2 per cent. of the GNP there would be a saving in the order of £600 million".
and in saying that the Labour Party Executive was quoting the noble Lord in a statement that he made in reply to a Question on 25th November of last year. That was his estimate, which I am sure was right.
It continues:
"A Labour Government in the 1970s should seek to reduce our defence spending to bring us into line with the existing burden carried by our European allies, a burden which itself might be reduced if the European security talks were successful. The success with which we are able to pursue a policy of defence disarmament will depend very much on our

1301
success in achieving significant progress in the various discussions as part of the negotiations during and in parallel with the European Security Conference."
I believe that that would allow a huge sum each year to be spent on other and better things. I am confident that that proposal will be upheld overwhelmingly this autumn by the Labour Party Conference and will figure in the next election programme of our party.
I should like witnesses at future sessions of the Sub-Committee to answer such questions as, "What is the purpose of this colossal expenditure? Is it to defeat or to deter the Russian forces? What is the evidence that Russia wishes to invade Britain or Western Europe? Did you accept the view of the Labour Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in his White Papers that there was no likelihood of that taking place?"
A lot more will be heard about this matter of a reducing our proportion of the GNP spent on arms, and therefore one question which I should like to see handled by the Committee is, "In what ways could a reduction of £600 million a year be affected in defence spending phased over, say, three years?"
I suspect that the Government intend to move in the opposite direction for, apart from this year's large increase—the biggest ever in military expenditure in a single year in peacetime—the report says that there will be joint demands towards the end of this decade—a concatenation of them—for the MRCA, for the cruiser programme—at least £50 million each—and for the Sea Wolf plus, possibly, the conversion of Polaris submarines to Poseidon. That is one hell of a concatenation, and I very much doubt whether all those four things are possible and practicable without bursting the budget altogether.
I could suggest several ways of saving £600 million a year—though not if one is involved in all those things—which I should like the Committee, the Minister and, indeed, the House itself, to consider. First, there is £330 million a year spent on military research and development. This is exactly 10 times the amount of Government spending on medical research. Surely, whether the investigations were reported or kept confidential, there
1302
should be a detailed examination by the Committee of where all that research and development money is going.
Secondly, there is the vast spending on the MRCA. There are varying estimates, but I think that it will be in the region of about £1,000 million before the planes are paid for. Thirdly, a major item in spending is the BAOR. Direct spending amounts to £263 million a year, so goodness knows what the indirect spending comes to. Fourthly, there is the size of the Ministry of Defence itself. The report tells us that 52 per cent. of its spending is on personnel. There are 364,000 men and women in uniform, plus 344,000 non-uniformed employees, mainly in the ROFs. In addition, there are those engaged on war work in commercial companies such as Vickers. They must be paid decent wages, with much higher pay for some, most definitely for industrial employees, but I believe that their numbers should be reduced and many of them transferred to civilian work.
That brings me to the other major issues which I urge that the Committee should consider. The Ministry should prepare plans for this switch which would avoid causing unemployment. It can be done, and there are a number of reasons for saying so. First, there have been two high-powered examinations of the subject, one by the United Nations under the chairmanship of Professor Brown of Leeds University and the other by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and they both came to the conclusion that it could be done.
Secondly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In 1945 9 million men and women who had been in the Armed Forces or in arms factories were switched to civilian employment within nine months without causing unemployment, Surely this smaller switch from a large to a small arms programme can be done far more easily without causing unemployment.
The number of Service men and armament workers involved would be tiny compared with the numbers made redundant in the cotton industry—300,000 in the last 10 years—in the coal mines—about 450,000—or the railways or the steel industry, without much unemployment, at least until a year ago when there were other causes for it.

1303
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has constantly shown, the same amount of money spent on R and D for civilian purposes produces far more employment than is produced by a similar amount spent for military purposes.
One other question into which I should welcome close investigation is the link between high-ranking officers and civil servants who leave the Ministry of Defence and take positions with firms supplying that Department. According to a written reply which I received from the noble Lord last month, no fewer than 105 Service officers and nine senior civil servants at two-star level and above in the Ministry of Defence have joined firms with contractual relationships with the Ministry in the last five years.
I agree that in many cases everything is above board, but I think that the situation could pave the way for corruption. In America it has reached scandalous proportions. One firm alone, General Dynamics, has 186 former high-ranking officers on its staff. Those who leave the Ministry—and this applies in America as in Britain—still have friends in the Ministry. There is also a possible source of corruption in having men in the Ministry awarding profitable contracts to firms which they intend to join later.
The report deals with the relative strength of NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces. At this time, when most British Members of Parliament, certainly on this side of the House, are hoping that the European Security Conference will lead to mutual and balanced force reductions, the more valuable question was that asked by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which asked
"What possible reductions, withdrawals, disengagements or methods of control might be acceptable to both sides, so that neither side felt significantly less secure than it does now?"
The report is reprinted in the document with which we are dealing today, but it is not dealt with in evidence. I urge that the talent, thought and time of the Committee and the Ministry be now devoted to this question.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. David Walder: I will not follow the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).Perhaps it
1304
would be best to say that though on politics and defence matters we sometimes agree, on this occasion we disagree flatly.
Turning to the Select Committee's recommendation on security, one is in the dilemma outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said that the report is closely confined whereas the evidence extends over a very wide sphere of defence activities.
One finds in the report particular interest in welfare. I welcome the 12 Ssaffa sisters. There can hardly be an hon. Member who has not at some time had reason to be grateful for their services to constituents. At the same time we have always realised that there is a tremendous need for more of these excellent women carrying out this task. The provision of bus services is another constant problem that exercises an hon. Member on behalf of his constituents, and we have all had letters about school buses.
One aspect that may have been missed out is the provision of transport for married families to centres for medical attention. Many of these families, certainly in BAOR, are a considerable distance from regimental and unit headquarters, and an especially difficult problem is presented at weekends. Married families see all round them highly sophisticated Services and a mechanised Army, and they must sometimes contrast that fact with the lack of perhaps even one bus to take them for what might be minor medical attention over the weekend.
I am not trying to be difficult when I say that I would not argue very strongly for the provision of television for Service families in BAOR. It is significant that one does not get requests for this service when one visits forces further afield than Europe, perhaps because they realise that such provision would cost even more. But if, for instance, at considerable cost, we provided, by some form of relay, television programmes to British Service families in Germany, there could be the danger that it would contribute to cutting them off from the surrounding population and perhaps remove any inducement for them to learn a foreign language. I therefore do not argue so much for using that money for television services: I would sooner see it devoted to other welfare services referred to in the report.

1305
I am glad that one section refers to the single soldier and airman. I know perfectly well that at present Servicemen marry young, and we all know that they have considerable families, but, as a consequence, we sometimes forget that there is still Kipling's "single man in barracks", and forget the lack of facilities for those men. I was struck in, I think, Berlin by the rather old-fashioned barracks. They would have formed an excellent backdrop for a film of a "Good Soldier Schweik" sort of character, but to my mind they did not provide the sort of accommodation that should be provided in 1972.
I turn from particular points to my general observations; and first to the question of security. I do not think that the OFFICIAL REPORT should be without what I consider to be the gem of the report. The passage I refer to is in page xix, and is related to the multi-rôle combat aircraft. It reads:
"The Sub-Committee were informed that increased costs were a matter of *** to *** per cent. The original contingency allowance was about *** and it has now been reduced to ***. Unit production cost is estimated at *** at 1970 prices but if research and development costs are taken into account it rises to ***. The heaviest expenditure will come between 1977 and 1984, when it should be between *** and *** a year at 1970 prices, or *** per cent. of the whole defence budget."
We read in the next paragraph that the Ministry of Defence
"…have expressed great confidence in this project."
I should have thought that those figures could be provided, not necessarily by reference to foreign journals but by most students of defence matters. I wonder whether any great harm would have been done if the figures had been included? To take an extreme point of view, let us consider the position of our well-known rivals, and possible opponents, the Ruritanians. Can one imagine Colonel Sapt, in the Ruritanian War Office, looking at this report and saying, "My God, those fools the British! We have them at last. They have included the percentages." We live in a deterrence world, a world of SALT negotiations and possible agreements. Might not this sort of what I can only describe as bogus secrecy be pointless or, even worse, counter-productive?
1306
Another point is that this report is a public document. Many of us including, I know, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) would like to see, as the hon. Gentleman himself said in his recent book, more public interest in defence matters, and many of us would like to see greater public participation in discussion. I wonder whether, faced with a document with these strategically placed blanks, the ordinary member of the public would be encouraged even to discuss such matters?
The report only sees the light of day because it is concerned with money rather than with defence. I do not want to arouse the ire of the hon. Member for Salford, East—we must spend within our means—but I sometimes have an uneasy feeling that perhaps in Britain we have not moved from our position in Nelson's time, when frigates, I seem to remember, were curiously armed, not for ballistic reasons but on grounds of governmental meanness. At that time ship captains were paid by the "rate," that is to say, the number of guns on the ship, and if a ship was properly armed the captain had to be paid more.
We have over the years tended to concentrate on the financial approach to the Services. We do that here because I notice further back in the report reference to the Sub-Committee not discussing general matters of defence policy because it is said that those matters are discussed in the House, not for very long periods in each year may I say.
There would be some advantage if we moved away a little from purely monetary considerations. I do not want to go so far as to endeavour to make us all back-bench strategists, because there are dangers in that as well, but we might look upon this report, valuable as it is, as the beginning of a move towards not only better discussion of defence matters in the House but outside. At the same time we might also see the advantage of explaining better to the public the tasks and the purposes of our Armed Forces and also, of course, the possibility of attracting potential entrants.
I hope I have not offended the members of the Committee who spent long hours and considerable energy in compiling the report. I also hope that in those matters I have raised I have also touched upon

1307
matters which, perhaps during their sitting and afterwards, were irritants as well as subjects of concern to them also.
6.0 p.m.
Dr. David Owen: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr David Walder) has concentrated on what I believe to be the central issue before the House. We are debating, as is tradition on Select Committee Reports, with very little party political feeling and it is a chance for the House as whole to express its view on a matter of considerable concern—how we exercise our democratic rights and, in particular, how the House exercises its democratic control over the Forces of the Crown. It is therefore right that on both sides of the House there have been strong expressions of view that we simply must tackle the problem of secrecy and that we must be given far greater detailed information than we have ever been given before. I made my opinion quite clear in an article in the New Scientist recently entitled
"Is Secrecy the Enemy of Defence?"
In my view it is.
I pay tribute to the fact that the only reasons why we are able to conduct this debate is that the Government saw fit to implement a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure and to give the House a Defence Committee which many people have championed and argued in favour of for decades. It is a significant advance. I hope the Minister will be more forthcoming on the whole question of the first recommendation on secrecy than he could be of necessity in the somewhat hurried manner of the official answer. That answer was a civil servant's answer. The choice before the House is a political one. There are the obvious arguments that when in government it is somewhat embarrassing to release more factual information. But the Defence Committee was set up because the present Government committed themselves to it when in opposition. Oppositions have always asked for more information and even the most arrogant Conservatives must accept that the day will come when they will be in Opposition again and I hope therefore that the Government will be far more forthcoming.
This issue is a matter of central importance to the Armed Forces. Going around
1308
the country visiting people in all three Services one is able to see that one of the things that upsets them most is that they do not feel that over the years the House has even had anywhere near enough basic information and understanding about the problems of defence. Frankly, many of them are contemptuous of the way we discuss their affairs and many senior officers want us to be more probing and critical. They accept that a more informed House of Commons may be embarrassing and may make decisions they do not like. but they feel that it would improve the whole position of the Services and the quality of debate. This. therefore, is an issue on which we must push the Government. Anyone who has read the evidence of 9th May when Sir James Dunnett, the Permanent Secretary, came before the Committee will feel that the Ministry has taken on board many of the criticisms. Sir James is a very distinguished civil servant and he will have considered the questions raised in the Committee's report and hon. Members will appreciate that. But more important was the understanding he showed in replying to questions on the advantages to the Ministry of Defence of more information being revealed.
The Committee's mandate is quite clearly to look at policy and it is not limited in any way to narrow accountancy and expenditure. It was central to the way the Committee was set up that it should look at forward expenditure, and it cannot do that in respect of a period five or 10 years hence without looking at policy. I hope in future work that the Committee will look outside the Ministry of Defence and call in those outside experts from this country and from other parts. We would not he serving the interests of the House if we confined debate to matters served up by serving officers and civil servants.
The key question is of the real quantity of resources absorbed by military expenditure, the real cost of this expenditure, whether rising or falling. Real cost must take account of the quantity of civil output which has been forgone. There is a great deal in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that we must look at the whole question of the percentage of GNP devoted to defence not just by this country but by our European allies.

1309
There is no doubt that over the next decade there will be increasing pressure on this country to spend approximately equivalent amounts of money as our competitors in the economic markets of the world, and particular those within the Common Market. The economies of countries which are moving towards monetary union, for instance, cannot possibly withstand very marked discrepancies in the percentages spent on defence.
I therefore concede the importance of my hon. Friend's argument. But to use a simple percentage of GNP as a way of looking at overall defence expenditure is very misleading. SIPRI has come up with a formula for calculating defence expenditure at constant prices. Taking 1960 prices and taking account of 1960 exchange rates and looking at the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and France, for example, it reveals some striking facts. For instance the United Kingdom expenditure' between 1950 and 1970, expressed in these constant prices, rose by 1·3 per cent., whereas in the Federal Republic over the same 20-year period it rose by 5·8 per cent. and in France by 42 per cent. So the impression many people in this country have that it is only we who spend money on defence amongst our European allies is false. In the last four years Britain has reduced its defence expenditure, a decision which I support, whereas the Federal Republic has substantially increased it. We need to look at comparable figures and this is where recommendation (3) is important. For instance, if other countries do not put social expenditure into their defence, we must make allowance for that when we compare GNP figures.
Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend referred to a certain increase in respect of Germany, United Kingdom and French figures. What were the absolute levels for the same years?
Dr. Owen: In 1972, expressed on that same constant price formula, the United Kingdom was spending 4,707 million dollars, Federal Republic 4,643 million dollars and France 4,725 million dollars. I have been trying to examine the trends over the 20-year period. If we consider current prices and current exchange rates for 1970 we find a not dissimilar picture of United Kingdom spending at 5,850 million dollars, the Federal Republic
1310
6,188 million dollars and France 6,014 million dollars. These are SIPRI figures. I often invoke SIPRI for other things and I think that my hon. Friends do the same. SIPRI has shown a more realistic assessment for example of the military balance in Europe. When economic figures are considered, we cannot just dismiss them as inconvenient.
If a country has conscription, it pays its conscripts far less than it pays volunteer forces. That, too, needs to be offset when making comparisons. This was the aim of recommendation (3). We have large forces establishments in Germany and the defence budget therefore carries a higher percentage of the health and education costs that would normally be borne on the internal budget in this country which in other countries are borne on the internal budget.
It is extraordinary that the Ministry of Defence should hide this question, because it must be in its interests that we should debate comparative costs that are true and factual. If the Minister says that these costs are borne on the defence budgets of other countries that will weaken the argument somewhat, but it does not weaken the basic argument that we are bound to pay more because our troops are stationed abroad and are therefore not a charge on the internal economy.
In my view, mutual balanced force reductions are the only hope of making substantial reductions in personnel costs. I draw the attention of the House to the evidence of the Secretary of State on 21st December, 1971, when, speaking of personnel costs, he said:
"In the last few years our own figures have gone up from 46 per cent. to about 52 per cent. of the budget…".
Personnel costs are now a very large section of defence costs. If we are to reduce the defence budget, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East wishes, we have to face that it is not just equipment costs that will have to be cut. Some part of the cut will have to come from personnel cuts.
My hon. Friend and I may differ about how to get it, but we will not get a substantial reduction in defence costs unless we get mutual balanced force reductions. On page xi of its report the Committee drew attention to the relative strengths of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and said

1311
that this question was of crucial importance. It said:
"More detailed information is essential to any judgment of the effectiveness of British defence spending and the financial implications of MBFR",
and the Committee said that it would return to this subject.
In submitting Appendix No. 37 I tried to stimulate debate on comparative force levels. Here I come to a letter that the Minister of State for Defence wrote to me on 23rd March. I am somewhat inhibited because I am not able to reveal the memorandum that the Government made available to the Committee on apparent force levels. However, I have long been championing the view that the Government are less than honest with the country as a whole in what they say about the balance of forces. They consistently refer to a 3:1 divisional ratio or, most commonly in their advertising and in Army recruit posters, the 2:1 ratio on the central front.
I have said that the figure of 2:1 could not be justified on the basis of the figures that the Government have given the Committee, but the Minister's reply was that he did not mean the force levels existing now so much as those levels on M+8, and M+8 would mean nothing to the majority of people reading an Army recruitment advertisement. It does not appear even in small type in advertisements and it now has to be explained that it means either eight days after hostilities have commenced or eight days prior to hostilities commencing, being the decision of the Warsaw Pact countries to mobilise.
That means giving them an eight-day advantage on mobilisation, but it seems to be less than honest with the House of Commons to use the 2:1 ratio. Even on M+8 the total manpower ratio is 1·85:1 Warsaw Pact superiority over NATO. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that if we struck a balance, for example, between NATO on M-day and the Pact on M+10, only 10 days later, giving the Warsaw Pact countries 10 days, the ratios would go up to a total manpower of 2·07:1.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I shall not dispute the matter with the hon. Gentleman now, because the Committee will be discussing this
1312
matter at future meetings as has been announced, but I think that he will agree that NATO, as a purely defensive organisation, is geared to defend Western Europe against a potential aggressor and it is not unreasonable that in making one's calculations one should assume that a potential aggressor would have the initiative in mobilisation.
Dr. Owen: I understand the assumption. All I am saying is that if such a fundamental assumption is to be made, its basis should be explained. All I am saying is that the game of figures can be played in any way one likes, but what we badly need are more facts and, if I may say so, more openness by the Government in dealing with the facts.
If over the next year or two we are to have the informed discussion that the country will need, because I am absolutely certain that there will be American troop reductions in Europe and serious pressures on the military budget, we shall need to be able to make decisions on the basis of the facts. If it is reasonable to make these assumptions, the country and the House of Commons should be aware of the basis on which they are being made.
The Warsaw Pact countries could probably equally argue that their pact was a defensive association. There is a danger that we do not sufficiently often put ourselves in the other's position, particularly when considering the sort of discussions which would be the basis of MBFR. One of the advantages of the SALT negotiations was the frankness between the two super-powers about their nuclear arsenals when they began to reveal to each other basic information, most of which was already known to the two super-Powers. This takes us back to the whole subject of secrecy. Most of this information is fully known to the military commanders of the various Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union. We are far too sparing with our information.
I should like to refer again to the old question of nuclear-powered submarines, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will not be surprised if I return to it, because it is a hobbyhorse of mine. However, the only way in which to get change is continually to blast away.

1313
I look with amazement at the way in which this country's naval defence forces are arranged. I draw attention to the evidence of the Flag Officer (Submarines) writing in "Jane's Fighting Ships". He drew attention to the fact that the present building rate of nuclear-powered submarines in the Soviet Union was approximately one submarine every five weeks. The figures given by the Under-Secretary in the same edition of "Jane's Fighting Ships" show that there appears to be a Soviet submarine fleet of some 400 boats of which about one-quarter, or nearly 100, are nuclear-powered while by 1980, although the total number will diminish somewhat, more than half will be nuclear-powered. We are watching a veritable explosion in the impact of nuclear-powered submarines in the Soviet fleet.
What do the Government do? They shift the defence budget of the Navy in favour of surface ships by practically every decision that is taken. They have delayed the previous emphasis on underwater research spending and they have accepted projects such as the Exocet surface-to-surface guided weapon for surface ships, they have kept the "Ark Royal", they have pushed ahead with the cruiser and they have agreed to go ahead with a new helicopter-launched guided missile.
All these are at the expense of putting money into the one urgent necessity, which is a submarine-launched guided weapon missile. More emphasis should be placed on this than on any other single item of military equipment for the Army, the Navy or the Royal Air Force. Evidence given to the Committee makes it perfectly clear that it will not be until 1980 that this country will have a chance of having such an advanced weapon system. It is vitally necessary that this is brought forward by every day possible. We need a conscious decision radically to change the priorities of the Navy.
The Royal Navy is still living in an age at least two decades out of date. This is tragic because we are the only European NATO Power able to build nuclear-powered submarines. All the other European NATO navies can build surface ships, but we are the only European NATO country able to build nuclear-powered submarines. The Dutch Navy has not been allowed to build nuclear-powered submarines, does not have the
1314
know-how and has not been given authorisation by the United States. Ours is the only navy that can decide to build more.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): I rise on a point of correction, a matter of precision more than anything else. The French have both the capacity and the know-how to build nuclear-powered submarines and are doing so, and they remain a NATO Power even if they are not in the military command.
Dr. Owen: The Government bring France into NATO whenever they want. When I was arguing earlier about mutual balanced force reductions I said what an advantage it would be if the French five divisions were added to the balance of forces in Europe. The Minister of State would not have them included if we were not also adding the Hungarian forces. The Government must make up their mind whether France is or is not in NATO. I should like France to be a complete member, but I hope the Government will not play it one way when it is convenient to them and the other way when it is not. Even France anyhow recognises the importance of building up its nuclear submarine fleet.
I leave the subject there. Any hon. Member who wants to know the powerful, compelling case why nuclear-powered submarines should be built at the expense of the cruiser, of aircraft carriers and of surface ships has only to read in "Jane's Fighting Ships" the article by Vice-Admiral Sir John Roxburgh. The case has also been made out innumerable times before in the House by myself.
I wish to draw attention to another important expenditure implication which has come up through the Committee's work. We are approaching the end of the 1970s with major expenditure on three items of equipment which gives the Government very little room for manœoeuvre in their defence budget. The first is the MRCA, which peaks in 1976, 1977 and 1978, as is brought out in the report. The next is the cruiser, the cost of which, we have already heard, has gone up over £50 million and is going up all the time. It is not possible to build just one. We shall have to build a minimum of three, and again the expenditure is peaking at exactly the same time, at the end of the 1970s.

1315
The third item is the nuclear submarine, and the whole question of the build rate. The Secretary of State for Defence said in evidence to the Committee that we could make the change to building more nuclear-powered submarines, but he was very dubious whether it could be done within the present defence budgets. He totally excluded any possibility of doing anything about updating the nuclear deterrent. He said that it was impossible to do anything about the four Polaris submarines within the present defence budget. Yet in oral answers to Questions last month we heard that the Government are embarked on a review of the implications of the strategic arms limitations agreement, rather implying that they are looking at the whole question of Polaris. It is early to be making a decision on the updating of Polaris, if we have to make that decision. It is not necessary until at least 1975, and it could be argued that the SALT negotiations have postponed that further.
But the House will have to face the fact that this is an important expenditure option. The decision whether or not to take it is up to the House and the Government of the day. But it has important expenditure implications, and the costs would again fall towards the end of the 1970s. Therefore, on expenditure items of equipment alone we shall not have enough room within the present defence budget to pursue all the different policies that the Government are committed to.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for interrupting him, but seven or eight other hon. Members want to take part in the debate and he has already been speaking for over 20 minutes. There must be a little tolerance in these matters, and I hope that he will not go on too long.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make only two more points. But as there is a marked discrepancy between the number of hon. Members speaking from both sides, think that rather more tolerance should be given to this side.
Ministers should look at the Seawolf project very carefully. The clear evidence to the Committee was that the project
1316
has escalated in cost on every occasion. Though the figures cannot be given to the House, we can say that hon. Members on both sides feel concern about the project, and we are not convinced that it has been examined closely enough. We may well have to put up with the rather more inferior service that we would get from Sea Dart rather than to continue just with Seawolf. No doubt the trouble is that the Services naturally always want the best, but the Government must choose.
I turn finally to the question of the industrial work force, an important part of the defence budget and of our responsibilities in the House. When we questioned the Chief Executive of Dockyards, Mr. Norfolk, the Committee felt that the previous Government had been right to civilianise the dockyards. When we questioned Mr. Rayner, who came in to run the Procurement Executive, the Committee felt that the Government were right to bring in people from outside industry to give an impulse and direction to both those major areas which hitherto was decidedly lacking.
It is extraordinary that there can be a productivity bargain within four naval dockyards when the productivity bonus, as revealed in evidence to the Committee on 25th April, is fixed not by the Defence Department, not by the Navy Department or even the Chief Executive of Dockyards, but by the Civil Service Department. It should be paid for out of savings made within the four dockyards, and not be subject to overall Civil Service control.
I hope that the Minister will consider also abolishing the distinction between industrials and non-industrials, a matter which came up in the Navy dockyards and the Royal Ordnance factories. The Committee, I believe, was convinced that there were now overwhelming arguments to follow up the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board in 1967 to have one class throughout the industrial Civil Service and abolish this distinction.
There is a tendency in the House to believe that we can have shortened debates and shortened Questions, and it is time the House realised that a penalty is paid for shortening debate and Questions. The penalty is not to be able to subject the Executive to scrutiny. I do not speak very often, but I should be

1317
prepared to speak a little less often to subject the Executive to greater scrutiny. I am beginning to wonder about the way in which we order debates and Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When I interrupted the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), he referred to a disparity between the numbers of hon. Members on either side who wanted to speak. On the time already taken according to my calculations, the Opposition have spoken for 85 minutes in four speeches and the Government side for 54 minutes in four speeches.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who has now left the Chamber, asked why we spend so much of our gross national product on defence. The simple answer is that we in Britain must be strong, because if we are weak we invite trouble from the Russians. I think I carry many of my hon. Friends with me when I say that I would rather see a greater defence expenditure than a smaller one.
Our Report was submitted to the Secretary of State five months ago, and we have now had some comments on our recommendations. The Department has made some helpful observations in some respects, but I am less than happy about one or two of them. I shall confine myself to two, turning first to recommendation (3), the allocation of the social services to defence expenditure.
Education alone in Germany costs us about £8 million for the dependants of our Service men. Health and all the other social services are over and above that. The cost of defence in this country is always being subjected to questioning. The public and Parliament take our defence expenditure to be the defence cost ceiling. In fact that is not so. If Service personnel and their families were civilians in the United Kingdom, the expenditure for education and looking after their health would all fall on the local rates or the National Health Service. Therefore, it is not right that this expenditure should be borne on the defence budget. No one is suggesting taking away the functions or the supervision or the provision of these services from the Defence Ministry. What
1318
I am suggesting is that it is right to recharge the appropriate Votes to other Departments so that we can retain in full view our net defence expenditure.
I want to refer now to Question No. 2077 of our Report. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Litchfield and Tamworth (Major General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) quoted the education bill for Germany alone as £8 million. This was not queried by the Secretary of State. In the next Question I went on to elaborate. The Secretary of State replied:
"I feel happier knowing I am responsible for what happens to the dependants of the Services abroad, and I think we do it fairly well."
With great respect to the Secretary of State, I point out that no one is trying to take away anything from him. All we are trying to do in our recommendation is to suggest that the cost of these services should not fall on the defence Vote. The answer we have had so far is an unsatisfactory bromide. It is an answer from one Civil Service Department to another. I hope that today my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will not pick this up and say "It does not really matter", because in absolute terms it does matter if he wants to convince us that we should spend more money on defence and not merely more money on the tail.
If we take the figure of £8 million for education alone and add the costs of the social services in Cyprus and elsewhere, at least another £2 million a year, we reach a total of £10 million. Is the Secretary of State saying that this does not mean very much in terms of his defence budget? Would he not like to see another 10 medium-lift helicopters, which cost about £1 million each? Would he not like another half dozen Harriers, which would come to about £10 million? I suggest that if he would not, the Service chiefs would. This would be an opportunity to secure a genuine increase in the defence Vote without putting any more cost on the Department.
I turn now to the question of the write-off powers. The answer given in the observations of the Department is very helpful. The new Directorate-General of Internal Audit is a step in the right direction. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the subject is, however, too important just to be left there and

1319
that he will suggest to the Directorate-General that there are lessons to be learnt from commerce showing that occasionally one can spend far too much money on checking small amounts whereas if one let them go one would overall save a substantial amount of money. A spot check is far more important than having a fixed rule and saying that everything up to, for example, £100 must be dealt with by a lieutenant-colonel and everything over that amount by a brigadier. It can be a most expensive way of doing it. It is worth asking industry to give some of its best examples to my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will see that the Directorate-General is able to say in 12 or 18 months' time in some sort of report how far it has gone in fulfilling the things we have asked for.
The subject of this debate is one in which all those who serve on the Expenditure Committee have a great interest. Many right hon. and hon. Members would have liked considerably more time to have been allocated to it. It is a pity that we have to have a curtailed debate. I therefore add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in saying that it really is not good enough—this is not addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State but perhaps through him to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that the Expenditure Committee, or whichever of its Sub-Committees it might be, is allocated casually a half day here and a half day there, part of which is taken up by the presentation of petitions and the like. We ought to know that we are going to have a fixed allocation and when we are to have it. The Department could then give replies at sensible times and we could then have sensible debates, much more on the lines of a constructive democracy, such as the Americans have on defence matters, instead of being treated as the laughingstock of the democratic world, with it being said "You can debate your report when the Government can find you half a day at the end of the Session, two days before the House rises".
I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, that this will not be acceptable to the Expenditure Committee in future. I do not believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends on
1320
the Expenditure Committee feel that they are doing their job properly if they are to be shuffled off like this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some assurances on the points that have been made.
6.37 p.m.
Lieut. Colonel Colin Mitchell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me. Contrary to popular belief, the fastest game in the world is not "pass-the-parcel" in a Belfast pub but keeping within the time limit for a defence debate from the back benches on this side of the House.
I was not a member of the Expenditure Committee. I think that its report is wide-ranging but to me it is somewhat disquieting. Although the Sub-Committee says that its primary rôle—set out in paragraph 18—is to point out the financial implications of existing defence policies and not to comment on the merits of defence strategy, a large part of the evidence it has submitted is indeed comment on the merits of defence strategy. These are political issues which are debated and decided on the Floor of the House of Commons. We have not had enough debate and decision on the strategic issues. I sense, although I may be wrong, that there was a feeling of concern in the Committee that the whole question of Europe's future defence policy was now in the balance.
All the initiatives like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the mutual and balanced force reduction proposals and detente seem to me to be engendering a situation where American forces in Europe might or might not withdraw by 1980 but certainly will reduce in size. I am sorry to read that the Secretary of State for Defence avoided discussion of political implications when he was examined by the Sub-Committee. At paragraph 2087, in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Secretary of State said he hoped that American withdrawal from Europe
"will for ever remain a hypothetical question. …"
I am sure he believes that not in the least. He may have felt that the problem of American withdrawal, allied to the German demand to be a nuclear Power and Anglo-French nuclear co-operation, in this context is something too difficult

1321
to answer. I feel that in that sense the Committee may not have been doing its job properly when questioning him because it could not have pressed hard enough for these answers.
The need for a European strategic nuclear force for the 1980s is the most vital issue facing defence planners at the moment and the discussion recorded in the Expenditure Committee's Report is to my mind unsatisfactory on that great issue. Anglo-French nuclear co-operation is not inevitably going to be the outcome of our joining the European Economic Community and we all know that France's curious attitude poses very tricky problems. But the fact remains that Europe, which is not a political reality and cannot therefore be a military reality, will be faced with a situation where the strategy of flexible response and forward defence becomes so political in the context of an American withdrawal that there will be a need for ourselves and other NATO countries to increase conventional force levels.
That brings me straight into the report and into the argument and the one point I wish to make. Military manpower thus considered raises the question either of the reintroduction of conscription into this country or an expansion of the all-Regular volunteer Army. The Secretary of State admitted in paragraph 2112 that
"in the present circumstances the Army is too small.…"
If the Secretary of State for Defence has said, and he said it last year, that in the present circumstances the Army is too small, what are we doing about it? The situation has got much worse since he gave his evidence. We have already seen that Ulster is causing "overstretch". If the needs of the Army come first, as again the Secretary of State said in that paragraph, our figure of 170,000 soldiers by 1973 as planned is not enough. Perhaps we should be aiming at an all-Regular Army of 200,000 by that date. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State could give us a reply on that when he replies.
We have had discussion on both sides of the House, sensibly balanced, on the question of the proportion of the budget which goes on personnel, which we say now stands at something like 52 per cent. according to paragraph 31 of the report. I am surprised that the Sub-Committee
1322
did not go to the trouble of calling the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence because in a speech he made at the RUSI printed in its latest Journal it will be noted that Professor Bondi said that although it appears that something like 50 per cent. of the budget goes on manpower, if the indirect costs such as housing in Germany, etc., are added, the true figure for manpower is two-thirds of our budget. The Soviets spend only one-third, so our balance for equipment spending is proportionately smaller.
Mention of the Chief Scientific Adviser raises the old point that we must not let our defence discussions go back to politicians, academics and intellectuals. We have very high-powered civil servants paid high salaries. The CSA is employed in the Ministry of Defence. The evidence of such persons is absolutely vital. Just a Lord Zuckerman made such a great contribution to defence matters, so the present CSA has this ability and the Committee was wrong in not using it.
The form of a European nuclear strategic force is something which the Sub-Committee affirmed depended on the Polaris force of four submarines, but I was sorry to see that the French SNLE equivalent force was not mentioned. We are led to believe that it will be ready by 1975 but, like our system, it will provide only one submarine on constant patrol. We all know that by 1980—and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) spoke with great sense when he mentioned the submarine planning—the systems which these submarine fleets will use will be beginning to be outdated. A new generation of strategic nuclear weapons in ballistic missile submarines will be needed. If these are to be in operation by the 1980s, and I would have thought that they would have to be, surely the agreement to proceed with this has to be taken by 1975, which is only in 18 month's time.
At paragraph 49 the report examines the Polaris nuclear strategic force and asks questions of Admiral Leach. It discusses the possible conversion to Poseidon very fully. I was disappointed that the Committee did not press for views on the acquisition of ULMS—the underwater long-range missile system -which the United States is developing as the successor to Poseidon in the mid-1980s. As is known the great advantage

1323
of that missile is that it keeps the submarines much closer to their own shore, it has longer range and it would tie in completely with the lip service to standarisation which paragraph 31 of the report so amply explans.
In conclusion I would say that the Sub-Committee, even if we are critical, has obviously done valuable work in posing problems for the Government. Defence policy is at a crossroads because of the new European set-up. The American assurance is declining and European co-operation is not yet evident. It is pointless if the Government regard this Report as something which they can carry along until the next defence debate, whenever that may come.
All we know now is that national security in the years ahead depends on boldness and foresight in today's urgent policies. This report as I read it is not a plea for weakness but the basis for more expenditure and stronger forces. I trust that the Government will see to it that we get them.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) becomes too eloquent about submarine missiles may I remind him that we have here a time problem. He advocates submarine missiles. This is for the period 1977–84, the period of the through-deck cruiser costing £60 million, the period of Sea Wolf, of MRCA, perhaps of Sea Dart and a good deal more weaponry. I say to him, not in any carping spirit, that after making that kind of speech I expect that in his more reflective moments he will be the first to agree that some fairly hard talking will have to be done to the Treasury.
If anything comes out of the report of the Sub-Committee it is that certain decisions will have to be made very soon about priorities in expenditure, because it is inconceivable that any Government will accept all priorities; it is financially impossible. I should have thought that the best way of using our time was to speak about priorities and perhaps set markers as to what priorities we think ought to be made because they will have to be made very soon.
1324
Before I go any further I should like to refer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). This is something that behoves us all. What has happened? There has been a great deal of hard work and sweat. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and his colleagues have worked jolly hard. All of this work has been put in and yet in our candid moments must we not say that much of the evidence was taken over 12 months ago? Much of it by its very nature in this kind of subject becomes stale.
What happens is that the fag end of a Session, as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) said, partly because of pressure which we know was put on the Government's business managers by the right hon. Member for Taunton, the hon. and gallant Member for Eye and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) at last we get the crumb of a debate. This is no way for the House of Commons to set about examining these huge amounts of expenditure. This is not the first time it has happened. The very same thing took place on the massive report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with the defence research establishments. We were discussing evidence that was 2½ years old by the time it came to the House. This is absolutely absurd because in the military sphere things are very fast-moving, circumstances change, and if there is to be any scrutiny at all we have to have far greater immediacy in our debates.
I look forward to the report of the Expenditure Committee which I believe is to be published tomorrow. I see that the right hon. Member for Taunton confirms that. This is a report which will set out some guidance as to how we conduct our business in this area. I hope that, even if it means that a number of reports are taken late at night, and if there is to be no vote there is no overwhelming objection to this, a time limit will be set of say six weeks or two months after publication of a report for discussion by the House.
In the same breath I would also say that the Department ought also to understand that it should have a time limit for producing its comments on these reports. While a measure of courtesy is acceptable I must say I think that the Department

1325
has produced a comment on the report of the sub-Committee which is an insult to the House. It is lightweight, it has been spatchcocked in a hurry and it is no kind of answer to the hard work done by Members of Parliament. It is all very well for the Minister of State to sit there with a smile on his face, a somewhat watery smile if I may say so—
Lord Balniel: I was not smiling at all.
Mr. Dalyell: I interpreted it as a watery smile. This may be our fault, because if Whitehall thinks that it can get away with it why should it not go on doing this? If we are to be serious about scrutiny we must first of all put our own house in order and secondly do something about the time-scale in which these debates take place.
Having made that remark about Whitehall I must go on to say that anybody who has constituency problems in defence matters must praise the Ministry of Defence for the trouble that it takes with personal cases. I may quarrel with it on procurement matters but on personal cases, when we go to it in connection with the housing problems or service problems of our constituents, we get nothing but the most detailed and humane treatment. I praise the people in the Ministry for the infinite trouble that they take with personal cases. There is a great contrast between the behaviour of the Ministry on procurement matters and its behaviour on personal matters, in respect of which we get the very best treatment.
The first detailed point that I wish to raise concerns the MRCA. The issue of secrecy has been well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. The hon. Member for The High Peak jokingly read out paragraph 41 of the report, leaving in all the blanks. I was not a member of the Committee and I am not privy to secret documents. I am under no kind of obligation that I know of in respect of giving figures, so I will give my rendering of the paragraph in full. In my opinion it should read:
"In oral examination, witnesses from MoD were questioned about costs and contingency allowances. The sub-committee were informed that increased costs were a matter of * * * to * * * per cent."
My guess is that it should be 25 per cent. to 30 per cent.
1326
"The original contingency allowance was about * * * and it has now been reduced to * * *."
My figures would be 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. I suspect that that would be a pretty unwise guess, but nevertheless I make it.
"Unit production cost is estimated at * * * at 1970 prices"
I would there insert "£2½1 million"
"but if research and development costs are taken into account it rises to * * *."
There, I insert "£4 million".
"The heaviest expenditure will come between 1977 and 1984, when it should be between * * * and * * * a year at 1970 prices, or * * * per cent. of the whole defence budget."
That is a misleading statement in itself. What it does not tell us is the number of units ordered. The whole form of the MRCA becomes extremely egregious when one realises that the original estimates were based on 1,000 units at a time when the Italians and the Luftwaffe were going to order and therefore bring down the overheads.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the hon. Member that the hon. Member who formerly represented The High Peak is now the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder).
Mr. Dalyell: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a previous incarnation the hon. Member represented The High Peak.
I hope that in the winding-up speech we shall be told something about the basis on which orders are now being made. Anybody who moves around the industry as I do gets a feeling that the Germans will not order even their latest estimate, and the Italians are more or less out of it. The Dutch were in. but they are now out, and we are left with a major British project.
If the Department disagrees with me it can tell me that I am wrong. The general feeling is—and why else would the Germans order American aircraft? —that the MRCA will land here, on us. In those circumstances, any calculation must depend upon the number of units that are likely to be ordered. On the basis of information that has proved trustworthy in the past, I have no doubt that what we are talking about is a unit of £5 million to £6 million. Each MRCA will cost between £5 million and £6 million.

1327
We must reflect a little about that. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) knows that serious discussion has taken place on the question whether one unit of MRCA costing between £5 million and £6 million is worth three, four or five Buccaneers. In terms of operational requirements we need some kind of assessment as to the unit efficiency of this highly sophisticated and extremely expensive aircraft Apparently the plans took a long time. We are told that we must look a stage ahead. Before we start looking a stage ahead, however, let us get down to the question whether this extra sophisticated weaponry is worth it, or whether our operational requirements would not be hugely more effective if we stuck to our less sophisticated units.
We were told this afternoon by the Minister for Aerospace, who fortuitously has come into the chamber—he is going out again; he knows what his responsibilities are—that we would have "an integrated European aero-engine industry." [Interruption.] Yes, he did. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)—and we can look it up in HANSARD—he used the phrase "an integrated European aeroengine industry." What he said was admittedly vague. He referred to a more co-ordinated procurement policy for aircraft, and he was then asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton what he meant. In HANSARD tomorrow the words will be found—and we shall look carefully at the context—"an integrated European aero-engine industry." Some of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench thought they heard what I heard. We shall read HANSARD tomorrow. If it is to be an integrated European aero-engine industry it will have considerable military consequences.
The bafflement of Ministers is showing. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is looking very baffled.
Lord Balniel: We can clear this matter up when we read HANSARD tomorrow. This is not my departmental responsibility, but I was in the House when this matter was referred to and my impression is that my hon. Friend hoped that we would have an integrated European aero-engine industry, or said that he thought it would be a good thing.
Mr. Dalyell: I am not trying to be pedantic, but I point out that this confirms one of my worst fears, that the so-called Minsterial Aerospace Board which is supposed to combine the military and civil side, does not meet very often and is not a very effective arm of Government.
In the Defence Review published earlier this year great play was made of the Ministerial Aerospace Board. Right or wrong, it is clear that what happens in relation to civil engines is of the greatest consequence to the future development of military aero-engines. I hope to hear a statement about it; in any case I shall certainly write to the Department.
We have been rebuked for taking up time, so I shall make my next two points shortly. The first concerns Sea Wolf. We cannot have Sea Wolf, a through-deck cruiser, the MRCA, and a number of other projects that have been mooted. Some of us took the trouble to go to Stevenage, where we were given a detailed breakdown on Sea Wolf and an outline of the project. A great deal of technical expertise has gone into it. I therefore feel inhibited about reading out any costs, in terms of the wording of paragraph 56, as I did in the case of the MRCA, because that might be breaking a confidence. But I cannot see why we cannot be more candid about these matters.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye may have given security vetting, but what the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) said was quite true: the approximate costs will be no news to the Ruritanians or anyone else. My fear is that the purpose of all the blanks in the report about Seawolf and other projects is nothing to do with security but is to hide precisely what the Ministry of Defence is up to in relation to unit costs. Time and again the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has said to me, in a tone of rebuke, "You know perfectly well that it is never the practice to give unit costs in the House." It is very easy to shelter behind precedent. But precedents can be dangerous. It would be to the good of the Defence Department if it was a little more candid, at no cost to national security, about these matters. If it were, some of the escalations in hardware costs over the last 25 years,

1329
admittedly under both Governments, would not have happened.
Without breaking confidence, and with a fair sense of certainty, I come to the last subject, namely, the through-deck cruiser. On two occasions the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has said that he could not confirm the cost of the cruiser, but it is fairly common knowledge that in the autumn of 1971 the estimated cost was £60 million. Is £60 million for one fairly vulnerable ship a sensible use of resources?
Those of us who have recently been on the "Ark Royal" or who have taken on interest in the Navy—and I am not anti-Service, as the Department knows—understand perfectly well that the vulnerability to a whole range of possible weaponry of a ship like the through-deck cruiser is considerable. It did not take the Israelis long to prove that. How serious are the plans to go ahead with such a £60 million development?
Many hon. Members are concerned about unemployment. I say, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that we want some kind of help to be given to the Clyde, but is the notion of building battleships in order to give employment a very sensible philosophy? There are others ways of creating employment on the Clyde. We should build ships if there is an operational requirement for them, but if there is not it is not the best way of creating employment.
I end in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and others ended —and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) put this case at length. There will be no quibbling from the Front Bench or back benches on this side of the House if the Government say that they will raise considerably the amount of expenditure in the dockyards. I have a tiny constituency interest here and therefore I find it easy to say this, but when the dockyard workers' representatives came to meet us a number of us were appalled at what has happened since June, 1970—and it was in June, 1970, that these workers received their last increase. They are disgracefully paid.
In view of the revelations which have come to light, it behoves all hon. Members who have a genuine interest in the
1330
Services to urge the case for a dramatic review upwards for those who work in the dockyards. As I have indicated, very few of my constituents work at Rosyth. But the justice of the case of these workers is considerable and something must be done about it, if only for the efficiency of the forces.
I have asked about Sea Wolf, about the MRCA and about the through-deck cruiser, but I am concerned, above all, about the style in which the House of Commons considers these complex matters.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. I wish to make some observations about our deployment in Northern Ireland, and I make no apology for doing so. Northern Ireland is frequently discussed in the House, but it is central to this report. Also, it is a place where the battle is going on. It is not going on in BAOR or the Far East.
No one who stands at the centre of Londonderry, as I did on Saturday, and sees how it has been absolutely shattered, with many of the buildings completely destroyed, as though there had been a Baedeker raid by the Luftwaffe on the town, will be under any illusion about the kind of enemy we are facing. I believe that every hon. Member should go there during the recess and see the appalling havoc which has been wreaked and then we will all realise what we are up against.
The troops in Northern Ireland are mentioned in paragraph 383 of the Report, together with the question of the extra cost, over and above the present expenditure, involved in deploying troops there. The official who was interviewed made a wild guess that it was £3 million extra a year but this estimate had to be corrected subsequently in Appendix 27 and the corrected figure which was given later was £11·6 million. It is not so much a question of money. The important point is that we cannot sustain 21,000 troops in Northern Ireland indefinitely. Paradoxically, the need for the troops is increasing all the time. Not only do we have to look after the occupation of the no-go areas, but we shall have to give increasing attention to the border.

1331
The IRA is now dispersed and is indulging in tip-and-run raids across the border. I went to Fermanagh on Friday and Saturday, in the extreme south-west, opposite Donegal, the IRA base area. There was a raid on the village of Brooke-borough the night before I arrived which shattered about a dozen houses. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured because a 20-minute warning had been given. A false car location had been given to attract the population to the area where the bomb was about to explode, but luckily everyone got out.
That is the sort of thing which is happening. Farms on the border have been burned down. In the attack on Brooke-borough village four gunmen went across the border, hijacked a car immediately they got into Northern Ireland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this debate does not cover Northern Ireland, except very briefly.
Mr. Mather: I was giving an example of the sort of situation which had to be faced in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I was going on to suggest ways in which we could economise on the overall expenditure on our troops in Northern Ireland. The question of Northern Ireland is mentioned in the report and I think it is relevant to the debate. I do not want to take up more time—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not primarily a defence debate. It is a debate on the Sub-Committee's report. The hon. Gentleman must not go too far into the question of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mather: I was simply giving an example, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wanted to move on to two problems which we face in Northern Ireland. One is the defence of the local population—and the vital point is not a certain bridge or installation but the people living in the area. The second is the control of movement in the border area. Our forces are necessarily very thin on the ground in these areas and the effective number of police and of members of the UDR is less than it was in the days of the USC. Therefore, we need to make up the numbers and to relieve the Regular troops deployed in the Province. I should therefore like to make two propositions. One
1332
is that we arrange for some relief of the Regular troops by providing in Northern Ireland a territorial local defence force, rather on the lines of our Home Guard. This kind of force would be non-sectarian and would also take in men of a rather older age group.
My next point is the question of the Ulster Defence Regiment which was mentioned in the Expenditure Committee's Report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is still out of order. There is only one mention of Northern Ireland in the report and that is in relation to Europe. I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue this.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the index, on page 404, there is a very large number of items referring to Northern Ireland, and under which I should have thought Northern Ireland could be discussed. A great many of us, on both sides of the House, I think, but certainly on this side, wished to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on this very important aspect of our military expenditure.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: May I also draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the report also refers to control of the Irish border and patrolling on the Irish border?
Mr. Mather: My next point was to raise the question of the Ulster Defence Regiment. This is specifically mentioned in paragraph 395 of the Expenditure Committee's Report. I thank you for allowing me to continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just saying that I thought we needed some kind of territorial Home Guard defence force and this is an increasing need.
Secondly I would like to make one or two points about the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is particularly mentioned in the report, which proposed an idea, which was then current, that a regular battalion of the UDR should be formed. This, as we learned subsequently, was shelved. What is needed is not a Regular battalion but a Regular company to each existing battalion. I think that this is the universal opinion of the Ulster Defence Regiment units.

1333
I think we might also ask for a relaxation of the existing standing orders. One of these relaxations is that they should be allowed increasingly to take part in urban duties. In fact this happens, because when one goes around one sees the UDR guarding vital points in villages and towns.
There is another rule which could be relaxed, and that is the 1,000-metre rule. There is a standing order that the UDR is not allowed to approach the border closer than 1,000 metres, unless given special permission. I think that in present circumstances this is something which should be looked at and might be replaxed. Also, recruiting policy and positive vetting procedures are very tight at the present time, and I think my right hon. Friend could relaxe those.
I sum up what I have been saying. To reduce the costs, to relieve some of our Regular manpower which is deployed at present in Northern Ireland and to increase the efficiency with which we carry out the task there, I would ask my right hon. Friend to look at the question of some Home Guard territorial type of force in order to cover the area which is close to the border, to observe and report and provide the intelligence which is greatly needed. This type of force could be based either on the UDR as a form of supplementary reserve or it could be based on the police reserve. Secondly I would like my right hon. Friend to look at the relaxation of the standing orders and the possibility of providing Regular companies in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Finally, what is greatly necessary at the present time is insistence on documents for crossing the border and insistence on authorised crossing places. I cannot go into this now but I put this forward as something for my right hon. Friend to consider.
In this campaign in which the defence forces are engaged in Northern Ireland we shall never defeat the guerrillas—I think this is a lesson of history—unless the local people are mobilised. This is what now we have to do, and this would reduce the burden on our Regular forces and might, incidentally, reduce costs.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: While I fully support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr.
1334
Mather) on Northern Ireland, I hope he will forgive me if I do not continue with that theme.
I should like, as so many people have done, to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and his Committee on their report. I was very pleased to see that on the very first page it says that the Committee believes that
"an important part of their function is to stimulate public discussion of defence matters."
This seems to me to mean two things—more discussion of defence in the country and, above all, in the House of Commons and less insistence on accuracy.
Normally in the House we have six days on defence, two days for the defence debate itself, one day on each Service, and then a sixth day on all the Service Votes. This year we have had this time cut by one day. I hope that the usual channels will take note, I object very strongly to cutting down the time spent on defence. We have had only a half day on defence today and the usual channels have done their best to cut down the number of Members speaking in the debate. I think this is an insult to the Committee and to the defence committees of both parties.
Defence is a very important matter. It is, after all, the future security of the nation, vast sums of money are expended on it, and it is only right that Parliament should debate these matters, and more frequently than we do at the moment. By comparison, the United States Congress and Senate usually consider and discuss from three to four months the United States defence appropriations, and it thus debates such matters more thoroughly than we do, and now even the comparatively restricted time we had is being cut by the usual channels.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend also take into account that formerly the House was able to have a debate all night on the Service Estimates?
Mr. Wall: I agree, and I hope that this fact will be passed on to the usual channels on both sides of the House.
A recommendation of the Committee was that there should be a review of security classifications, and I did not particularly like the rather typical Civil Service reply given to this suggestion. I

1335
want to stress the fact that the security classification affects not only Members of the Committee but Members of this House as a whole, and we have what I believe to be a ridiculous situation, such as that I myself experienced. Seven years ago I was allowed to go to the Holy Loch by the United States Navy to see over one of their top secret Polaris submarines, but when I more recently, some time ago, requested the Ministry of Defence that I might go to see a naval tactical training teacher at Woolwich I was told I could not because it was programmed for confidential exercises.
This is the height of absurdity. I had just returned from America where with four other Members of the House representing all parties, we visited U.S. military and naval establishments and were shown absolutely everything. We were allowed to see and even photograph equipment ranging from Lance to the Poseidon submarine—so far as I know without any security vetting: we were taken completely on trust, far more than are Members of this House by our own Government. There must be something wrong and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this matter to heart, because it is one which causes anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Expenditure Committee is a start, and a very good start, but, broadly speaking, it discusses only expenditure, and I believe that what is really needed is a Select Committee on Defence which can discuss policy as well as expenditure. I know that one hon. Member on the other side—I think it was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)—said that this Committee could discuss policy, but from a study of the report which the Committee has made it seems to me to have been headed off policy whenever it got on to it. I should like to see a Committee of hon. Members on both sides which could discuss defence as a whole, and could look ahead through the next few years when defence problems will be particularly important not only to this country but Europe and the world. I should prefer to see that type of Committee which could be security cleared if that was necessary.
I want to discuss certain aspects of hardware affecting the three Services, because my contention is that we are now
1336
spending such a large proportion of our defence expenditure on social security, which is very necessary, and on the military salary, which is also important, that not nearly enough is left for the vital issue, which is hardware, the modern weapons required by the three Services.
First, the Army. The Committee, in page xi of the report, talks about flexible response, and says that the doctrine of flexible response means:
"renewed reliance on …tactical nuclear weapons."
The Committee has not as yet discussed tactical nuclear weapons, and I hope it will do so in the near future. I merely say again that it is about time BAOR had a modern tactical nuclear weapon. When we were in America we were allowed to examine Lance. I understand that the bugs have now been removed from this weapon system, and it would be a good thing if we got down to purchasing this flexible mobile weapon which is just what is wanted in BAOR as soon as possible. In case people say, "What about expenditure?" surely we can arrange an offset deal with the American Navy, which is buying Harriers. When we were over there Rapier was also being tried out by the Americans. There should be a chance of offset or cross-purchasing in this respect. It is one of the most important factors for the Army in the next few years.
Secondly, in page 37 of the report, there is a reference to the home Army being kept in this country for certain purposes; first, for world-wide reinforcement, particularly in Germany; secondly, for home and overseas service rotation; thirdly, for the ACE mobile force; fourthly for the United Kingdom mobile forces. In this respect, I hope the Committee will discuss the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher when he spoke of urban guerrillas in Northern Ireland. One of the Army's main roles in future may be this form of fighting, and it should be studied in more detail.
My third point concerns helicopters. According to the report, we are ordering 90 Harriers. It is clear from the deliberations of the Committee that those Harriers will not be developed to the full extent of the flexibility that this aircraft allows without helicopter support. There is a

1337
need for the Chinook or Sikorski 53 helicopters for this purpose, for the movement of artillery. We saw an impressive demonstration of this in America, and also for minesweeping. The modern technique of minesweeping is with helicopters, which are much more effective in certain operations. The Sea King is not big enough. Presumably the Chinook or the Sikorski 53, which are more powerful, could thus serve a Navy as well as an Army purpose.
The evidence given on page 247 is that the helicopter:
…"is too slow in flight. It is too lumbering to be an invulnerable or near invulnerable weapon on the battlefield, and I do not regard it as a carrier of weapons or a weapons system".
What we saw in America completely refutes that statement. The Cobra is specially designed as a gunship helicopter. It flies at treetop height and fires a missile with laser guidance giving a direct hit on tanks. Anyone who has seen this will appreciate that this type of helicopter is not as vulnerable as might be expected. I believe them to be an essential constituent of a modern Army.
We have recently been carrying out exercises with helicopters on Salisbury Plain, and I hope we shall not overlook the importance of the gunship helicopter for reconnaissance and operations against armour. I commend to the attention of my right hon. Friend an article in this week's Economist:
"…if Britain is not to lag increasingly behind West Germany and France—to say nothing of the United States and Russia—in the military use of helicopters three immediate decisions must be taken. The first is to make sure that inter-service training in this kind of warfare is more frequent than it has been in the past. The second is to resurrect the order for about 30 medium lift helicopters. The third is to make the creation of a helicopter brigade over the next decade a declared aim of British defence policy. If Britain does not, then it will go on playing half-heartedly with a new concept of war—just as it did, with dire results, with armoured warfare in the 1930s."
Moving to the Royal Air Force, the MRCA has come under heavy fire. I will not refer to it except to remind the House that the evidence shows the range of MRCA compared with the Vulcan as one to two. I also understand that the range of MRCA is considerably less than that of the TSR 2. Yet the evidence shows that what we need above all is strike
1338
reconnaissance aircraft of long range. One hopes, if the dire prophecies of the Opposition on costing are not fulfilled, that the MRCA will be effective not only in Europe but in other theatres and that it will have sufficient range to be fully effective. I hope that this will be fully examined before final production orders are placed.
On Air-Navy co-operation, if hon. Members will study page 87 and Question 612, they will find the whole question of the relationship between maritime air and the Royal Navy dealt with. The RN headquarters at Northwood operate maritime reconnaissance but not maritime strike aircraft. I am not happy about this arrangement. The Committee was not happy, but did not go into it in any detail. The question of who will operate Harriers at sea was also raised by the Committee. It was said that it Harriers had to operate from HMS "Ark Royal" they would be operated by the Royal Air Force. In passing, may I say that it is distressing that the aircraft handed over by the Royal Navy to the RAF, namely Phantoms and Buccaneers have had their arrester gear removed so that they cannot operate from carriers. If we decide to operate vertical take-off aircraft from the deck of cruisers such as "Blake" or the new through-deck cruisers, who will operate them? Presumably, as there is no fixed-wing training in the Royal Navy, it is bound to be the RAF. I have a shrewd suspicion that the lessons we learned in the 1920s and the 1930s have now been forgotten.
Finally, I come to the Royal Navy. We are told in the report that there is to be a greater sea concentration on the NATO area. The threat in the NATO area is the 90 nuclear and 300 conventional submarines possessed by the Soviet fleet. We are always fobbed off with NATO and told that we are considering not just Britain but NATO, but NATO is also weak. The main issue is anti-submarine warfare and the protection of seaborne trade. NATO has four anti-submarine carriers and 276 anti-submarine vessels. The Soviet Union has 380 submarines. That is 380 to 280, and the generally accepted ratio of antisubmarine vessels to submarines in the past was two or three to one. The modern nuclear submarine is faster than any escort vessel and this means that our

1339
anti-submarine potential in NATO is far too small to compete with the growing threat from the Soviet Union.
This threat extends to the flanks, Norway and Iceland in the north, and to the Cape in the south. About 57 per cent. of our oil comes round the Cape. When I was in America I was told that 50 per cent. of American oil would be imported round the Cape from the Middle East by the 1980s. Our planners and NATO should look into this in detail. This immense quantity of oil has to be protected in perhaps the most vulnerable area for submarines in the world, namely the South Atlantic and South Indian Ocean.
Referring to vertical take-off aircraft at sea, a number of points have been made about the new through-deck cruisers. Will they be worth the amount we propose to spend on them? The report says they will cost £50 million plus. Originally it was proposed that there should be seven, but now it is proposed that there should be two or three. Is it right to spend this vast sum on ships which may be jacks of all trades and masters of none? They are not called carriers, but they may be used for vertical take-off aircraft. They are not called anti-submarine warships, but they will carry the "Sea King". They are called command cruisers and they are trying to fulfil three or four functions in one hull.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that we would do much better if we had less sophisticated, cheaper ships—and more of them. When we were in Opposition we used to refer to these vessels that we were advocating as Healey carriers. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the arguments which were deployed in those debates since I believe they are still valid today.
On the question of surface ships the evidence which was given to the Committee was that we were keeping about the same number of frigates and destroyers in the next decade, but that they would be more powerful as new ones were built. But ship for ship our frigates and destroyers are less heavily armed with missiles or guns or anti-submarine equipment than are corresponding ships in the American navy, which are mostly nuclear propelled. This certainly applies
1340
to any comparison with the Russian Navy which outgun and outfight any surface ship which our navy possesses. This matter should be looked at in great detail as, as far as I know, British designs have never been publicly justified.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned the balance between surface to submarine ships in the Royal Navy. The ratio in this respect was at one time 4:1, and is not, because of the acceleration of surface ship building, to be 5:1. The submarine is the weapon of the future and the report says it will be the Navy's prime strike weapon. Yet it is still using adaptations of pre-war Mark 8 torpedoes and has not yet been fitted with a submarine-launched surface missile. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the most important single factor facing the Royal Navy today; the missile has been in and out of Defence White Papers year after year.
I should like a clear statement that everything possible is being done to produce this weapon system. It is only with this missile that these ten nuclear fleet submarines which we are to have at the end of the decade will be worth their cost. Let us not forget that as we produce these 10 nuclear submarines we shall be scrapping 26 conventional submarines. These 10 submarines will be all we have other than the Polaris submarines. They must be properly armed.
I came once again to the problem of cost. At present we are told that we are spending 5·5 per cent. of our gross national product on military expenditure. I believe that the right amount for this country to spend to ensure reasonable security is a figure of between 6 and 7 per cent. of GNP. I appreciate the difficulty faced by Governments of both political complexions in having to buy votes with social services, but I feel that we are having far too much butter and not enough guns. We shall reap the whirlwind in due course, as we have already twice in our lifetime but next time we will not get away with it.
I believe that steps should be taken to remove social security costs from the Defence Vote and I agree with the Committee's suggestion on that aspect. There is a danger of married quarters and dental services being regarded as more important than ships and aircraft. If we

1341
can get these costs off the Defence Vote then we shall have more to spend on the hardware that is so essential to the services. Then there is the question of Northern Ireland on which more money has to be spent and also Malta which takes a great deal of expenditure. Both are political matters which should come off the defence vote, it would then mean that a strong case could be made to spend more on hardware. Hardware is always the item that comes in for pruning. We are told that we can depend on NATO but NATO itself is weak in weapons, ships and aircraft.
What are the alternatives? We either spend more on defence or we do more about standardisation—not only standardisation in the NATO nations but in regard to Europe in general. There is a real need for standardisation within Europe. If one country makes tanks, another can make the fighter aircraft and yet another the frigates. Alternatively a common frigate hull could be used by all the NATO navies. Certainly the ultimate answer is to spend more on hardware or achieve this aim by better standardisation.
Governments in the past have not been open enough with the nation about defence expenditure, and this has been the story throughout history. Indeed, one wonders if they are being open today. I believe there is need for a Select Committee on Defence in which these matters could be fully discussed. Only through such a committee will we obtain full value from the £2,000 million and more which we spend each year on defence, and only thus will our survival as a nation be defended—and this, after all, is the Government's primary duty.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. John Tilney: It is most agreeable, Sir Ronald, to address you as Mr. Deputy Speaker, even for a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) made a robust and sensible speech, particularly when he dealt with classification. He will see from the evidence given to the Expenditure Committee that we often verged on policy matters. I am sure that this is a factor which will be welcomed by the whole House.
I wish to concentrate on only one matter. My hon. Friend said that we
1342
were in danger of considering married quarters to the extent of their being more important than ships and aircraft. But they are important matters and I hope that the Government will undertake acquisition of such property if it can be found with economy and without the expenditure of more money in the long term.
Wherever the Committee went in Germany we discovered that the main effect on morale lay in the difficulty of finding married quarters. One Royal Air Force driver told me that he had spent many months looking for accommodation for his wife since he had been unable to obtain married quarters. I remember a cook in one of the Guards battalions telling me that his wife had been incarcerated in a small flat in a German village many miles from Munster, from which there was a bus service only twice a day and there was no other English person nearby. He was paying very high rent for those premises. I also remember an NCO at Munster who counted himself lucky that he no longer had to commute 50 miles daily to see his wife and family because he had found a place for them eight miles away. Surely something could be done about these situations.
We must bear in mind four factors. The first is that the same argument should apply to the acquisition of property for the Army in Europe as it does to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in purchasing property overseas. Select Committees have made many recommendations on this topic to the Foreign Office in the past.
Secondly, we must all accept that in recent years money has been difficult to find because of our balance of payments problems. We can at least hope that from now on the situation will improve.
Thirdly, we are now to be involved in Europe more than was ever thought likely and we hope that our forces will be in Europe for many decades to come. Even if we buy properties overseas for Service use and our forces do not remain abroad, that property will always be saleable, no doubt at a good profit.
Fourthly, if it is regarded as sound policy for an individual, a company or a bank to have assets in property, it is surely sensible that the same policy

1343
should apply to us as a nation. Why should our reserves be held only in gold and in depreciating dollars? It would be much better to have property in the form of married quarters overseas which we own rather than rent. In the long run this would repay our nation handsomely.
I am not suggesting that those married quarters should be put in the wilds, in places where there are airfields many miles away from big cities. In these days, when most people have cars, married quarters should be built on the peripheries of expanding towns. If they are built as tower blocks we must bear in mind that we do not want to create national ghettoes. Depending where they are, I sugeest that local Germans, Dutch or Belgians should be able to use those blocks. The benefit of blocks is that it is possible to create places for children to play and car parks underneath them. There can also be clubs for the wives. The alternative to blocks of course is to buy land and build terraced houses with car parks nearby.
I am not convinced by the argument from the Ministry of Defence that it is difficult to renegotiate the NATO agreement, that it is better to rely on the German Government and for them to rely on a German contractor to build what we want. It does not make sense to me to do that and, having paid rent for a great many years, to have no saleable asset at the end. Therefore I commend the Committee's sixth recommendation about renegotiating the relevant NATO agreement. I understand that it is still being looked at by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence will be able to give us some good news about it.
Any renegotiation should apply not only to Germany but to Belgium and to Holland. At present quite a number of wives are living in Holland when their husbands are in Germany. It is a matter between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, but I stress that it is a unanimous recommendation of the Committee.
7.42 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H.
1344
Harrison). The House will remember that he was a prisoner-of-war in the Far East; he and his fellow prisoners showed magnificent courage in carrying on during that terrible time. My hon. and gallant Friend knows only too well how short of equipment we were at that time and, if for no other reason, he is the right person to be the chairman of such a Committee and he is to be congratulated on his report.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) is not in his place at the moment. I hope his enthusiasm for nuclear submarines continues and that he will be able to convince the citizens of Plymouth about his views in the near future.
I begin my remarks by quoting some words of President Nixon:
"There is an irreducible minimum of essential military security, for if we are less strong than necessary, there will be no domestic society to look after."
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is not here at the moment, because I believe that that is the way we should approach the problem today.
Not having been a member of the Committee, I was disappointed by the Minister's scant observations on the report. This is a document of 398 pages. It was disappointing to read his meagre observations. I hope he will be a little more forthcoming today about the Government's thinking.
I agreed with very many of the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). I have read many documents for which he has been responsible at the WEU Assembly, and he always puts forward factual and powerful points.
It is difficult to get from the report a real understanding of what is being spent on "hardware". We know that 52 per cent. is spent on personnel and welfare. However, this should be completely separate expenditure, as should the expenditure on industrial and non-industrial civil servants. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton. These should be in one category; there should be no difference between the two. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Fins-berg) who said that this expenditure

1345
should be met out of the estimates of other Ministries. In my view it is essential that it should be a separate category in terms of Ministry of Defence expenditure but that the Ministry must keep education and welfare under its own control. If it does not, inevitably there will be meddling, disagreement and delays between different Departments. If the Ministry of Defence wants to spend so much on education it may not be agreed with that Department but it can be offset within its own Ministry. It is a dangerous idea to separate the two. Having served overseas, I have some idea of the complications that can arise—
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I do not want my hon. Friend to misquote or to misunderstand me. I said that the Ministry of Defence should retain full control over the Services but that the bill should be met by the other Departments.
Dame Joan Vickers: But it is impossible to have full control and not pay the bill; this is the difficulty. As one who served overseas and had to obtain money through the Colonial Office, I know that one estimated expenditure only to find, if it came to more, that it was not paid; it was taken out of next year's estimate. In this instance the funds must come out of the Service Vote.
I was amazed by some of the vague replies given by witnesses, so much so that I began to wonder how true the report was. One example concerned the French carriers. It was stated that there were three. However, even I knew that there are only two, and this mistake had to be corrected by means of a footnote. There are several similar examples.
I found it extremely irritating to read incomplete remarks in the minutes of evidence. To give just one example, I read:
"I gathered when I saw it that you only have one pilot per Harrier. Is that not correct?—No, that is not correct …The planned ratio at the moment is — pilots per aircraft."
This type of answer looks quite ridiculous.
The SSAFA nursing sisters do extraordinarily good work. I am very glad to know that an additional 12 have been authorised. However, I should like to know their terms of reference, for how long they will be engaged and whether
1346
they can return to their local authorities with their pensions guaranteed.
Then there is the proposal for an English language television service. Now that we are joining the Common Market it will be interesting to know what encouragement is being given to the Services to learn German. After all, a very good way to learn German is to follow it on television programmes.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has left the Chamber, because it was he who referred to the Committee's sixth recommendation concerning land for married quarters on the outskirts of German towns. I was pleased to read in the report that these quarters should not necessarily be for the exclusive use of British personnel. It would be a great pity if British Forces in Germany or anywhere else lived in cantonments, as was the unfortunate practice in India. if we are going into the Common Market, the Services should mix with the people of the countries concerned. We were careful to do this in many places in Malaysia and it worked very well.
My main reason for intervening in the debate concerns standardisation. It may be remembered that recently I asked a Parliamentary Question about it, following what I said that it was my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. However, it is more convenient to do it in the course of this debate.
It is said about rising costs that one apparent solution is more standardisation of equipment between NATO allies. There is a proposal, for example, to send commandos to Norway, and there will be three different sections comprising the Royal Marines and Dutch and American commandos, so it is a great pity that their equipment is not standardised. At the last meeting of the WEU Assembly in Paris, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) asked the Italian Minister who was replying for the Council of Ministers about the possibility of setting up a small committee to deal with this problem. My right hon. Friend was told that it could not be done, on the grounds of expense. It is essential to have such a committee and I hope that on pressing for this we shall have a European committee dealing with standardisation within the NATO countries.

1347
The Sub-Committee appears to have been concerned about this
"vital absence of progress in this direction".
When questioned, the Secretary of State admitted that
"one of the most disappointing aspects of NATO since 1949 has been the lack of any real advance in the standardisation of weapons."
I raised this matter at the last WEU meeting in Paris with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy when we discussed a report submitted on behalf of the Committee on Defence Questions by Mr. Vedovato, the Italian rapporteur, regarding the imbalance of naval ships. At present Britain has the biggest building programme for naval ships of recent years. Is there any co-ordination in regard to building ships with other European countries? For example, do we have too many destroyers and not enough helicopters or commando carriers? Ships take a long time to build, so it is essential to have a co-ordinated programme.
I want to refer briefly to the question of the cruisers, which is mentioned in paragraph 51, and to HMS "Ark Royal". We were told that it was too expensive to repair HMS "Eagle" or to bring her up to date. We were told later that HMS "Ark Royal" will operate primarily in NATO waters but that could operate worldwide if required, and I want to know for how long. It appears that we shall not get any cruisers for another six years. How many repairs will HMS "Ark Royal" need in this time, because then she will not be able to go worldwide? If the cruisers really are to cost £50 million each we would have done much better to have kept the two carriers longer, at least until a cruiser is available.
The WEU committee also recommended that a standing naval force be constituted to operate throughout the Mediterranean with vessels from all the Mediterranean NATO countries, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. How much has been done in regard to standardisation in the Navy?
Paragraph 31 of the report contains this statement:
"Some countries can afford more sophisticated weapons than others. Different countries
1348
have different requirements and tactical assumptions."
Surely the tactical assumptions in Europe must be the same. This is the whole point of having the NATO force and of being allies. Why cannot standardisation be applied at any rate to NATO?
Paragraph 31 says later:
"and we hope that HMG will press vigorously for standardisation of equipment",
with this sensible rider:
"where possible safeguarding the industrial potential of individual countries by spreading production over several countries."
I gather that this is one of the things considered in the report.
I am Chairman of the Committee on Relations with National Parliaments. We discuss in the different countries any resolutions that go forward. Therefore, I am able to know that other countries discuss their defence problems in special committees far more than we do.
Following this report from the Expenditure Committee I still consider—I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) agrees with me—it necessary to have an all-party defence committee where we can discuss policy. The Expenditure Committee is a step in the right direction, but there was an all-party Motion on the Order Paper calling for an all-party defence committee. More and more European countries are setting up such committees. Were we to set up such a committee we could have joint committees with all-party defence committees of the other EEC nations.
Paragraph 9 of the report contains these words:
"Care must be taken, in particular, in reaching decisions, that the application of a defence viewpoint' does not lead to deals being made between the Services to support each other's projects, irrespective of overall defence and economic considerations. We consider that this is a serious danger."
Surely the Services should co-operate and not hid against each other. I should have thought that this is important.
Paragraph 57 of the report is a most extraordinary paragraph which deals with Seawolf. I will not read the whole paragraph, mostly because it is full of blanks. It is astonishing that the paragraph finishes with five stars, whether from

1349
exasperation or from habit I am unable to say. The paragraph contains these words:
"The second factor is the failure to secure the collaboration of one or more of our Allies in this project"—
this is the Seawolf—
"not just to keep down costs, but to achieve a greater measure of standardisation. At present there is very little standardisation of weapons within the NATO navies"—
this is the case with other weapons, too—
"and, as far as Seawolf is concerned, nothing has been done to secure co-operation with other countries since the failure of the original attempts in 1964–65."
This is very unfortunate and I hope that if nothing else comes from this debate we shall at any rate all be agreed on the need to press for standardisation of weapons.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I apologise for joining the debate so late. I understand that there is a punter's charter or something like that on the Order Paper after this.
This is an important debate. The supreme function of Parliament has always been to scrutinise public expenditure, and above all military expenditure, because this is at the very heart of our raison d'etre as a democratic Parliament.
That said, I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and his colleagues on the thoroughness of the report. I shall try to be brief and just outline a few aspects of it. The first is, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) said, that the whole report has been compiled in a strategic vacuum. I understand clearly that the purpose of the Sub-Committee is to scrutinise expenditure. None the less, there are some very large strategic decisions which go a-begging, particularly in the field of European defence.
Here I echo my hon. and gallant Friend's words, though my approach might be slightly different from his. When I see, for example, that the single largest item on the defence Estimates is the British Army of the Rhine, almost twice as big as any other item, I am led to question it. I am led to question it particularly because what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey
1350
Finsberg) said about the escalating rate of social service expenditure on the defence budget is perfectly true, especially in Germany. I am also led to question it because I believe that the most logical contribution that the United Kingdom can make to European defence in the 1970s and 1980s is in mobile sea and air power on the rear and the flanks of the NATO Alliance. I am convinced of this.
I do not believe that it makes sense to tie up an ever-increasing proportion of our military manpower and our military budget as a hostage to fortune on the plains of Central Europe. I believe that in the air age it is possible to reinforce rapidly from the United Kingdom. I believe that the United Kingdom possesses a great deal of expertise, particularly in the United Kingdom mobile force in terms of parachute regiments, commandos, amphibious forces and the like. This should be developed rather than tying up so much of our expenditure in a fixed presence in Germany.
Furthermore, we must analyse what we have in Germany. The most important aspect of the Committee's report here is its reference to the use of the helicopter. My hon. and gallant Friend rightly drew attention to the trials that are going on at this very moment on the use of the helicopter in the land battle. I believe, as the Committee hinted, that the helicopter is not only the gunship and the supreme anti-tank weapon of the future. It is also the future equivalent of the jeep. We must plan accordingly and I welcome the reference to this in the Sub-Committee's report.
It is also of paramount importance to have a heavy lift capability if dispersed air power forward in the field is to retain a degree of invulnerability against firs' strike. There is no alternative for this. In the seventies and eighties our air power in Europe must be capable of dispersal and that is why, although it is right to spend more money on airfield camouflage and hardening, the whole emphasis should be on dispersal and the ability to use short strips and fields to the best advantage of our Air Force.
That leads me to the MRCA which is again central to the problem of European air power in the later seventies and in the eighties. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had some telling

1351
things to say about this project. The fact is that unless we are very lucky this is the last opportunity we shall have to debate this programme before the critical review stage in November.
Without the Multi-role combat aircraft the Royal Air Force will have no effective front line aircraft in the late seventies and early eighties. This is the magnitude of the decision that will come in November. Without the MRCA the British military aircraft industry and with it European collaboration in military projects are put in jeopardy, so it is of crucial significance. And with the MRCA go a whole host of other potential swing wing projects like the "Panap", Panavia New Aircraft Project, to which we look in the years ahead.
I have always believed training to be of supreme importance for a professional force. My own interest is in the training of air forces. It is interesting that at Question 668 in the report it is alleged to be nearly always impossible to separate costing for operational conversion units. This may not seem important to some of my hon. Friends, but in choosing the 1182 as the advanced trainer for the Royal Air Force the fact is that this was done in the knowledge that much of the advanced training which the Jaguar would have done would have to be shifted to the operational conversion stage. I suggest that this decision could not have been taken in the total financial context if one cannot analyse properly the cost of operational conversion training.
Then I come to the carriers and Harriers. This hobby-horse has been well ridden today. If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Owen) had any main point in his speech, the central one which we should remember is that although many of the points may be hobby-horses they cannot be repeated often enough, and on the Harrier and the through-deck cruisers it is essential for the future of the Royal Navy that it has integral air power for the late seventies and eighties. It cannot be stated more simply than that and, in the context of the procurement process that is now in hand, there is no alternative to the
1352
Harrier whether one likes it or not, and no effective alternative to the through-deck cruisers when the "Ark Royal" comes out of service.
On the reserves, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West postulated many interesting things about manpower. I made my maiden speech just over two years ago on this very subject and the ever-escalating costs of manpower on a fixed defence budget. For the years ahead to the quinquennium 1975–76 it rises by only 0·6 per cent., so we are working to fixed budgets. But weapon costs are escalating fast. They now comprise only one-third of the total of the British defence budget and unless we are careful—this was brought out by the Secretary of State himself—we shall get to the ludicrous situation of the Canadians who spend only 13 per cent. of their budget on equipment. They, apart from ourselves, are the only country in the Western Alliance which relies on an all-volunteer pattern of Regular engagement. There is something of significance there.
Some would turn to conscription whilst others, like myself, would augment the reserve forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who is such an expert in this field, developed that argument on the Army side in the Sub-Committee's report, and on the naval side it was made quite clear that as we had no ships in the reserve fleet there was little point in maintaining a substantial naval reserve in training.
As for the Royal Air Force, the same thing was said by Air Vice-Marshal de Lacey Le Cheminant. He said at question 1037:
"You do not need more pilots because you have not got the reserve aircraft in which to employ these pilots."
The whole hypothesis of the report is that the sort of war that we would fight would last for only a few days and, therefore, there would be no need for expansion and no need to augment the front line or to replace casualties.
The thinking on this subject was quite terrifying. Reference was made in Question 1021 to the fact that there are only 100 officers in the RAF Volunteer

1353
Reserve. It was said that they are non-flying personnel, following which there was a series of Questions:
"What are they paid? Are they paid the same as in the Army?—I am not sure whether these people are actually paid. They are specialists who, I imagine, would if called out be able to do the job without any particular training."
Earlier the question had been asked:
"How do you keep in touch with them in case of call-out, and when they get over a certain age do they come off the list?—I have not got any specific information on this. Perhaps we could send you a note on the subject."
Question 1028 asked:
"I think the Army argument was that the best way of keeping in touch with people was a bit of pay?—Probably the best thing would be to let you have a note giving some hard information about this".
We then come to the various categories of reserve. The chairman said that the biggest one was Class E and that there were 7,000, of whom 1,200 had no specific training. He asked
"what happens to the other 5,000?—The other 5,000 just remain on the reserve list and stay on it until their three years are up. They have a certain liability for recall during that period. That is all there is to it.
Do you know when they move house?—I assume they must have a requirement to notify changes of address."
It gets even more horrifying at paragraph 1043:
"One can gather from what you say that there is scope for simplification of the reserve structure?—This may well be so.
And has this been looked at?—I do not know, I am afraid."
And so it goes on. There is a quite terrifying catalogue of complacency about the reserve potential of one of Her Majesty's fighting Services.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friends who have prepared a detailed, informative and thought-provoking report. I conclude with one last apologia on the question of security and the MRCA. We have the blankety-blanks which have been referred to often enough during the debate. We are told that costs are not so important from a security point of view as the capability of a weapons system. If one is interested in the capability of the MRCA one finds in Question 1861 something to do with its short field performance and the fact that it can
1354
use a runway of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet for take-off.
If one wants to find out about the armament of the aeroplane, a question about the guns receives the normal blankety-blank reply. But if one then looks at the back of the same section on the MRCA at question 1928, one finds that a colleague has put down a question about the type of guns, so one can assume that the guns are standard fitting. If one studies the document carefully, as I am sure is done on the other side of the Iron Curtain, one can gain quite a lot of information from it.
8.9 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on producing this document, but I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that we have been given insufficient time to debate this subject and we are debating it two days before the Recess, which I do not think is the best time to debate a document of this complexity and importance.
I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) of the importance of looking very much further ahead with regard to married quarters. These hirings, which one sees not only here but abroad, should as far as humanly possible be phased out. We should purchase the properties so that we do not have a continuous liability.
In a garrison town, such as Windsor, one also needs to help people who leave the forces to purchase property or settle in some sort of accommodation. This is a very difficult problem, and one to which I have referred on many occasions in this House. If we are to recruit men it is vitally important that they should know that when they leave the Services such help will be available to them. I know that there are already schemes of this nature, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the subject with even greater emphasis.
I know that in the aftermath of our defeat in 1964 there was a tendency to reduce the reserve forces and that makes it more difficult to re-form volunteer reserves, but if we are to succeed in raising them it is essential to make sure that they

1355
are properly equipped and given a rôle and opportunity of service abroad in which they can serve, as I have always said, as units and not as individuals. It is essential, if we are to have reserve forces, to give those men encouragement.
With reference to paragraph 31, I am sure that everyone who served abroad in the last war or any other war realises how vital is the standardisation of equipment. How can we have an army comprised of many nations each of which uses different equipment, and even different calibres of weapons? Not only from the economy point of view but if and when we get down to actual fighting or allied exercises it is essential that we have inter-changeability of equipment. I go further and say that it is very important to get together with our allies and decide which of us shall produce which form of equipment. One country may be able to produce certain equipment more cheaply than another, and this pooling of resources is essential in the modern army.
My hon. Friend the Member of Esher (Mr. Mather) was nearly ruled out of order for referring to Northern Ireland but I agree with him. In my view it is still physically possible to seal the Border and have exit and entry points. I saw this done in Algeria, and I know that it is physically possible.
We are going into Europe and it is essential that our partners in Europe should share the burden of defence with us. If we are to give them the advantages of the Polaris submarine deterrent, it is their duty, and ours, to get together not only to standardise equipment but to share the defence burden.
Finally, the one question we have to ask ourselves is whether we are voting enough of our GNP to make sure that the country is properly defended in future.
8.13 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): A number of hon. Members have very understandably referred to the fact that this debate has to some extent been curtailed but there will be very general agreement that although curtailed it has been an extremely helpful debate; helpful not only to the
1356
Ministers concerned with defence, but also to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee in its future deliberations.
I must begin by congratulating the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and the members of the Committee on the extremely thorough way in which they have undertaken their responsibilities. No one appreciates better than the House the heavy burden of work that falls on back benchers and for them to have undertaken this additional task is a very remarkable feat. Witnesses who have been before the Committee were filled with admiration for the way in which its affairs were handled.
Mr. Dalyell: If that is so, why does the Minister of State permit his Department to give the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and other members of the Committee such a really slighting comment?
Lord Balniel: Had the hon. Member permitted me to proceed a little further I would have commented on that very point, although I reject at once the hypothesis on which he based his remarks there having been no slight at all.
It is almost impossible to speak on all the various subjects that have been mentioned. We have had the welfare aspects of the Services, the nuclear deterrent, conscription, the balance of Warsaw Pact and NATO countries, reference to Northern Ireland and the mutual balanced force reductions. We have even had reference to the next Labour Party manifesto. This has probably been one of the widest defence debates I have attended for a very long time. But as the Report itself covers such a variety of subjects it is only right that I should refer mainly to its recommendations and various aspects.
Mr. Wall: I understand what my right hon. Friend says, but if he cannot refer to them this evening will he undertake to write to hon. Members on some points that some of us have raised on a number of other occasions and have not had answered?
Lord Balniel: I will certainly study all the points that have been made in the debate and if there are some on which

1357
it seems that I can help hon. Members by writing to them I most certainly will do so.
One of the very real strengths of the new Expenditure Committee set up last year has been the very broad terms of reference under which it and the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee have been operating. Many hon. Members will have found this of great value in fulfilling their task. But these broad terms of reference have added to the difficulties which a Department has to meet in preparing its comments on the recommendations of the Committee. It has meant, for instance, a considerable amount of interdepartmental discussion, and in several instances the recommendations of the Sub-Committee have required the obtaining of inter-departmental agreement before I could comment to the House on the recommendations, and before our observations could be finalised.
I was most anxious to assist the House by having our observations available before the debate took place, and we therefore took the steps of issuing our observations as a memorandum to the Select Committee itself rather than to follow what would have been the more normal practice of issuing them as a Command Paper. I have read the note which the Expenditure Committee has appended to the memorandum, and obviously no discourtesy at all was intended to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the timing of the debate. We had planned to publish our observations before the Summer Recess but parliamentary time unexpectedly became available which raised the possibility of a debate before the departmental observations were printed. The Committee chose to debate this subject knowing that our observations were not available. This clearly would not have been satisfactory from the point of view of the House, and we therefore made available a typescript of our observations at short notice. This was done simply in order to assist the House, though the comments of the Committee were, frankly, a fraction harsh when directed towards the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I
1358
did not labour the point about the time it had taken for his Department to complete its comments. But I find it difficult to sit and listen to him telling the House what a favour has been done by these comments being prepared before the end of the Session. Does the Minister not recall that the period between publication of the report and the publication of the comments was five months? He recalls, does he not, that debate on the subject was scheduled for a fortnight ago and that we had nothing by way of comments until I raised the matter on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House?
Lord Balniel: Surely the hon. Member will recollect that we are well within the time which is allowed to the Civil Service for preparing their comments and he will know that the normal time for these debates is after the Recess in the autumn. My main point is that no discourtesy was intended. We have done our utmost to try to assist the Committee and I hope that the House will accept that.
The Defence Department has responsibility over a wide range of activities. In some respects it is operating with fairly normal administrative procedures. In others it is trying to forestall and counter the possibility of aggression by any potentially hostile country which itself will be using the most advanced and the most secret technologies which are available. It is spending at present about £2,800 million a year. It is therefore not at all surprising that a group of experienced MPs examining such a Department should find areas where—in their view—the machinery and control methods were not as they would wish. On the other hand, it is equally not surprising that in some of these instances a Department, drawing on its experience over the years, should reject some of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee.
The House will know that we have accepted most of the recommendations—but where we have rejected a recommendation it has in no sense been an indication of complacency on the part of the Department. In no case has a recommendation of the Sub-Committee been dismissed without the closest study and where we have not been able to go along

1359
with the views expressed by the Sub-Committee it is because we have had very real doubts about the wisdom of adopting their recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said that she was rather disappointed by our reaction to the recommendations. In fact we have willingly accepted most of the recommendations made in the Second Report. Two of these recommendations—indeed, the first two which are much the most basic—will I think prove to be of the greatest importance for the future work of the Sub-Committee and gradually over the years I believe should contribute to an improved quality of debate of defence matters in this House, and, equally important, improve the quality of discussion on defence matters outside the House.
The first of these recommendations relates to the security classification of material submitted to the Sub-Committee —and the second relates to the financial data made available. During the course of the last Session the Government agreed to submit classified information up to and including the level of "secret" subject, of course, to certain conditions. Indeed, the Sub-Committee have received more classified information on defence matters than any Committee of the House until now. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) discussed the issue of secrecy both in his speech and at some length in an exceedingly interesting article in the New Scientist quite recently, where he commented
"No Parliamentary Committee has hitherto ever been given consistent access to such highly classified documents as of right."
Since the Report has been published the Permanent Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence Sir James Dunnett has explained to the Sub-Committee the difficulties which could arise if we were to extend the present practice very much further.
I accept that the American practice in releasing for publication information to Congress is more generous than ours but I believe that our reasons for not going further are soundly based. It is not that we are frightened of public discussion in the House or of public discussion in the
1360
news media. It is certainly not as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye said, as a cloak for inefficiency. It is rather that with a much smaller scale of defence expenditure and defence equipment we would be in real commercial difficulties and—in certain areas on straightforward military security grounds —if we adopted the American procedure in full. It is also a fact that the House Committees in Washington play a wider part in authorising expenditure than Select Committees do in London and to this extent they fulfil a function which is far closer to the Executive than are hon. Members in this country. Many hon. Members who have studied the House Committees in Washington, as I did at one time, would certainly have doubts as to whether it would be in the real interests of Parliament and of the Opposition if we were to proceed too far along the lines towards the American system. A society must have a kind of balance between privacy for the individual and security for the executive and publicity. Obviously a Government has to be careful on security matters—equally obviously the public has an interest in public examination and as individuals an interest in privacy.
We have extended to the Committee access to highly classified documents—but the Committee feel that some difficulties still remain. To some extent these difficulties are inherent in the very subject of defence, they are considering. But we want to help—and the Permanent Under-Secretary made an offer on 9th May which I hope will go a long way to meeting such difficulties as now remain. He undertook to deal personally with any proposals from the Committee to include in its report information which might be unsuitable for publication for security, or commercial or international reasons so as to ensure that exclusions are justified and necessary. From my reading of the minutes of that meeting I got the impression that our suggestions for helping at the report stage were generally welcomed by the Committee.
The second recommendation, and also one of the more fundamental claims made by the Sub-Committee is that
"All figures should be made available to the Sub-Committee on request."
Obviously financial details are of great importance to any expenditure committee. Indeed, a mass of financial information

1361
has been made available. The Ministry of Defence have submitted more than 40 main memoranda and innumerable supplementary notes. Some of these are published in the Report but there have been many others which are not known to the public but which, taken together, have provided a significant and helpful amount of information for the work of the Sub-Committee. There is just one specific instance where figures have been refused in the past. The Sub-Committee have fairly pointed out that the Public Expenditure White Paper gives global figures for the Defence Budget for four years ahead but when they asked for a functional analysis of these figures for the four years they were given the figures only for the first two years. I have reconsidered this decision in the light of the Committee's recommendations and in future for any year for which the public expenditure White Paper gives a firm defence budget total the corresponding functional analysis will be provided for the Sub-Committee under the 57 headings for which data are already provided.
We cannot, however, provide all figures on request as was the full recommendation of the Sub-Committee. On this basis figures would be given long before there had been any need even for Ministers to consider them and therefore long before anything like a firm base in Government policy had been established. I am sorry that I cannot go all the way to meet this recommendation, but what we propose is a major step forward in the future work of the Sub-Committee.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked whether the costs of long-term projects could be given, and he mentioned particularly the MRCA, the cruiser and Sea-wolf. When the Sub-Committee is investigating a particular project, we shall try to be as helpful as we can in giving it the information it needs, but there must be some limits to how far we can go. For example, we could not give figures before Ministers had taken the necessary decisions to go ahead with a project. We cannot make figures available before Ministers have decided at the various check and control points in a project.
We must also—and I think that he will appreciate this—be careful not to undermine our negotiating position with the
1362
firms concerned and we must be careful in collaborative projects to have the agreement of our partners in disclosing information—not all Governments are as forthcoming with information as we are prepared to be in this kind of matter.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked for a progress report about MRCA. It remains the cornerstone of the planned RAF strike, reconnaissance and air defence force from the late-1970s through the 1980s. The review last summer confirmed that progress was satisfactory in relation to the time scale, performance and costs. Since then progress with the development programme has continued to be satisfactory. The next review is planned for towards the end of this year when we shall need to start thinking about initial production commitments, and the aircraft is expected to be in service in the second half of the 1970s.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister anything to say about when it is likely to be ordered not only by ourselves, but by our allies?
Lord Balniel: I am not in a position at this moment to say anything about that, but, clearly, there will be another control point at the end of this year and a matter of this kind could be raised at that stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and others referred to the recommendation of the Sub-Committee that we should consider removing expenditure on health, married accommodation and especially education from the Defence Budget. We have examined this suggestion closely and we see the force of the reasoning behind the recommendation. But our definition of the defence budget is not seriously out of line with that adopted by many other countries, a subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton. Indeed, the NATO definition includes rather more of this kind of social service than we have in our defence budget. Health, housing and schools are of the highest concern to Servicemen, and the medical and dental services also have an operational rôle to perform in war. My right hon. and noble Friend is best placed to decide how much money should be devoted to these social services in the interests of defence, and we have therefore decided that on balance it would

1363
be best for the expenditure to remain within the defence budget.
I should perhaps add that the bulk of expenditure incurred on educating Servicemen's children already falls on the Department of Education and Science, because the majority of Servicemen's children are educated in the United Kingdom. The need to provide schools abroad, however, stems directly from a major defence principle that, wherever possible, Servicemen abroad should be accompanied by their wives and families. Should we reverse this decision, I am sure there would be a significant—indeed a dramatic—effect on Services recruiting.
My hon. Friend asked for information on the money spent on the services like health and education. I must make two provisos in giving the figures. First, it is not possible to give an accurate figure for the costs of the education services, since major aspects fall under other programmes, notably training and general station and unit costs. The figures for education, therefore, represent a very broad estimate. The same is true, though to a lesser extent, of the figures given for the health service. The second proviso is that we must decide what should be classed as social security services. But, with those two broad provisos, the provision in the Defence Estimates, 1972–73, for health were £56 million, for social security £171 million, and for education £32 million, making a total of £259 million. The bulk of social security expenditure—£141 million—is in respect of Service pensions. But I must say, apart from the arguments I have developed, that if we removed these elements from the defence budget, which would be contrary to the normal NATO practice, we could assume that the defence budget would automatically be reduced by a commensurate amount.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: My right hon. Friend has given some valuable figures, which are much greater than we have even been led to believe, and the Sub-Committee will want to study them. My right hon. Friend has also said that basically our presentation is very much in line with the practice of our NATO allies. Does he agree that we are probably the only country that makes a fetish of keeping our defence expenditure at a fixed level, which perhaps makes us somewhat different?
Lord Balniel: There is a certain truth in what my hon. Friend says. It backs up what the hon. Member for Sutton was saying, if I do not misinterpret him. People in this country in many ways make a great fetish about the proportion of the GNP spent on defence, and compare with the proportion spent by other countries in Western Europe. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) asked whether we were not spending a higher proportion than any other Western European country. We are spending less in real terms than France and Germany. Surely the criterion by which we should judge our defence expenditure is not so much the proportion of the GNP compared with that of our allies but the capabilities of those who could be potential aggressors?
Various hon. Members asked about married accommodation in Germany. There is no doubt that any hon. Member visiting Germany finds when talking to guardsmen, troopers or soldiers throughout BAOR that that is the first subject raised. There is a problem here, but over and above the substantial stock of married accommodation already available to BAOR, acquisition of a further 4,500 married quarters is in hand. Plans for the acquisition of a further 4,000 quarters are well advanced and we calculate that these two acquisitions will largely satisfy the demand from the Army for married accommodation in Germany.
Mr. Tilney: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that acquisition will be hired or bought?
Lord Balniel: Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend so that I can give him an accurate reply. I would also like to write to him about another point he raised concerning the re-negotiation of the NATO agreement with Germany. This involves discussions with our NATO ally and it is correct that, speaking on the Floor of the House, I should ensure that the information is absolutely accurate.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) also raised the question of single-room accommodation for soldiers in barracks. Approval has just been obtained for the scale in which single rooms can be provided in barracks. The scale will be implemented as we re-build and modernise existing blocks

1365
both at home and in Germany. The proposal is to convert one-third of the accommodation at Aldershot into single-room accommodation, while two-thirds will consist of rooms for four men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport referred to the number of SSAFA Sisters assigned to BAOR. The SSAFA nursing service is most remarkable and most valuable, and the Services greatly appreciate the work the nurses do. A SSAFA Sister carries out all the duties of a health visitor and school nurse and in addition part of the work of district nurse. midwife and health clinic nurse. Certainly, the Services and I believe, the House will be pleased that we have been able so quickly to implement the recommendation of the Committee and increase the number of SSAFA Sisters assigned to BAOR by 12.
Dame Joan Vickers: Are they pensionable? How long will they serve there?
Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend referred in her speech to the terms of reference of the SSAFA Sisters serving in BAOR and I will write to her about the pension aspect.
Another recommendation of the Committee concerned the provision of television. This I am afraid is a much more difficult problem. It is very expensive, for example, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is having discussions with representatives of the BBC and the ITA to see whether they can help.
Yet another recommendation concerns stores accounting, a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead laid great emphasis. We are in full sympathy with the Committee's objective of simplifying procedures and giving commanding officers the fullest possible delegated powers compatible with the necessary minimum overall control. These are intricate topics and a great deal of attention has been focused on them in recent times. There has been a substantial simplification. There has been a great deal of delegation of powers and as a result some 97 per cent. of the stores losses arising from causes other than theft, fraud, arson or sabotage fall well within the write-off powers of com-
1366
manding officers of lieut.-colonel or wing-commander rank. We shall keep this matter continuously under review and the House will be interested to know that the Director-General of Internal Audit comes from ICI and is greatly experienced in this subject.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye—referred to the use of helicopters. With their knowledge, they will know that operational exercises are being conducted to see how helicopters can best be employed.
The Sub-Committee suggested greater use of medium-lift helicopters, a proposal which was extremely attractive to defence Ministers but rather less attractive to the Treasury. Here the difficulty is cost. To carry 500 tons daily over a distance of 50 miles would need 10 medium-lift helicopters at a capital cost of about £10 million and annual running costs of £1·6 million. To do the same job by road would need at most 50 10-ton lorries at a capital cost of about £600,000 and annual running costs of £400,000.
On grounds of costs alone the concept is not being considered further but we are keeping under review the possibility of introducing some large helicopters suitable for war-time logistic tasks and we are also examining the implications of a limited use of existing helicopters for supporting Harriers in the field.
The last matter to which I would like to refer is that which has been dealt with by almost every hon. Member who has spoken, namely standardisation.
Mr. Hattersley: Might I suggest that that might be the pen-ultimate matter and the right hon. Gentleman might say a word by way of a progress report on the through-deck cruiser about which almost every hon. Member has spoken?
Lord Balniel: The through-deck cruiser is an important element in the construction programme over the next decade. We hope to order the first ship towards the end of this financial year for acceptance in 1978. The task of the through-deck cruiser is three-fold. It has three main capabilities, the deployment of the Sea King anti-submarine helicopter, the command and control of a maritime air force, namely the command

1367
systems which will bring maritime air control to the support of the Navy, and there is also the contribution made by the Sea Dart system of area air defence. Should further options be taken up they will be able to operate VSTOL aircraft. The decision will be taken towards the end of this financial year.
Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government realise that some of us marvel at the prospect, not only of having one £60 million through-deck cruiser but at hearing of the possibility of more than one, to coincide with the 1975–84 expenditure which will be at its peak with MRCA and other projects such as Sea Wolf?
Lord Balniel: These things have been taken into account and they are open to debate when the Estimates incorporating them are put before the House. That is the moment for the House to bring constructive criticism to bear.
I was referring to the question of standardisation. A certain amount has been achieved. There has been the Anglo-French aeronautical projects, the MRCA, the FH70 towed Howitzer. We accepted that this is an area where progress has been nothing like as fast as we would like to see and there are real problems to be overcome. There are different operational requirements, differing time-scales, differing economic resources. There is the national or chauvenistic interest, very naturally, to ensure the well-being of national industries. The problems
1368
tend to increase when we try to achieve standardisation or collaboration with more than two or three different countries.
I hope that these problems will gradually be overcome but they are very real indeed. As the evidence of the Secretary of State made clear, he attaches immense importance to securing success in this area. We will have been in office for three years by next year. The first year, in defence terms, was devoted to what in defence jargon is known as "AD 70" concerning projects and studies of the problems of the late 1970s. The second year has been devoted to EDIP, and my right hon. Friend is making it his purpose in the third year to place great emphasis on achieving collaboration on major projects, such as the main battle tank of the next generation. This is a slow, inexorable process, which is very difficult to achieve, but without achieving it the defences of the Western world are greatly weakened.
I have tried to answer as best I can the multitudinous points that have been raised. I apologise to the House for detaining it for so long.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Second Report and the Fifth Special Report from the Expenditure Committee and of the subsequent evidence reported from the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of that Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HORSERACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  REMISSION OF CONTRIBUTIONS DUE FROM TOTALISATOR BOARD TO LEVY BOARD
  "The Levy Board shall have power to remit in whole or in part any sums outstanding at the passing of this Act in respect of the contributions payable to that Board by the Totalisator Board as mentioned in section 24(1) of the Act of 1963'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.51 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this proposed new Clause we are to discuss sub-Amendment (a), leave out 'in whole or in part' and insert 'up to one quarter of'; new Clause 39—(Payments by Board); new Clause 47—(Power of Levy Board to remit surplus revenue to Totalisator Board); new Clause 53—(Payments by Totalisator Board (timing)); new Clause 54—(Assessment by Levy Board of contribution); new Clause 72—(Remission by Levy Board of payments by Totalisator Board); new Clause 73—(Scale of remission by Levy Board to be determined by profits made by Totalisator Board); Amendment No. 61; Amendment No. 66; Amendment No. 67, and Amendment No. 81.
  Mr. Carlisle: The Government Amendments hang together. The effect of the Amendments and the new Clause is, first, to delete—by way of Amendment No. 66—what is now Clause 6 of the Bill, then, by Amendment No. 61 to repeat Clause 6(2) as part of Clause 4, and, by new Clause 1, to provide a new power, namely, power to the Levy Board to remit in whole or in part any outstanding indebtedness of the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board.
  Hon. Members involved in the Committee stage will remember that Clause 6
  1370
  —Clause 5 as it was when the Bill started its life—enabled the Levy Board to give financial assistance to the Totalisator Board by way of grant, or by making or giving guarantees, or by loan. I made it clear in Committee that the Government had no intention of making the Totalisator Board a permanent pensioner of the Levy Board; that the intention was to enable the Levy Board to advance money to the Tote Board in the short term for the purpose of meeting its present financial situation, until it was able to take advantage of the opportunity given it by Clause 1.
  I always appreciated the controversial nature of the Clause and the fact that it was felt by some to be a means whereby the Tote Board would be able permanently to receive money from the levy which had been provided by private bookmakers with whom, as a result of Clause 1, it might well be in competition. I made it clear in Committee that that was not the Government's intention, and it was for that purpose that a time limit was imposed in Clause 5. However, since the completion of the Committee stage, the Government have had an opportunity to look again at Clause 6 in the light of what I am glad to say is the very heartening improvement in the Tote's financial situation compared with some of the gloomy prognostications made about it in Committee.
  Therefore, as the purpose of that Clause was to enable the Tote Board to obtain short-term financial assistance, if necessary, from the Levy Board, the Government have concluded, in the light of the Tote Board's present situation and the financial difference made to the Tote by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lower the on-course duty, that the Tote Board no longer requires or is likely to require short-term financial assistance from the Levy Board.
  The purpose therefore of Amendment No. 66 is to delete Clause 6. I am sure that that will be welcome to hon. Members on both sides, and I believe that it will be welcome to the Tote Board's new Chairman, who I am sure is anxious to show that the board is capable of being viable in its own right.
  However, in Committee, the Government added to Clause 6 a new subsection, subsection (2), the purpose of which was

  1371
  declaratory. It was to make clear that the Levy Board, under its normal powers in the 1963 Act, could make payments to the Tote Board for assisting the Tote Board to provide facilities for sponsored pool betting on approved racecourses on the basis that that was a purpose conducive to the improvement of horse racing. I do not think there was any dispute that the Tote must retain various totalistaors on small racecourses which are financially unviable but whose very presence is conducive to horse racing.
  Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 61 is to retain that power so that the Levy Board will still be able to give financial assistance, should it choose to do so, either to the Tote Board or to those people who have the management of the totalisator on those courses, to help in the running of the uneconomic totalisators on some of the racecourses.
  9 p.m.
  By new Clause 1 power would be given to the Levy Board to choose if it so wishes to write off the present indebtedness of the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board. This to a large extent is historical. Since the 1961 Act, which set up the Betting Levy Board and brought to an end the old Racecourse Betting Control Board, the Totalisator Board took on an indebtedness of some £626,440 to the Levy Board as an agreed balance, which it received at that stage, of the assets and liabilities of the Betting Control Board. During the ensuing years payments have been made from the Totalisator Board in respect of the annual levy, with payments in respect of the original liability, but the fact remains that at this moment there is still left outstanding—at the end of the financial year, at 31st March, 1971 —a sum of £465,605 as the indebtedness of the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board.
  If the principle of this Bill is to succeed, which is to provide for the future of a viable Tote, then, as I am sure almost all hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, it is only reasonable to the new chairman of that board and to the other members of the board at present, and future ones who may be appointed, that they should be given the opportunity to do that without having the millstone round their neck of a present indebtedness of very nearly £500.000.
  1372
  Therefore, the effect of new Clause 1 is to enable the Levy Board to have power to remit the sum, should it wish to do so. At the moment, I am advised, the Levy Board, even if it wished, has no power to remit the sum. Whether it chooses to do so will, of course, remain a matter for the Levy Board, but I believe it would have the opportunity to do so, so that the new Totalisator Board with its extended powers under this Bill, may become, as I am confident it will become, and will continue to be, a viable organisation able to provide an alternative method of betting to that provided by the private bookmaker, and at the same time, being non-profit making, giving its share towards the upkeep of racing in this country. I think it is right that it should have the opportunity to achieve that end without an inherited indebtedness of this kind.
  That is all I wish to say about the new Clause and the two Amendments proposed by the Government. As to the various Amendments to be taken with them I would just say to the hon. Gentleman for West, Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that his proposed Amendment to my new Clause 1, the Amendment which would enable the board to write off an indebtedness of one-quarter, has no advantage or purpose, if I may say so with respect.
  The purpose of new Clause 53 and new Clause 54, as I understand them, is to say that no levy should be payable by the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board till 1975. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman put down those Amendments to support the interests of the tote.
  It is the Governments' hope, as it is of the new Chairman, that the Totalisator Board should, as rapidly as its finances permit, be able to contribute to the Levy. That is in part the purpose of giving the Levy Board the opportunity to write off the existing indebtedness, so that the Totalisator Board can be seen to be making a contribution to that fund. It is neither desirable nor in the interests of the totalisator that that power should be prohibited until 1975, irrespective of how rapidly the financial situation improves.
  I therefore commend the new Clause to the House to enable the board to start off without a millstone of indebtedness round its neck, by providing that the Levy Board can assist the Tote Board in

  1373
  running its uneconomic services on totes on course, but, on the other hand, withdrawing the overall power which the Bill originally gave to the Levy Board to advance money to the Tote Board.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Before moving my Amendment to new Clause 1, I should like to make few comments on the Minister's opening remarks. He referred to the heartening situation of the Tote since the passage of the Bill in Committee. On Second Reading we were told what a perilous state the Totalisator Board was in and how terrible it was that we should have to come to the aid not of a lame duck industry but of a lame horse industry. From 20th April to 22nd June the Committee went through the Bill, and even gave permission to the Minister to adjourn the Committee so that he could go on a flip to the EEC. We were told how necessary it was to get the Bill through, yet now we are told that this lame horse industry is not in a perilous state.
  Not only has the House been misled, but the Minister appears to have been misled. According to information published in Sporting Life, the Tote Board has made £250,000 profit, less corporation tax—a net sum of about £100,000. The Minister will know the true figure; perhaps he will give us that information when he replies. I do not know whether this is due to the fact that the board has now a progressive, go-ahead chairman and that since the time he took over he has been able to make a success of this so-called lame duck industry.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman might concede that it only shows that all the vilification he continually poured on the previous chairman was unjustified. He might be man enough to admit it.
  Mr. Lewis: I was only going on the information given to Parliament by the board. After all, I did not introduce the Bill; I did not say the board was hard-pressed and hard up. The Minister and the Government said those things. I was under the impression that the board was in great difficulty. We now hear that that is not the case.
  Since I felt the board was in difficulties I tabled a few Amendments, which fortunately have been selected, to enable
  1374
  the board to become a little more profitable. However, today, which is probably the last day of the proceedings, we are told that the board is not in such dire need and that this makes my Amendments probably unnecessary. I was seeking to be helpful by relieving the board of a number of its outgoings so that it could make a profit. In new Clause 39 I suggest that the Levy Board should take over from the Totalisator Board payment of rates and taxes. I thought that this would relieve the Totalisator Board of some of the difficulty. Had I been told earlier that the Tote Board was not in such a perilous situation, my new Clause would not have been necessary.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Therefore, the hon. Gentleman does not now need to deal with all these voluminous Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper, since he appears to accept what my hon. and learned Friend said on new Clause 1. Therefore, we can save time, at least on this part of the Report stage, and not trouble to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's other Amendments which now become unnecessary.
  Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may have jumped the gun. He says that we do not now need my Amendments because the situation is different. But we were told a different story a few weeks ago.
  I do not blame the Minister; I think he was misled—though not by the present Chairman and the present Board. The Minister then gave information which has not proved to be correct. How do we know that the Totalisator Board has even now given the correct information and that the earlier information was wrong? In case it is not correct, my Amendments seek to help the board a little more.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: There is not a suggestion that the information which has been given is wrong. The information that the board had a deficit over a period was right; the information that it no longer has that deficit at present is right. It is the circumstances which have changed and they have been adumbrated today. The first is the change in the tax, and the second change relates to the arrangements which have been made with the bookmakers. They make the situation totally different.
  Mr. Lewis: No. The hon. Gentleman must remember that the report and accounts relate to the past year and that the Finance Bill was passed only recently. As a result, the benefits proposed in the Finance Bill will not yet apply, though certainly they will apply in the future. The false information given previously was the information then available. The new improvements will affect only the future, not the past. New Clause 39 gives the Tote Board the chance to be relieved of its outgoings in terms of rates and taxes and charges.
  9.15 p.m.
  New Clause 47 provides that all surpluses of the Levy Board, less £10,000 for its day-to-day administration, should be allocated in toto to the Tote Board. I am being of great help to the Tote Board. In Committee I was accused of trying to attack the Tote Board. I must agree that that was the case. I did so because I believed the information that the House was given. I believed that the Tote Board was in great difficulty. Having been convinced in Committee, having heard all the arguments and having been persuaded by all those who supported the Tote, I felt that I had to admit I was wrong, that it was in dire trouble and, therefore, that the Levy Board should come even further to its aid and give all its surplus to help it other than £10,000 administrative expenses.
  New Clause 53 provides that the Tote Board may be excluded from payment to the Levy Board until 1975. I am being very generous here. I am giving the Tote Board a five-year period of grace by providing that it shall not be liable to the Levy Board's levy for five years. This is very generous, but I am a very generous man.
  If I had known that the Tote Board was not in such dire trouble, the probability is that I would not have tabled these Amendments. But I have to be sure what is the information. It is quite new. We have heard about the changed circumstances only in the last two or three weeks.
  New Clause 54 is similar to the previous one.
  New Clause 72 allows the Levy Board to remit in whole or in part moneys owing to the Levy Board where the
  1376
  Totalisator Board has a profit of less than £100,000. This is marvellous thinking on my part. I did not know at the time that the Tote Board had made a profit of £100,000. I did not know that the accounts were to be published. I must have guessed that this would be very helpful. It seems to be the sort of figure which might be applicable in this case.
  It is true that I thought that probably £100,000 might be a bit high as the sum at which to fix a reasonable profit for the Tote Board. It was with that in mind that I tabled new Clause 73, which is similar in terms to the previous one except that I have reduced the £100,000 to £50,000. I realised that £100,000 for the poor Tote Board, which was always making a loss and was always in difficulty, might be a bit much. I fixed the figure at £50,000 in new Clause 73, taking the view that if new Clause 72 were not acceptable, new Clause 73 might be. All these are helpful proposals which the Minister may be inclined to accept.
  This is a shocking example of a waste of parliamentary time.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No.
  Mr. Lewis: It is. It was the Minister. not I, who said that the Totalisator Board was going bankrupt and that a Bill must be rushed through to deal with this matter, to take preference, incidentally, over a Bill to deal with the needs of old-age pensioners or with the "lame horse" industry. However, the Minister was misled and, in the process of his being misled, every Member of the Committee was misled.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: None of us was misled. I quoted the odds accurately, namely, that it was two to one on that the hon. Gentleman would be speaking at any given time between 20th April and 22nd June. During the sittings of the Committee the hon. Gentleman said nearly twice as much as all the other members of the Committee put together. I hope that there will not be a repetition tonight.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope not, too. If the hon. Gentleman does not interrupt me in every other sentence, we shall be able to make progress. After all, I have introduced five new Clauses and five Amendments in about four minutes. The

  1377
  hon. Gentleman as a lawyer should know that it is not advisable to teed ammunition to one's opponent. Like the Minister, the hon. Gentleman should table a Motion congratulating the hon. Member for West Ham, North on having had the chance to have this matter thoroughly debated in Committee so as to delay the proceedings long enough for the Totalisator Board, albeit reluctantly, to come forward with the facts, thus enabling the Minister to table the new Clause and the Amendments. Had it not been for my efforts in Committee in delaying proceedings to enable the truth to out, the Minister would not have had the opportunity of tabling these wonderful Amendments. So the hon. Gentleman should congratulate me on my efforts, not castigate me.
  I hope that before the debate ends the Minister will, in his usual charming manner, pay me a tribute for enabling him to table the Amendments which he could have tabled in Committee but did not. Similar Amendments were tabled by hon. Members in Committee but the Minister did not accept them. Almost every one of the Amendments tabled by the Minister on Report originates from points of views expressed by hon. Members in Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden).
  My main objection on Second Reading and in Committee was that I saw no reason to debate horseracing or to look after bookmakers and the betting and racing fraternities when far more urgent and important things needed to be done. However, in Committee I was persuaded that there might have been a case. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), speaking for the Totalisator Board, persuaded me that I was probably wrong. Now at the last moment, when the House is about to rise for the Summer Recess, I learn that all the information which persuaded me that I was wrong was wrong and that I was right.
  The Minister now says that he is going to do all the things that he was aked to do in Committee, and all the things which the Minister and I turned down we are now to agree to. I cannot oppose the Minister, but I am pleased at long last to see some penitence on the part of the Department. Had this been done in Committee, the Bill could have gone
  1378
  through within a few days, or even within a few hours, and we should not have had to spend all this time on it today.
  In deference to the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet I shall not explain all the new Clauses and Amendments at length. They are all good proposals and they are along the lines of what the Minister wanted in Committee.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall be brief, but after what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said I think we ought to follow what the Minister said and get the matter into a right perspective, at any rate for those outside the House who want to understand what had happened. The new Clause is probably the best place in which to do it.
  The Totalisator Board was right to press the Home Office, and therefore the Home Secretary, to introduce a Bill. At that time there was considerable financial difficulty in making ends meet. It was necessary that we should be sure that we were not left with a bankrupt totalisator which could have led to a complete monopoly by the bookmaking profession.
  That meant that we had to give certain powers, and one of the things that was most necessary was to enable a grant or loan to be made to the totalisator. It was known—and it is a fact—that there was a debt of about £500,000 and that it was going into the red at the rate of at least £250,000 a year—probably £500,000 a year. Consequently, it was necessary to introduce a Bill of this kind.
  Furthermore, it was necessary to find some method by which we could make the Tote viable, and the method chosen by the Government was to give it the opportunity not merely to be full betting operators and run a tote, but also to have the chance to be bookmakers both off and on the course. The Clause is linked to the other new Clauses which we shall deal with later, in particular new Clause 3. Therefore, in looking at the matter in the round one first had to see whether it was necessary to inject money into the Tote—and it was, and it still is—and, secondly, to see how that could be done.
  One way was to inject Government money in the form of loans either through the Levy Board or in effect direct. Happily, this evening the Government are

  1379
  able to withdraw Clause 6 which gives power for the Levy Board to make grants or loans to the Tote, and at the same time new Clause 1, if the House accepts it, and I feel sure that it will, writes off £500,000 debt which is a debt only in this sense, that the Tote has been unable to earn the necessary moneys to pay the grant that it had to pay. It is not a debt as we understand the word. It is a failure to meet the proper obligation imposed upon it. It seems that both those are right.
  But the reason for not continuing with the grant and for having a Second Reading and a Committee stage has given us the time and opportunity to consider other administrative measures which have really achieved the purpose that has been set out. In Committee I said that the only way by which the racing industry could save itself was by its own exertions, and that applies to both greyhounds and horses.
  With regard to horse racing, it was necessary in particular to see a new type of corporation merging between the public, the bookmaker and the totalisator. There was signally absent any kind of effective co-operation in particular between the bookmaking fraternity and the Tote.
  9.30 p.m.
  Therefore, it is an integral part of the debate, and the withdrawal of Clause 6 giving grants and loans, that the bookmakers and the Totalisator have now got together. It is essential that they should do so because if there was to be a thriving industry as exists at present, for example, in France, and if we were to be able to have racing for those who enjoy it at lower rates when they go on the course and pay for their day's outing, and if people were to go racing and thereby increase the number going racing rather than being the stay-at-home people who make no contribution, it was necessary to ensure that the Totalisator and the bookmakers got together.
  This they have done, and, as I understand it, it means that we in this country will see the benefits of the tierce and the jackpot. We will see the introduction of the tierce along the French lines but by means of a new British system to be introduced, and which will be promoted
  1380
  for the benefit of the Totalisator. It will operate on one main race on a Saturday and the Tote will get the full benefit of it, but the agents for the Tote will be in the betting offices operated by the bookmakers. This will provide the real money, and will ensure that there will in future be a minimum income for the Totalisator of £1 million a year coming from the operation of the jackpot, the Totalisator and other matters of that kind.
  This will be something which ought to assure in the main the revenue which in due course will inure to the benefit of the Levy Board and of racing, and will therefore be helpful and conducive to the interests of racing as laid down in the principles for which the Tote was originally created to promote.
  It is essential that the Tote should operate, in the main, the betting offices on the course which are now being operated. Until very recently we did not have any betting on course. We had the Tote on course and we also had the genuine on course bookmakers but, on the other hand, we did not have the starting price operating for the benefit mainly of other courses on the course. This can now come about. This will be utilising much of the space which belongs to the Totalisator and this, again, should inure to the benefit of the Totalisator.
  For these reasons, it seems to me that the Government are much to be congratulated on what they have done here. They are to be congratulated because they were right in initiating it, and they are very much to be congratulated on listening very carefully to all those concerned in the racing industry. In particular, my hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on seeing that Lord Mancroft together with those with him were concerned in response to requests made in Committee, so that he and the bookmakers have got together. There is nothing that the Government can do. The Government cannot lay down legislation in this field, it is not part of their duty, but they can give the opportunity for these others to come together, as they have done.
  Now we can see the results of the Government's measures, one of them being the introduction of the changes in the Finance Bill in June, after the Bill had

  1381
  gone into Committee, which provide for a lower differential for on course betting. This must be of great benefit to the Tote. So all these matters have been altered. It would be wrong to criticise them by what would be hindsight by suggesting that they should have guessed all these matters 12 months ago, because by their action they have promoted a climate of opinion in racing here, the result of which has been to achieve these advantages and to set this industry now along the right path. That is why I commend new Clause 1 and also the removal of Clause 6 as sought by Amendment No. 66. In this way we will have gone a long way to setting things along the right path and in accordance with the principles which we on this side like to support.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: I was amused by the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) who said that it was in the best interests" if the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board co-operated. Did he mean in order to carve up the public? I am disappointed about the change. It is a change certainly of course, if not of intent. I should like to be clear about it.
  The Minister has changed his mind after considering the Amendment to which I spoke in Committee on 4th May concerning off-course betting on greyhounds. We are concerned not only with greyhounds and horse racing but with other sports. There will be nothing to prevent the board from purchasing a string of betting shops and then engaging in off-course betting on greyhounds. That would be entirely wrong.
  The consensus in Committee was in favour of the Amendment and the Minister promised to consider co-operating with myself and other hon. Members. I am given to understand now that there is a change of action and I wonder whether it is a change of view. If we are to do the right thing at the right time there will have to be a change in outlook. I wonder whether it would be possible at this late stage to obtain an undertaking from the Minister about off-course betting and the Totalisator Board.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member should realise that Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 deal with this matter. What we are discussing has nothing to do with greyhounds. I should warn him, how-
  1382
  ever, that I shall not be sympathetic to him on those later Amendments.
  Mr. Roberts: I appreciate that we shall be dealing with that in a moment, but I was making general observations because I was disappointed with what the Minister had said.
  Mr. John Page: I welcome Amendment No. 66 which deletes Clause 6 and I support New Clause 1 which seems to be a sensible proposal. I congratulate the Minister on these and other Amendments which he has put forward and I feel that at this stage we have to congratulate him for the way he handled the Committee Stage and for the way he has brought forward new Amendments, which are entirely due to changing circumstances which it was not his responsibility to foresee.
  I am not proposing to intervene again unless violently obliged to do so. The debates which took place focussed attention on the management of racing as a whole and that has been beneficial in many ways. I hope my hon. Friend will not overlook at some later date, when he comes to consider a new Statutory authority for racing, the Committee of Inquiry under Sir Henry Benson, and I hope that he can persuade the Government, when there is a slack moment in the parliamentary programme, in a few months time, to introduec a short Bill on the subject.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I begin by declaring a financial interest in this matter. Though it is, I suppose, the most single important section of the Report stage, I do not intend to speak at any length, but I should like to make two or three comments.
  First, I see no objection at all to what the Minister has left in, as he put it. New Clause 1 is not objectionable, for it seems reasonable, particularly in view of the way in which the financial obligation came about, that the Levy Board, if it wishes—and the Minister has said and the Bill says no more than that—may remit amounts which are outstanding from the Totalisator Board. It does not seem to me that we should hedge that concession around with any restrictions. I see no reason why that power should not go through, and I welcome new Clause 1.

  1383
  Similarly, I do not see why, for the benefit of horse racing, the Levy Board should not be empowered to advance certain sums to the Totalisator Board, and the Minister described that part of new Clause 6 as being declaratory. On the other hand, I greatly welcome the fact that Clause 6 has been taken out of the Bill, and it is probably worth saying a word or two on that subject.
  First, I congratulate the Minister. It is always difficult, and, by some odd convention of the House, which I confess I have never understood, though I have often seen put into practice. for Ministers to change their minds. It is somehow felt to be wrong, to be infra dig, to be a reflection on the Administration.
  The Minister has changed his mind and he has done so because there has come to him information that he did not have and could not have had before as to the financial viability of the board, and there were also the things mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) which have been agreed in discussions between representatives of the Totalisator Board and the bookmakers, and I will mention those in a moment. The Minister has wisely decided in view of this information and in view of the concession made during the course of the Finance Bill in regard to the on-course market to take out Clause 6, saying in effect that there is no reason why the Levy Board should have to advance substantial sums to the Totalisator Board, and I think that that is right.
  On the evidence we have before us, there is no reason why the old Clause 5, the new Clause 6, should have stayed in the Bill in that form and the hon. and learned Gentleman has pleased not only me but many of his hon. Friends by simply taking it out, by responding to the situation as it exists. I commend not only his wisdom, but his courage in that he has been prepared to do that and not to waste the time of the House by trying to argue for something that would have been extremely controversial in view of the facts that we now have.
  I do not want to say much more except to take up what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said about co-operation between the Totalisator Board and the bookmakers—and here I refer to my attitude in Committee and to that of the
  1384
  Minister. At every stage the Minister said that if it could be shown to him that there was a way of assisting the Totalisator Board into permanent viability without having to have recourse to some of the provisions of the Bill, he would gladly listen to any suggestion and would do all he could to facilitate it and would then be prepared to change the Bill to take account of those circumstances.
  The Minister has been as good as his word; that is exactly what he has done. He has facilitated talks of the kind that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet believes will mean a new era for British racing, as I believe is the case and as a result, not entirely but partly, of the talks the Minister has been prepared to make certain changes in the Bill. I commend him for that, too. At every stage he said that he would do that if the opportunity arose and when the opportunity arose, he did.
  9.45 p.m.
  I said in Committee at pretty well every stage that I was convinced that if the bookmakers could talk to the Totalisator Board about their suggestions to ensure the Tote's viability the board would find that what was being offered was substantial and calculable and would produce the necessary viability. I shall not go into details of private negotiations other than to say that I think that that situation has come about, and that the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet is right in assuming that there will be a new era of co-operation between the Totalisator Board and the private bookmakers, with the private bookmakers on the Tierce and the jackpot, acting as agents of the board to produce a substantial revenue.
  Therefore, it has all ended happily—lengthily, no doubt, in Committee terms, but happily. As we are all handing out bouquets freely, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on the commendable brevity with which he spoke to the new Clauses and his sub-Amendments.
  I think that the discussions in Committee were of value and that the Minister has honoured to the full the assurances he gave. New Clause 1 is absolutely acceptable, and I think that the Minister was right to remove the old Clause 5,

  1385
  the new Clause 6. In other words, I think that the Bill as now drafted in relation at least to what we are now discussing—new Clause 1 and the omission of new Clause 6—is entirely right, as it should be, and something to which nobody in racing who had studied the issue could have serious objections.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) in congratulating the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). If we accept the arguments of the hon. Member for West Ham, North we must agree that it was the length of time he took in Committee that has allowed the results of the Totalisator for this year to be known. The hon. Gentleman proves that it is a long ill wind that blows nobody any good. It is good news that the Totalisator's finances for the past year have improved. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had been working on figures for previous years, which had been dismal, and on the forecast for this year, which was also dismal. The results have been much better than anyone expected. It is good to know that the new chairman is confident that the Totalisator will work better in the future. We all wish the new chairman well in that.
  I am glad that Clause 6 is being taken out of the Bill. The justice sought by the bookmakers has been provided by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I am pleased that the National Association of Bookmakers has played its part in making the Totalisator a viable proposition for the future. I hope that the co-operation will continue.
  I echo the many thanks to my hon. and learned Friend. I am pleased that he was flexible and ready to act so quickly when he had the forecasts. I am most grateful to him for what he has done.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I congratulate the Minister on one thing—his coolness in presenting the new Clause and the Amendments. He did it in a way which suggested that they were minor drafting Amendments which were of little consequence and which the House would
  1386
  accept without much debate. They are not minor Amendments at all. The Minister has altered the whole emphasis of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthui Lewis) is absolutely correct. Much as I respect and like the Minister personally, he cannot expect to get away scot-free, despite the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), who is very well pleased.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints represents, as he has openly stated and is entitled to do, the interests of the National Association of Bookmakers, and of course the association is quite content with what the Minister of State has done. The bookmakers objected from the start to Clause 5, which has subsequently been elevated to Clause 6. They objected in principle. They did not like the thought of the Levy Board being able to give subsidies, grants, guarantees or money in any form to the Totalisator Board, since they themselves, understandably, had contributed to the Levy Board. That being the case, all the nonsense we had in Committee about five-year guarantees and time limits and limits on the money was really irrelevant and spurious. It was not my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North who wasted the time of the Committee but the Minister of State. I admit that my hon. Friend made odd relevant interjections from time to time, but nevertheless the Minister came out with a succession of Amendments which we now learn, to our astonishment, were wholly unnecessary.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has paid tribute to the Minister of State, in which I join. Will he also pay tribute to the Opposition? The Opposition Whips were going around to get the quorum to enable the Committee to continue. Had it not been for the Opposition Whips the Committee would have collapsed on several occasions.
  Mr. Davidson: Of course the Opposition Whip on the Committee, who is sitting on my right, deserves every congratulation because he, like myself, represents one person—or, rather, several million—the average punter. I find it a little offensive that in what is, after all, an industry financed by small punters, who are rarely mentioned, matters should be decided behind closed doors between

  1387
  representatives of the Totalisator Board and the bookmakers, a circle into which the punter has not been invited and to which he has no access.
  The Minister of State says that there has been a change of circumstances. He says that he has now heard that the gloomy prognostication which we got before and which he conveyed to the House with a great deal of gloom have not transpired and that the Tote has made a profit. What profit has it made? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot just tell us that things are now better than they were without telling us what evidence he has for saying so. He has withdrawn what he claimed to be an essential Clause, although neither my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North nor I thought it essential.
  Although I believe that the Government are capable of almost anything, I do not think that they put in Clauses for the sake of doing so. We were told that this was an essential Clause and now, after weeks and weeks of debate in Committee, we are told that it is not necessary after all. How does it come about that it is now not necessary? It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he is now led to believe that the Tote is in better financial condition than it was before without also telling us just what its financial condition now is. It is no good his telling us what the financial condition is without telling us where he gets the information. Who informed him in the first place that the Tote was in such a perilous state that we had to have this massive Bill? The Minister has been less than informative to the House and the Committee.
  I was interested to hear the optimistic sentiments of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). He talked loftily about the tiercé, and the jackpot and how beneficial these two methods of betting would be for the industry. We do not know that the agreement reached between the National Association of Bookmakers and the Tote of necessity means that the bookmakers will operate the tiercé system which is a complicated one and which I will not attempt to describe because I really do not understand it. We cannot presume that is the case and we cannot presume that the bookmakers will operate the jackpot for
  1388
  the benefit of the Tote. If there has been an agreement reached between the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board of which the Minister is aware, he ought to tell us about it.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us before Third Reading because he might have changed his mind by then. I hope that Third Reading is taken tonight because I would hate to have to come again and hear him put the Clause back. I am not opposed to his taking the Clause out; at the same time I was not opposed to his putting it in because in my naivety I believed what he told me, as did the Committee. I am sure that the Opposition will not oppose this because, naïvely, we will believe the information that we have been given.
  I agree about new Clause 1. It is right to give the Levy Board the power to remit the sums outstanding. We all welcome the appointment of Lord Mancroft but his presence, magical as it may well be, cannot by itself have made the difference between a Tote apparently losing millions of pounds being in a state of bankruptcy and now being in a profitable condition. He has not been there long enough even for him to do that. My hon. Friends will not oppose Amendment No. 66 but I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming and tell us why this volte-face has occurred and why it was not possible to take this out in Committee when many hon. Members. including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, were pressing him to do so.
  I hope that the Minister will give a belated message of congratulations to my hon. Friend, because had he not continually opposed this it may well be that the Bill would have been passed and these unnecessary provisions would have been on the Statute Book and we would have wasted our time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will be aware that we sat on 22nd June and it is now only 7th August. Surely the Minister could have given this information in Committee if he had known it. I assume that it has come to him between 22nd June and 7th August. It does not really seem possible.
  Mr. Davidson: I am sure that the Minister, whom we all respect, would have given us the information if he had

  1389
  had it. We certainly do not impuge his good faith but it is odd, to say the least, that we have had weeks of debate with all sorts of suggestions, not very novel ones, and yet it is only at the eleventh hour, to use that dramatic phrase, that the Minister comes here and tells us that what everyone has been saying is right and that he is wrong. But he does not tell up upon what he bases his information. I hope that he will now be much more forthcoming.
  Mr. Carlisle: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the extraordinary speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). First, his suggestion that I took up a lot of time in Committee I find remarkable, since in view of the length of the Committee stage my contributions were reasonably small—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill, the Land Charges Bill [Lords], the National Debt Bill [Lords] and the Poisons Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  HORSE RACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. Carlisle: Secondly, the hon. Member talked specifically about the time that I took up or wasted on Clause 5. Since the only Amendment that I moved on that Clause is being retained by Amendment No. 61, which transfers it to Clause 4, it does not appear that I wasted much time. Furthermore, since—according to my recollection—the hon. Member was not present when Clause 5 was debated, it is a little hard of him to accuse me of wasting time.
  I do not propose to congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) because I do not believe that his conduct throughout the whole of the Bill merits his being congratulated.
  1390
  I made it clear at the time that the purpose of inserting Clause 5 was the need—as then envisaged—for the Totalisator Board to receive financial assistance from the Levy Board until it could take advantage of the opportunities of the Bill.
  I also point out to the hon. Member for Accrington that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who was at that time deputising for him, said that the Opposition had expressed concern about Clause 5. I understood that it was the wish of the Opposition that if the Clause were found to be no longer necessary the Government should withdraw it.
  In fairness, I cannot tell the hon. Member what the final situation will be, since the accounts of the Totalisator Board have not yet been laid before Parliament, but I can say that the outcome for the financial year shows a healthier situation than that which the Government envisaged when the Clause was introduced. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Mancroft would be the first to accept that these accounts relate to a period before he occupied the chair, but he will welcome the comments that have been made about him although he has no direct responsibility for those accounts. The fact remains that, as I understand, the accounts will show a modest profit for the year, against the statements made that they were likely to show a substantial loss and had shown a loss in the previous year.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Over the years we have been accustomed, after the event, to find that Press leaks about the Government are invariably correct. Will the Minister confirm or deny that the Press leaks about the board's profit are right or wrong? He knows about the Press leaks. Can he say whether the board is in as healthy a state as is reported?
  Mr. Carlisle: They are not Press leaks of the Government. The Totalisator Board is not a part of the Government. I confirm—if it is what the hon. Member wishes me to confirm—that the board's accounts show that it has made a reasonably modest profit during the previous year, as against the loss that at one stage was being forecast by the board. I should have thought that that would be welcomed.

  1391
  Secondly, I am bound to take account of the likely effect on profitability of decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the Budget debate. The combination of these factors leads me to believe that short-term financial aid from the Levy Board will no longer be necessary. That is why I have removed Clause 5.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Accrington that to the best of my knowledge—and despite what has been suggested—no agreement has been entered into between the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board. Certainly the circumstances of any agreement are a matter for the Tote Board and for those with whom it negotiates. Therefore, I can only say that within my knowledge no agreement has been entered into between them.
  It has been drawn to my attention that, when winding up for the Opposition on
  1392
  Second Reading, the hon. Member for Accrington was very critical about Clause 5 and said that what he wanted to see was
  "a position whereby the tote is reorganised on a firm businesslike footing so that it can, with the facilities provided by this Bill, go to the City and borrow money if necessary." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 790.]
  In other words, he did not think that Clause 5 was needed. I am happy to tell him that I am satisfied that that situation has been reached. Since it has been said that I have not been prepared to change my mind in view of the changing circumstances, I commend the new Clause and repeat, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard, that I was slightly surprised by the tone of his speech.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

  LICENCES TO ACCEPT BETS AT BOOKMAKERS' PRICES
  (1) The authority responsible for granting licences to accept bets at bookmakers' prices shall be the Bookmakers' Committee.

  (2) Such licences shall be granted to offices belonging to the Totalisator Board upon payment of a licence fee.

  (3) The amount of the fee payable shall be calculated in the same manner in which the Totalisator Board presently calculates the fees paid by bookmakers for authority to accept bets at Totalisator Board prices, namely, a proportion of the levy payment'.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss new Clause 36—"Copyright fees".
  Mr. Lewis: The new Clauses are similar. I am glad that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made his speech and gone because when he keeps intervening it takes up time, and I do not want to be long because I wish the proceedings to be completed as soon as possible.
  I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not explain the Clause at length, but he has read it. It is, in fact, self-explanatory. Its purpose is to make provision for the Totalisator Board to make bets at bookmakers' prices on licence.
  New Clause 36 provides that
  "The copyright fee payable by a bookmaker who bets at totalisator odds shall be colected by the Horserace Betting Levy Board on behalf of the Totalisator Board and shall be paid by the said bookmakers at the same time as their levy".
  The Clause would be administratively useful to the Levy Board, to the Tote Board and to the bookmakers. There may not be good in it, but there is no harm in it.
  Mr. Carlisle: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on the speed with which he moved the new Clause. I promise him that if he maintains his performance during the evening I shall not perhaps
  1394
  make the unkind remarks which I was minded to make about him.
  The purpose of the new Clause is to provide, in effect, that the tote should have to pay a fee for what is called in it "bookmakers' prices", just as the bookmakers pay a fee for settling odds at tote prices. However, I think that the Clause is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. There is no copyright in any form of bookmakers' prices, as the hon. Gentleman refers to it. There is, of course, a copyright provided by Statute on the totalisator prices, and it is for that copyright that the bookmakers pay a fee for the use of totalisator prices.
  I am not going to criticise the wording of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause but by "bookmakers' prices" he presumably means either the board prices or the starting prices. As for the board prices, every individual bookmaker can make his own book, and, of course, he works out his own odds which he chooses to give on the basis of the cash being paid into his book. Therefore, no other bookmaker or body is likely to pay out on one board price as such, and even if he did there would be no basis for paying a fee for that service, since it might be that on the cash flow into his business he would make a loss if he paid out a price similar to that offered by another bookmaker.
  As for starting prices, starting prices are merely struck by the racing correspondents of certain of the leading racing papers, taking the mean of the various prices being offered by the board and various of the leading bookmakers on the course, and the starting price is then that which is paid out by the bookmakers who are offering the odds and taking bets at starting prices.
  There is absolutely no copyright attached to that starting price. Many of the smaller bookmakers who had no part in creating the starting price nevertheless take bets at the starting price and pay no charge for that service. There is no cost involved in assessing what the starting price is.
  Therefore, it would be completely inappropriate that the Totalisator should be asked to pay a fee for taking bets at odds which other bookmakers can take free of charge. I think that new Clause 4, if I may say so, starts off on a false assumption as to the distinction between the

  1395
  totalisator prices and the way they are arrived at and the way starting prices are arrived at.
  As to new Clause 36, until recently the copyright fee paid by the bookmaker was paid to the Levy Board and not the Totalisator Board. I understand that this was stopped, and a sum instead was paid to the Totalisator Board, and the previous arrangement came to an end by mutual agreement between the two boards, the procedure being now that the bookmakers tell the totalisator which category, for levy purposes, they are in and the totalisator collects directly from them and checks with the Levy Board that the category quoted is correct. I am advised that the Levy Board is not anxious to resume the rôle of agent for the totalisator and the collection of fees. I understand that there would be no advantage either for the totalisator or the bookmakers if this were to be so, and I think that as the previous arrangement was stopped by mutual consent it would be better to retain the present position.
  I understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause but, as I say, in fact there is nothing, without the new Clause, which would prevent the Levy Board from taking over the collection of the copyright fee. I understand that it is unlikely that it would.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 8

  CONTRIBUTION BY TOTALISATOR BOARD
  Notwithstanding anything in section 30 of the Act of 1963 or the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 the contribution to be made by the Totalisator Board to the Levy Board in respect of business carried on under section 1(1)(b) of this Act shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Acts applicable to the determination of the contribution to be made by bookmakers; and the provisions of the said Acts with respect to the assessment to levy of individual bookmakers shall for the purposes of this section apply to the Totalisator Board as if the Board were a bookmaker.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]
  Brought up and read the First time
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take also new Clause 70—"Determination of contributions by Totalisator Board".
  Mr. Lewis: The purpose of the new Clause is to make the Totalisator Board and the bookmakers equally assessable for the levy paid to the Levy Board. It used to be said that the Totalisator Board was not properly a bookmaker and it was therefore treated differently. Now that the Totalisator Board is becoming a totalisator board-cum-bookmaker, with assistance, it is only fair that the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board should be treated equally. Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, (Mr. Brian Walden) has put down a new Clause in similar terms and no doubt he will wish to speak to it.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I have very little to say about new Clause 70. The Clause was put down to the Bill as it emerged from Committee, which is a totally different Bill from that which we shall pass on Third Reading. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said. If the Totalisator Board were to operate as a bookmaker per se it should do so under the conditions that apply to all private bookmakers. I doubt whether that situation will ever arise and I therefore see no purpose in wasting the time of the House. There is no point in my making a long speech about how undesirable it would be for a public body to be given a beneficial arrangement by the State over a private body when it is operating as a direct competitor. That is a speech which I am sure would have moved hon. Gentlemen opposite to tears but which regrettably will not now be made.
  Mr. Carlisle: The new Clause moved by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is similar to that moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), which he was good enough to withdraw when I undertook to look again at the matter. I have looked at it again, and I must advise the House that I do not think that a new Clause in the terms

  1397
  suggested either by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, or by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) would be desirable in statutory form.
  To take up the point made by the hon. Member for All Saints, I must make clear that, subject to Amendments that are to come, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Totalisator Board from going into the fixed odds market, into the starting price market, running a book or going into the off-course market. The purpose of an Amendment which I shall shortly be moving, and which has been anticipated by the hon. Gentleman, is merely to put a commencing Clause on the advantages that might have been granted to the tote in achieving that end. It is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board. The Bill will permit it to go into fixed odds and starting price betting both on-course or off-course.
  The purpose of the Clause, as I understand it, is to say that if the board choose to take that course it should be assessed similarly for levy as a private bookmaker. The difficulty with the new Clause in this form is that the assessment for levy of the private bookmaker is highly complicated and depends on the category in which he finds himself, and this again depends on the proportion of income, whether it be credit betting, cash betting, on-course betting or off-course betting. It is unlikely that the Totalisator in its full functions would suitably fit into any of those categories.
  I suggest that it is sensible and right that one cannot look at one portion of the Totalisator Board's potential income for levy purposes without taking into account its overall position. Liability for levy depends basically on the ability to pay of the totalisator or private bookmaker. If we look at the ability to pay of the totalisator, we must look at the overall turnover, whether it be from pool betting or fixed odds. I do not think it is appropriate statutorily to attempt to divide it and say, "On that you shall pay so much percentage of your turnover, irrespective of whether you are making a loss or a profit on the other part of your enterprise".
  Having looked at the matter again, I do not consider the new Clause to be appropriate. It is, nevertheless, accepted that one of the principles of that assess-
  1398
  ment of the tote should be that the tote should not be in a position in which it can conduct fixed odds business on terms which, because of its separate levy position, favour it in comparison with other bookmakers. The Government intend that the Levy Board should not use its power to achieve that situation.
  In all assessments made by the Levy Board it has, for understandable reasons, always assessed a higher proportion of the proportion of totalisator for levy as a non-profit making body than it has in regard to a private bookmaker. The fact is that the tote is a non-profit making body and the surplus will go back into racing. Implementation of the principle that the tote should not be in a favourable position because of its separate levy contributions calls for a sophisticated procedure which must take into account all the various factors on which an assessment is based. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new Clause.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 71

  DEFINITION OF BOOKMAKER
  Section 55(1) of the Act of 1963 shall be read and have effect as if in the definition of "bookmaker" the words "other than the Totalisator Board" were omitted.—[Mr. Brian Walden.]
  Brought up and read the First time.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I shall not take very long, but I wish to take up a comment made by the Minister which gives the House some indication why I thought that something like this new Clause would be desirable.
  The Minister rightly said that nothing we are doing on Report, on the presumption that we pass the Bill, prevents the Totalisator Board from going into the off-course market if it wishes. Lest it be felt by those who report our affairs that that means that the Minister and I understand these matters differently, perhaps I could say that I am sure that we are wholly in accord.
  The Minister says that there is nothing in the Bill by means of which the Government can interfere in the commercial judgment of the tote. I quite agree. I

  1399
  am saying that I am certain that the commercial judgment of the tote now will be not to go into the SP market. I have too much confidence in Lord Mancroft to believe that he would be so stupid. If the tote goes into the SP market and has to raise all the capital necessary to do that it will throw away a very substantial sum that it is now hoped to get without any effort or endeavour on its part.
  I agree with the Minister, and I do not want anyone to think that in what I said I was implying that we were passing a Bill which prevented the Tote Board from going into the SP market if it wanted to. I am sure that it will not. However, before I realised that I could afford to be as sure as I am now, it occurred to me that if the Totalisator Board were to operate as an SP book-maker it had as a matter of equity to be subjected to the same terms and conditions as those to which commercial bookmakers are subjected.
  I regard new Clause 71 as probably redundant now. However, its then reasonable purpose was to alter the definition of "bookmaker" in the 1963 Act so that the Tote Board should not receive an exclusion.
  I do not imagine that the Minister will accept the Clause. However one of the good things about what we are doing this evening is that we are moving away from the nonsense of having a Tote Board which is not a Tote Board, of having a Tote Board which is also an SP bookmaker, and having a Tote Board which is very difficult to categorise in betting. New Clause 71 was an attempt to say that anyone who operated in the SP market was a bookmaker and therefore was not entitled to any concessions given to a quasi-public body operating in pool betting.
  I am delighted to think that the practicalities of the present situation are such that it is almost certain that these difficulties will not arise. However I put it to the Minister that the theoretical difficulty does arise in the way in which we are passing the Bill. If the Tote Board is to operate as a bookmaker off-course, I claim that it has no right to any consideration which would apply if it were solely a pool betting agency—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: There is one important point. The hon. Gentleman is stressing "off-course": that is to say it should be equally between the bookmakers and the totalisator if the totalisator ventures off-course. But on-course it may wish to have SP arrangements in this new scheme being evolved. I take it that he is excluding that possibility from the operation of what he is saying.
  Mr. Walden: That is an important point. It was my intention to deal with it on Third Reading, but perhaps I had beter take it up at once.
  It has always been the view of the National Association of Bookmakers that it ran SP shops on-course simply for the convenience of punters and to prevent individual firms from running shops on-course. The NAB always has been naturally sensitive to the needs of on-course bookmakers, and the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) knows how on-course shops, if made very attractive at SP odds, could seriously damage the on-course market. Rather than have competition arise between individual firms, the National Association of Bookmakers, as the National Association, has run those shops on-course. It has never been unwilling to discuss with the Tote Board the possibility that it would run those shops and give the profit from them to the Totalisator Board.
  10.30 p.m.
  I have only this objection to the board running its own shops. It is a personal objection. It does not necessarily reflect the views of anyone other than myself. I do not think that giving the board the power to run SP shops on race courses will have desirable results. What are these places to be? Are they to be what I would call stand palaces—magnificently lush places where one can sit, drink and bet at SP? If they are, a most serious effect will then be felt by the on-the-rails bookmaker. I would not want the board to do anything like that, though I personally would not have the slightest objection to the board either receiving the profit from the NAB shops or running similar facilities itself.
  What I fear is an attempt to produce a pari-mutuel situation, a situation in which the board is taking more and more of the money which is being bet on-course.I object to that, not only

  1401
  because it enormously affects the profits of bookmakers off-course, but because it ruins the whole starting price business. Once a meaningful starting price cannot be declared, the whole of racing will suffer.
  It can be argued that no such situation would ever arise. I would accept that. It is most unlikely that any body chaired by Lord Mancroft would ever be so foolish as to spend a lot of money establishing places to pick up a certain amount of money from the on-course market which it knew would ruin the on-course market for the bookmaker and mean that Sporting Life and Sporting Chronicle could not declare a reasonable starting price. I cannot believe that it will happen. Nevertheless, as we are discussing what might happen, and as the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet asked me a fair question, I have answered him in some detail.
  I revert to my main point. If we are discussing a Bill which gives at least the theoretical chance of the board operating as an SP bookmaker, I hope that the Minister will agree with me that even if the new Clause is not the way he would find to do it, there must be at some stage clear guidance from the House that the board cannot expect to be both a quasipublic body operating as a pool betting agency and receiving preferential treatment in that sense and at the same time operating in effect as an SP bookmaker off-course, and that this would make no sense, that it would be inequitable, and that the House would have to do something about it.
  Mr. Carlisle: I can only repeat to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) that, if the Totalisator Board chooses to go into the off-course starting price market, it must be a matter for its own commercial judgment, if it considers that that is in its interests to enable it to remain viable for the purpose of running an alternative method of betting available to the public.
  The hon. Gentleman says that, if the board does this, it should be under all the same constraints as a bookmaker and that for that purpose the words
  "other than the Totalisator Board"
  should be removed from the definition of "bookmaker" in the 1963 Act. This
  1402
  is unacceptable. Certain minor consequences would follow, one being that the board would be required to apply for a bookmaker's permit, which would be unnecessary and undesirable. I suspect that what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and this is a more serious objection, is that if the board goes into the off-course market as a bookmaker, in that it is taking and negotiating bets, it should be subject to similar contributions to the levy as a private bookmaker. It therefore gives me the opportunity to say that I failed to say in reply to the previous debate, which is that the Totalisator Board is specifically excluded from the definition of a bookmaker. So long as it is carrying on pool betting it is not liable to similar contributions to the levy as the bookmaker. Because the bets are being taken by the Totalisator Board, if it offers to accept bets at tote prices it is not subject to the levy, although a bookmaker who accepts bets at Tote prices is.
  On the other hand, its only reason for being excluded from the normal levy scheme for the bookmakers, if it chooses to accept ordinary fixed odd or starting price bets, is on the basis that the contribution to the levy is payable by a bookmaker acting on his own account. In other words, should the totalisator Board enter into the off-course market on its own account and accept fixed odds bets, it would not for that reason become subject to levy payments, but if it should go into the starting price market by means either of setting up a subsidiary company for that purpose, or, in negotiation with one or more bookmakers, creating a company for that purpose, then it would not be taking bets on its own account and that subsidiary company would therefore be a bookmaker within the definition of bookmaker in the 1963 Act and therefore would be liable for a similar contribution to the levy as that paid by the present private bookmaker.
  I make that point because one of the hon. Gentleman's concerns is that the board might find it in its commercial interest to enter into negotiation with a particular individual private bookmaker, set up a subsidiary company for that purpose, and be able to use statutory advantages in the interests of that subsidiary company and through that subsidiary company, the firm of bookmakers

  1403
  with which it had carried out the negotiation.
  I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I understand the legal position, should the board enter into such an arrangement with an individual book-maker and set up a subsidiary company for that purpose, and the subsidiary company accepts bets at fixed odds or at tote prices, that company would be deemed in law to be a bookmaker and would not enjoy any advantage as against any other bookmaker nor, if other Amendments yet to be debated are accepted, would there be any statutory advantage as a result of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman can be assured that much of his real concern is met, and he may think it is to his advantage to remember that it means that if the board as such, although going into the off-course market, wishes to have the advantage of being separately assessed for levy, it will have to retain its off-course interests itself; because if it once enters into a connection with an individual bookmaker and creates a subsidiary company for that purpose it will have no advantage of separate assessment as the Totalisator Board. It will be assessed in the same way as any other bookmaker.
  Mr. Brian Walden: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the Minister of State has given a very valuable assurance. It is not that I have not had guidance from him on previous occasions, but he has now made clear what he believes to be the legal position in this respect.
  In view of his assurance I wish to make one comment before seeking to withdraw the Clause. I still do not accept that if the Totalisator Board were to establish a private firm of bookmakers as its agents in the off-course market, no advantage would accrue to that firm of bookmakers. If the necessary parts of the Bill were activated the bookmakers would receive preferential treatment in the allocation of sites. But that is quite a way from what we are discussing on the Clause and I am satisfied with the Minister's assurances. I am grateful for the way in which he has given them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  NEW CORPORATE POWERS FOR TOTALISATOR BOARD
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  (6) In section 16(1) of the Act of 1963 for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
  "(c) for effecting betting transactions with persons resorting to the track or with a bookmaker or the Horserace Totalisator Board on dog races run on that track on that day".'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:
  No. 28, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  'In section 16(1) of the Act of 1963, at end insert "and the accountant appointed by the licensing authority under paragraph 7 of the said Schedule may examine or cause to be examined all or any of the accounts of the totalisator with respect to credit betting by a bookmaker or the Horserace Totalisator Board under paragraph (c) of this sub. section "'.
  No. 29, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  (7) In section 16 after subsection (1) insert the following subsection (2)A:—
  "(2)A.—(1) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State with respect to the duties of the accountant and the manner in which all accounts shall be kept with regard to credit betting.
  (2) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall include a power to vary or revoke the regulations by subsequent regulations and shall be exerciseable by statutory instrument "
  No. 31, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  (6) In section 16(1) of the Act of 1963 for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  '(c) for effecting betting transactions with persons resorting to the track or the Horse-race Totalisator Board on dog races run on that track on that day"
  No. 32, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  'In section 16(1) of the Act of 1963, at end insert "and the accountant appointed by the licensing authority under paragraph 7 of the said Schedule may examine or cause to be examined all or any of the accounts of the totalisator with respect to credit betting by the Horserace Totalisator Board under paragraph (c) of this subsection".
  Mr. Lewis: At one time I should have had an interest to declare in that the West Ham greyhound track was in my constituency, but it is no longer there and that is an interest I am not therefore obliged to disclose.
  In the course of the Bill we have heard much discussion in favour of the great sport of horse racing. We have heard about the poor race horse owners, about how they are struggling to make ends meet, and how the Horserace Totalisator Board and the Horserace Betting Levy Board must come to their aid. The Amendments are designed to give equal treatment to greyhound racing to those given to horse racing and to see that the Totalisator Board is treated in the same way and on the same basis as the tote boards at greyhound tracks.
  Greyhound racing is more of a working man's sport. One does not hear of great lords and ladies owning greyhounds. I pay a tribute to the efficient and admirable way in which the greyhound racing industry is organised. I refer to the legitimate side of the sport and not to what I believe are called the "flapping tracks", which are not responsible to anyone. I say nothing in their favour or against them because I do not know much about them. The Greyhound Racing Club is a reputable organisation and it has done a great deal to clean up the sport since the early days 40 or 50 years ago, and to make it an entertaining sport which is followed by many ordinary working class people.
  I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the Amendments, will give an assurance that the very friendly and happy relationship that he seems to have with the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the Horse-race Totalisator Board and with all connected with the horse racing industry, including the trainers, the jockeys and the owners, will be extended to greyhound racing. One of my objections to the Bill has been that we seem to fall over ourselves to support horse racing while nothing is done for greyhound racing. Will the Minister meet representatives of greyhound racing to try to reach an arrangement with them if he cannot accept the Amendments?
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's last observation. Dog
  1406
  racing has been treated as well as horse racing and even rather better. I was responsible for putting through an unamended Bill which gave dog tracks the right to add days if any days were lost to dog racing, which allowed a number of further days and which increased their returns to 12½ per cent. It is not fair to say that dog racing and horse racing have not been treated absolutely equitably.
  Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that the hon. Member has been interested in dog racing for many years, as I have. He rightly says that dog tracks have been allowed to make up lost days and have been allowed 12½ per cent. for administrative costs not only to make up for losses over the last few years but to meet the depreciation of the £. But no restrictions such as a number of days have been applied to horse racing. Greyhound tracks still have the number of their permitted days limited. Horse racing does not suffer similar restrictions.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: This is a lengthy and technical argument. Dog racing has as many days as it can conveniently operate. Horse racing has a limited number of days, depending on what the track will operate. Comparing the two is a highly technical argument not suitable for this occasion.
  I moved similar Amendments in Committee because I believed that they were essential as the Bill stood. They were proposed against the background of a Bill that at that time was a Totalisator Bill, a Bill that would result in some form of inequitable treatment.
  The Horserace Totalisator Board is a non-profit-making concern in the ordinary sense of the expression, that is, it is set up as a public body to make a profit which is ploughed back into the benefit of horse racing. The Totalisator Board for greyhound racing is an entirely profit-making operation for those operating the tote. That is the difference.
  In Committee we were seeking by these Amendments to enable the bookmaker off the course and the Tote off the course to lay off bets on the course. That was a reasonable proposal. We were seeking to increase the revenue of the Horserace Totalisator Board. The difficulty tonight has arisen because it is not a Totalisator Bill for greyhound racing although it is

  1407
  a Horserace Totalisator Bill. The principle that we enunciated was that all money taken off-course or on-course should go to the benefit of the totalisator on course. I am not sure that this is now a Bill for that purpose.
  My hon. and learned Friend has been good enough to indicate to the industry and to me his feelings about the matter following his clear and specific undertaking in Committee that he would give careful consideration to it. He has done so, and has encountered a difficulty. On the greyhound track the punter can bet with the tote or the bookmaker, and off the course he can accept either of those prices. But what cannot be done is to ensure that all the money the punter has paid off course shall be brought on to the course.
  There are two ways in which the greyhound racing industry can be saved. One is to get the people to come back on to the course. I think that that is the right method, and that the right way to do it is through the Finance Bill. Considerable assistance has been given by reducing the differential on-course for the greyhound racing industry by bringing it down to 4 per cent. on-course. This will help it a great deal. If it had been brought down 1 per cent. to 3 per cent., that would have helped it a great deal more, and would probably have achieved what the industry needs. The other way is to try to get all the off-course money on the greyhounds treated as if it were on-course. But that is a very important principle, and to deal with it in a Bill which is not a "dog" Bill but is a Totalisator Bill for the horses is asking rather a lot of the House. I hope that next year the Treasury will be prepared to go a little further and give the final advantage which is necessary.
  For a long time the greyhound racing industry has carried a substantial tax burden, which should be reduced. If it is not done in that way, I hope that it will be done in another way, because it is still an industry with a great many followers. I do not think that it is a lame duck. I think that its followers are prepared to pay a substantial tax. The tax is still too high, but I incline to the view that it would be better to change it by way of a Treasury Amendment in due
  1408
  course rather than by pressing the Amendments tonight.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), and I accept some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). Whether we are dealing with horse racing or not, the matters involved are all tied up together, because the Bill will give certain powers to the Totalisator Board which could affect greyhound racing to some extent.
  I agree with my hon. Friend about the clean, efficient sport and how well it is conducted. I would sooner attend a greyhound meeting than a horse racing meeting at any time. There is better service and comfort, and it is over in two hours and so does not involve extended betting.
  We must bear in mind that greyhound racing has suffered from off-course betting quite a deal. It must maintain its facilities, and if he wants to see a high standard maintained the Minister must be interested particularly in my hon. Friend's Amendments. I hope that he will approach them in the same spirit as he approached our Committee proceedings, when we all tried to solicit support and be co-operative. I thought that he gave me a wonderful assurance about the off-course betting then, but I understand that he will not be too forthcoming tonight. However, I hope that he will give us a primose that will give us some hope for the future, because if greyhound racing is to keep up the standard of its facilities it must be protected to some extent.
  No one can say that greyhound racing is prosperous. It has carried the load for a long time. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet says that perhaps the tote does more for greyhound racing than for horse racing, and I agree. After the war, Sir Stafford Cripps to some extent penalised greyhound racing in order to soak up money but now greyhound racing is going through difficult times and it is expecting more favourable consideration from the powers-that-be. I hope that the Minister of State, if he cannot go the whole way on this Amendment, will at least go some way.
  Mr. Carlisle: The Amendment is similar to one moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle

  1409
  of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I said then that I would consider what had been said, but held out no hope that it was likely that the Government would be able to accept the principle.
  It was argued in Committee that attendances at greyhound racing had dropped and in particular that as a result the amount of money being placed with the totalisator on the course had dropped and there was therefore a weak on-course market. It was further argued that whereas the bookmakers and, under the Bill, the Totalisator Board, were able to take bets at greyhound totalisator odds, and while they could if they wished use an on-course representative to place a cash bet with the track totalisator, they could not transmit off-course bets they received direct to the track totalisator, and that if they could do so it was likely to strengthen the on-course market.
  I have considered the arguments but I must point out the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet when he says that since the Committee we have had a change in the betting duty rate in the Budget, which, by reducing the betting tax on the on-course market, will in itself have the effect in part of strengthening that market. Secondly, as my hon. Friend also said, the Government have not been unreasonable or unmindful of the plight of greyhound racing expressed by the greyhound racing fraternity. We have supported a private Bill introduced for the purpose of increasing the number of permitted days and have allowed the deductions from the totalisator for greyhound racing to be increased from 6 to l2½per cent. The strength of the arguments in Committee has therefore weakened to a degree in the meantime.
  My second argument in Committee was that I conceded in principle that there appeared to be little difference in allowing the bookmaker to place money on the track totalisator if he happened to be on the course, and ringing it through from his office by means of credit.
  11.0 p.m.
  On reflection I must say that I believe that to have that situation would make major inroads of principle into the basis on which betting on greyhound racing takes place. The dog track totalisators are entitled to accept only bets paid in cash
  1410
  on the course. The inevitable consequence of accepting these Amendments would be that dog track totalisators would be able to accept credit betting from the Horse-race Totalisator or bookmakers off-course. It would be difficult, if we accepted that breach of principle, to stand up against the demand that might shortly follow, that if we can accept credit betting on the dogs from the bookmaker why cannot we receive telephoned-in credit bets from the individual?
  The effect of that would be that whereas greyhound racing takes place in the evening and the fact that the betting shops are not open then in itself limits the volume of betting on greyhound racing, if there were the power, despite the fact that betting shops were not open, for individual members of the public to telephone in and bet on credit on the dogs in the evening as they sat in comfort by their fireside or drinking a pint of beer in their local, there could be the risk of an upsurge in the volume of betting on greyhound racing which I do not believe any of us would in principle, for social reasons, desire.
  I do not think that there is any advantage in these Amendments but they could open the way to a much greater volume of betting on the dogs than exists and I do not think that we wish to be seen supporting measures which could lead to a far greater volume of such betting. For those reasons I must tell the hon. Gentleman that on reflection I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: By leave of the House. May I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he replied? Can I get the record straight? I am sure that he did not mean to put it this way but when he refers, as did the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), to the addition of up to 12½per cent. for administrative costs, it is only fair to point out that this is what could be called arrears of compensation for the depreciation of the £under both Governments over many years, and the exceptionally high cost of administration. I have not my figures with me but I think it was 20 years or more. It is not being given anything; it is just catching up with arrears.
  The other point is that I do not believe that this is a question of increasing betting and making greyhound racing a social

  1411
  evil. This would only he a transfer. At the moment the greyhound tracks are open for limited periods of two hours during the afternoon or evening. The tote on the greyhound track is limited to money going in on the track in those two hours whereas the Totalisator Board can and does draw in money from the whole of the day and night up to the closing of the betting shops. Therefore it is milking it from the track. If I want to put on a bet at a greyhound track but cannot get there because I am at the House, there is nothing to stop me going along to the Totalisator Board and putting it on there.
  Will the Minister discuss with the industry the possibility of totalisator offices on the tracks being open to receive bets during off-peak periods and not when the tracks were operating, so that they could compete on equal terms with the Totalisator Board and the outside bookmakers? It may not be possible to do it on credit, although I do not see why, but it might be possible to devise a system under which bets could be taken to the tracks or, as in football pools, sent in by post. That would give greyhourd tracks the opportunity of getting some of the money that now goes to the Totalisator Board or outside bookmakers, and it would help to increase attendance at dog tracks.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

  APPLICATIONS BY TOTALISATOR BOARD FOR BETTING OFFICE LICENCE
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 14, after 'licence', insert:
  'or to any application for the grant of such a licence by way of transfer of one that is in force for the same premises at the time of the application;'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendment No. 54, and Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line17, at end insert:
  '(3) In any case in which after the passing of this Act a betting office licence has been granted to the Totalisator Board in respect of any premises it shall not be competent for the Board to object to the application by the widow of a bookmaker or by any son or
  1412
  daughter of a deceased bookmaker for the grant of a betting office licence in respect of any premises in the same locality in respect of which such bookmaker held a betting office licence at the time of his death on the ground that the grant would be inexpedient having regard to the demand in the locality and the number of betting offices already available'.
  Mr. Carlisle: The Government Amendments, Nos. 53 and 54, have the same purpose as Amendment No. 58, although they are in slightly wider terms. They deal with the question of the transfer of an existing licence of premises. The House will remember that in Committee I moved an Amendment to Clause 3 the effect of which would be to provide that in future the demand provision should not apply to the renewal of an existing licence, so that the renewal of an existing bookmaker's licence could not be objected to on the basis of lack of demand.
  The effect of the Amendments would be that applications for the transfer of existing licences to another individual should not be opposed on the basis of lack of demand either. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) who, although silent this evening, is the author of two of the Amendments that I have nut down. He certainly caused me to look at these points again. I believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) also raised this point in Committee. In terms, it was felt that if a licence holder died it was wrong that that person's widow, widower, son, or daughter should be prevented from taking over the premises on the basis of a lack of demand.
  The Government decided that they would go slightly wider. If the same demand exists as existed when the original licence was granted, it is unnecessary to retain the demand provision on the transfer of the licence. If trade has fallen in the area so that there is no further demand for the licence, the normal commercial rules will take account of that situation. On the normal type of transfer, it being assumed that there was a demand on the basis of which the licence was originally granted, it seems unnecessary, merely because there is a transfer of the licence to another name, for that demand to be proved again.
  If Amendment No. 55 is passed by the House, the whole of this provision will

  1413
  become subject to a commencement order. But I was specifically pressed to bring in these Amendments due to the fear that the demand provision might work unfairly if the Tote were able to go into the market due to a statutory advantage provided for it by Clause 3. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the added protections which were introduced to meet that criticism should be tied to Clause 3 so that if it became necessary to implement Clause 3 these added protections on transfers and on renewals should also be implemented.
  Mr. Brian Walden: There is no point in my moving Amendment No. 58 in view of the more comprehensive Amendment and guarantee of the Minister. I thank the Minister. He is right in indicating that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself were concerned about this point which seemed to us to he one of equity. The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone into it and has rectified it. I think that his Amendment is better than mine. Therefore, if the House finds his Amendment acceptable, I would not wish mine to be moved.
  Mr. John Farr: I hope that the Minister of State will not think that my silence up to now has been due to a lack of interest or attention. One could describe my attitude as being one of full of silent admiration for the splendid work which my hon. and learned Friend is performing. Some of the Amendments he has tabled are absolutely admirable, particularly this Amendment. As he said, it is the result of, not only Committee stage points, but of correspondence between us.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the careful way in which he has considered the point, as he has considered others. I hope that the safeguards which the Amendment writes into Clause 3 will never be applied because I hope that Clause 3 will never come into operation. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 54, in page 3. line 17, at end insert:
  'nor applying for the grant of a licence by way of transfer of one that is in force for the same premises at the time of the application)" '.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 17, at end insert:
  '(3) This section shall not come into force unless and until the Secretary of State so directs by order made by statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before Parliament'.
  I suppose that it is arguable whether this Amendment or the Amendments which I moved on new Clause 1 represent the major change to the Bill, but all are clearly important and I concede to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) that they change considerably the effect of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), then the Home Secretary, made it clear throughout that the Government would always be willing to look again at Clause 3. We did so in Committee and we amended it there. I made it clear in Committee that I was still willing to consider further amendment of the Clause by the imposition of a commencement order which would not bring the Clause into being when the rest of the Bill came into effect. I believe that by this Amendment I have wholly carried out the undertaking which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet gave on Second Reading and which I gave in Committee.
  11.15 p.m.
  The purpose of Clause 3 was and has always been to enable the Totalisator Board, should it wish, to enter on its own account into the off-course market where in practice a closed shop situation had substantially arisen, and where it would be likely, unless it were given some advantage, that every application which it made would be blocked on the basis that the demand in the area was adequately met by the facilities which already existed. I have always made it quite clear that the only purpose of Clause 3 was to enable the Totalisator Board to enter into that market. I have equally made it clear that if I felt in the future that the viability of the Totalisator could be adequately met without recourse to Clause 3 I would welcome holding the Clause in abeyance.
  For various reasons which, at this hour of night, I need not go into, I believe that the Totalisator's future viability can be met without the use of Clause 3. I believe that for two reasons. First of

  1415
  all as is openly known, and as the hon. Gentleman has said, the Totalisator Board has carried out and is carrying out, various discussions with bookmaking interests; that may mean that it would not wish to use Clause 3.
  Alternatively, I think it must be made clear, that if the Totalisator Board, as it would be free to do, choose to enter into the off-course market by negotiation with one or more bookmakers on some form of agency agreement, it would be wrong that there should be in the Bill a Clause which would provide for the board in that situation a statutory advantage over those with whom it would be competing.
  I have always accepted the force of both those arguments. Therefore, I have always accepted that I would amend the Clause were it possible to do so.
  The advantage of the commencement provision in the proposed new subsection is that it makes clear—I say this advisedly —that if in fact the Totalisator Board advises the Home Secretary at a later stage that despite its efforts it is unable to enter into any agreement of whatever kind to ensure its viable future, and that, to ensure that, it is necessary to enter the market on its own, and it cannot do so without this statutory advantage in entering this market, the Home Secretary of the day may make an order—and I am sure my right hon. Friend in these circumstances would lay such an order—which would implement Clause 3. Of course, if the Totalisator Board is satisfied that it can have a viable future without the Clause there would be no intention of implementing the Clause.
  I say again to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough that he was the first on the Notice Paper about this subject. There is a slight difference between the wording of his Amendment of that of mine. His would make the order effective at the moment of its being laid, although the order would be subject to amendment; but my Amendment goes further, because by it the order would have to be laid first and would not go into effect till it had been laid the requisite number of days, during which time it would be subject to annulment, before coming into force.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not wish to oppose the Minister's Amendment but I want to say a word in favour of sub-Amendments which I have put down. I hoped the Prime Minister might be here tonight to support my sub-Amendments. He coined the famous phrase "with the full-hearted consent of the people" and my sub-Amendments give the Minister the opportunity to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister.
  I am suggesting by my sub-Amendments that the Bill should not come into effect until June, 1975, or after the next General Election. Neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party promised at the last election to introduce this Bill. There has been no demonstration by the dockers, engineers, bricklayers or carpenters demanding the Bill. I cannot, therefore, see why we should not stand it over until after the next General Election or June, 1975, whichever is the sooner.
  I am concerned about the expedition shown by the Government in helping people who do not need help as much as do the old-age pensioners, the sick and the disabled—
  Mr. Carlisle: We are the first Government to bring in a constant attendance allowance for the severely disabled, the first Government to bring in additional help for the chronically sick and the first Government to provide for an annual rather than a two-yearly review of pensions.
  Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me the help I always get from him. All these were in the Conservative Party's manifesto, but there was no mention in it of a Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill. There were also promises to cut prices at a stroke and to reduce the cost of living. That has not been done. A consumer protection Bill has not been introduced.
  My sub-Amendments give the Government the opportunity of proving that they take notice of what the people want. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, with help from the Government. I am not attacking the Government—
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: The Labour Government introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Labour Government deserve credit for it. I do not want to get involved in party politics on this matter. I feel that we should say that this should come into effect only after a general election, whenever that will be. All the Minister will have to do is to say to the Prime Minister, "I wish to activate these provisions and the only way to do so is to have a General Election. Therefore, we must have a General Election quickly." We on this side would welcome a General Election now rather than to have to wait until 1975.
  I regard these Amendments as helpful to the Minister since they give him the freedom to consult the people and to get their full-hearted consent. Of course, the only doubt it will throw over the situation is that the Conservatives may not get back in again, although I should like to see the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) come back to the House. But his Government certainly may not get back. The electorate would at least have the opportunity to pass an opinion on the Bill.
  The present Government persistently oppose the will of the people. They have done so over the Industrial Relations Bill, in which they did not consult the trade unions or get their agreement, and they have done so on the European Communities Bill. However, they consulted the Totalisator Board and the horse racing industry before they introduced this Bill. They rushed the Bill through and nobody knew anything about it. We are now going into the Common Market against the wishes of the people—
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying a little far from the Amendments. I hope he will return to them.
  Mr. Lewis: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister and I am sure he wants to have the full-hearted consent of the people.
  My two sub-Amendments may appear to be small and insignificant. Hon. Members opposite may think that they
  1418
  have only a limited effect. However, they would give the Minister the chance to carry out the Prime Minister's wish about getting the full-hearted consent of the electorate to all these other issues. These are very important sub-Amendments. I am very interested in discovering the wishes of the electorate. We might see then whether it was felt that prices had been cut at a stroke. We might see whether it was felt that enough had been done for the sick and the disabled. I hope that the Minister will regard one or other of my sub-Amendments as a very good addition to his Amendment, since they both provide him with a genuine opportunity to show that he believes in democratic government.
  We are told that the dock workers should agree to ballots. I can assure the House that they do. The Government insisted on a ballot of the railway workers recently. They seem to have forgotten to insist on one for the dockers. I suggest that we have a ballot about this Bill. Obviously the Minister will not agree to a referendum about it. The Government would not agree to a referendum about the Common Market—
  Mr. Michael Cocks: Before my hon. Friend becomes too optimistic, I remind him that this is the same Minister who piloted through this House the Bill to denationalise the State pubs and breweries in the teeth of the opposition of all the local inhabitants.
  Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has helped me greatly, as he always does. He has put forward another reason why the Minister should accept one or other of my sub-Amendments. The Minister would then have an opportunity to see whether the workers of Carlisle and the other areas where the State breweries were accepted another piece of legislation which was not in the Tory manifesto. My hon. Friend has reminded me that not only have this Government thwarted the will of the people and gone against the wishes of the people in those areas, not only have they gone against their election manifesto, but, it would appear, they are against accepting one or other of two simple Amendments which would give them the opportunity to go back to the electorate and say, "This shows how democratic and good we are. We

  1419
  introduced a Bill which no one wanted except rich racehorse owners and which no one supported except those connected with betting. Nevertheless, we accepted an Amendment from that awful Member from West Ham, North, who is always making trouble, with the result that we are coming back to you before putting into force one of the main principles of the Bill."
  Mr. Farr: I should like to say a word about my Amendment No. 57 which I understand has been selected for discussion. My Amendment proposes to add, at the end of line 17,
  (3) This section shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to amendment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for his Amendment. He said he was prepared to agree that I had been first in the field with my Amendment, which differs slightly from his. If my memory serves me, in Committee I was often first in the field with my Amendments and found my hon. and learned Friend singularly reluctant to follow me on any of them. I readily say how glad I am that he has followed me on this one, which is such a fundamental Amendment as to enable me to forgive him for not joining me on some of my other smaller Amendments in the past.
  I fully agree with my hon. and learned Friend in what he has done. Although there are faults in Clause 3, which we are so to speak putting on ice, at least it has been put on ice. It will act as an encouragement to the bookmakers to get together with the tote to work out a satisfactory financial arrangement. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for being big enough to come to the House, in the light of the fresh evidence which has been given to him, to correct what was in the first place, as many of us suspected, a wrong in the Bill.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I, too, welcome the Amendment although not entirely from the point of view mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).
  It should be pointed out that there is now a significant gap in the arguments
  1420
  used in favour of Clause 3 on Second Reading. In moving the Amendment, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said that the one purpose of Clause 3 was to enable the tote to enter the betting shop sector. Now we hear that there may be agency agreements. Very well, let us accept that that will be the case.
  It is fair to point out that Clause 3 also had a second purpose. It was considered to be a very important purpose; indeed, it was explained as being crucial. My hon. and learned Friend set it out concisely on Second Reading, when he said that
  "in considering the history of gaming legislation any Government must appreciate the potential danger if the whole of commercial gambling gets into a very few hands, without any form of adequate control. That is why the last Government felt it necessary to set up the Gaming Board. For gambling on horse racing we have never had, and have never been tempted to have, such control as exists in gaming. We have always relied on the competition provided by the tote with those in the private market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 792.]
  It would now seem from what my hon. and learned Friend has said that the key word is no longer "competition" but is "co-operation". Certainly it is not competition in the way that it was envisaged in February.
  I make no complaint that the Government have changed their view on a piece of gambling legislation. I cannot think of a piece of gambling legislation that has gone through this House during the last 10 years on which Governments have not changed their views. Certainly the gaming legislation proposals put forward by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), when in opposition underwent radical change before the eventual Bill was produced.
  One should examine what the effect of this change will be. Although I do not necessarily agree with it, I should like first to draw the attention of the House to a comment made today by the General Secretary of the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation, the Rev. Gordon Moody. It is fair to say that the Churches' Committee is about the only independent body reviewing gambling. Therefore, anything that that body says,

  1421
  and anything said by the Rev. Gordon Moody, is something to which this House should at least pay attention.
  Mr. Walden: I do not wish to attack in any way the Churches' Committee on Gambling, least of all the Rev. Gordon Moody, whom I have the pleasure of knowing, but its attitude to gambling is well-known: it wishes gambling to be diminished. Why should that be regarded as an independent point of view?
  Mr. Fowler: I do not agree, though I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The point I was trying to make was that this is a body which makes independent reviews of the spread and extent of gambling. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with that. I slightly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Churches' Committee wants to restrain and diminish gambling as much as possible. That is not my impression of the current policy of the Churches' Committee. The current policy is to contain gambling within certain limits—that is the policy of both the previous Labour Government and this Conservative Government—but that those limits should be defined. My point is that the experience of the Churches' Committee over the last 10 years is probably unparalleled amongst bodies unconnected with the industry. Therefore, what the Churches' Committee says should at any rate be listened to in the House.
  I repeat that I do not necessarily agree with the Reverend Gordon Moody, but it is fair to quote what he has said:
  "such an agreement"
  —the Reverend Gordon Moody is forecasting what my hon. and learned Friend would announce—
  "could give bookmakers a hold over the Board. If I were a bookmaker I think I would not want the Totalisator to die, so long as it remained a nice little thing, and I could pat it on the head and, while pretending to feed it, take a regular supply of titbits out of its mouth."
  My hon. and learned Friend should address himself to that criticism of which he will have had notice and allay the fears of the Churches' Committee.
  On Second Reading my hon. and learned Friend referred—I think rightly—to the competition between the tote, on the one side, and private bookmakers, on
  1422
  the other, as introducing some kind of control mechanism into the gambling and racing industry. What is the position to be now? I have always been a supporter of extending the remit of the Gaming Board and having a gaming board of control. The previous Government made a great mistake in not doing that. There should be a gaming board of control having a remit over the whole of gambling. However, I might be out of order if I were to seek to go deeply into my proposals in that regard. There should be some control mechanism in gambling and in gaming as it affects racing.
  I did not agree with the proposal made under Clause 3 which the Government put forward. It is now incumbent on the Government, having also agreed that they want some control mechanism, to say, now that their policy has shifted significantly from competition to co-operation, what exactly their proposal is. Do they think that the situation has changed since they made their proposals in February? What is their position on control or over-seeing of the betting industry?
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Walden: The Minister said that it was doubtful whether this Amendment or what was to be done in respect of Clause 6 was the most important thing under the Bill. I am disposed to agree with him about that, although what the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to do by the Amendment will remove by far the most objectionable feature of the Bill as it came from Committee.
  I want to try to allay some of the quite misplaced fears of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). It is not my job to speak for the Minister. He may console his hon. Friend as best he can. However, I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is on a completely false point. The Minister and I once had a long argument upstairs about the use of the word "competition". If he now wishes to understand what it was that was worrying me, he has only to refer to the remarks of his hon. Friend who obviously does not understand what the situation was and will be, because the word competition has always been misused by the Government in presenting the Bill. The situation was and will be that the tote is a pool competitor of the bookmakers in this sense, that it runs

  1423
  pool betting on horse racing and bookmakers run SP on-course and credit betting. Nothing will change because of the Minister's commencement order powers. Nothing will be different from what has been the situation ever since the board was set up.
  What would have happened under the Bill is that the totalisator board would have been a competitor, in the sense that I understand that word, with private bookmakers by becoming one. The hon. Gentleman's fears about a monopoly in gambling and his worry about private bookmakers would not in the least be resolved by that situation, because he should know—and probably does know—that the Totalisator Board would not itself, as a board, have gone into the SP field. It would have made a deal with a private bookmaker. One of the big fish would have become a bigger fish by doing a deal with the tote and it would have operated with the tote in the SP market. In that sense, what worries the hon. Gentleman and what worries the Reverend Gordon Moody and the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation would have been magnified and not diminished.
  If there is—and I think there is—a movement within the gambling industry which is tending to concentrate more and more betting in a few hands, I can only say that that mirrors the modern world. That is what is happening everywhere to everything. It may be deplorable but, first, it is not scandalous; secondly, it is not corrupt; thirdly, it does not seem to be any particular occasion for any Government to do anything about it.
  If it became apparent that there were grave abuses by private bookmakers which were damaging the interests of racing and which were fraudulent towards the punter, of course the Government would have to do something about it, and the Home Office naturally keeps its eyes open to see whether anything of that kind occurs. A lot of discussion about the starting price and making sure that one got a valid starting price was occasioned wholly by the legitimate worries of both the Government and hon. Members that if the SP could be rigged that would be unfair to the ordinary punter. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is worried about and I understand, too, his well-placed concern, but
  1424
  his fears are illusory, and in any case would not have been met by the retention of this Clause in the Bill without a commencement order.
  I want to say a word about the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation. I do not want this to sound objectionable. I have a great respect for the Reverend Gordon Moody. I accept the committee's diligence and its attempts to find out what is going on. I accept that there can be no question of the committee being biased as between one bookmaker and another or one form of gambling and another, but one has to face the fact that it is like a fish out of water. I have never been persuaded that the committee really understands the motives that lead men to gamble. It constantly alleges that this is so that people can make large sums of money, and so on, or that it is a compulsive habit. That might be true in a very small number of cases, but the fact is that gambling, like drinking in moderation, and like many other activities which are better not discussed, happens to be an exceedingly pleasurable activity, and I do not think that it is the duty of a Government to go beyond seeing that it is not conducted in a disgraceful way and is not conducted in a way that leads to an unreasonable proliferation. That would be of concern to the Government.
  But there is no question of that at the moment in terms of betting on horse races. All the great concern of the Churches' Committee is misplaced. Moreover, not only their instinct but also their information on the subject is often untrue. This is not a suitable opportunity for me to go into it in detail and the House would not wish me to do so. But I can cite from some of the more famous publications of that Committee where there has been error after error after error on page after page after page. That leads me to believe that the effort was diligent and certainly honest, but it was not particularly well informed.
  The fears of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South are misplaced, but it will be for the Minister to reply to him. The sort of thing that he fears happening will not happen. The action of the Minister in putting a commencement on the Clause will change nothing from the situation as it exists. Nor is it the case —and this is where Rev. Gordon Moody

  1425
  misunderstands the situation—that the tote has become the pensioner of the bookmakers and, to some extent, is under coercive pressure from them so that they can tell it what to do. As the Minister has said repeatedly, if at any stage the Totalisator Board says to him that it cannot make any sort of arrangement with the bookmakers that satisfies it, he can lay an order activating the Clause. The idea that the board will therefore be delivered bound hand and foot to the bookmakers and then told what to do by the bookmakers is quite wrong. That is to misunderstand all the discussions that have gone on and the arrangements that have been made.
  The board will receive a substantial sum by using the bookmakers as agents with very little, if any, inconvenience to it and with lower administration charges. Yet it still holds all the cards. If it does not like what it gets, it can at any time go to the Minister and ask for the activation of the Clause by order.
  Mr. Fowler rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We should not embark on too much discussion on this. In his enthusiasm the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) is going a little wide of the Amendment. He should now come back to it and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) should leave it.
  Mr. Walden: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and so, I see, does the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
  I conclude by congratulating the Minister. What he has done is admirable. It makes sense and I wholly agree with his description of it. It is fair to bookmakers and it is fair to the Totalisator Board. If the board has any fears, or if it cannot make arrangements that ensure its permanent viability, the door has been left open for it to tell its problems to the Home Office. At the same time the Minister has honoured the guarantee given by the Home Secretary that if viability can be found in any other way the Government do not wish to activate the Clause in its original form.
  As with the other substantial thing which the Minister did tonight in regard to Clause 6, he has done entirely the
  1426
  right thing and in entirely the right way, and I approve the Amendment.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) is a most persuasive advocate, but I think that he was less than fair to the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation. It is easy to say that its members are misinformed and are fish out of water, but every one of us is relatively a fish out of water on the subject of betting and gaming.
  Mr. Walden: That is all the more reason for our making as few regulations about it as possible.
  Mr. Davidson: It is not. My hon. Friend is wrong once again, even though he puts it with great force, because gaming leads to certain abuses. It is unfortunate, but it happens, and the House must be constantly concerned about the social implications of gaming, but this is not the occasion for me to expand on that theme.
  The Minister rightly said that this was an important Amendment. Its effect is to delay the operation of the most important Clause in the Bill. I have had a fair amount of fun at the Minister's expense and I do not want to go over that ground again. The Minister rightly said that the then Home Secretary had made it clear, and the Minister himself made it clear throughout the Committee stage, that the Clause was to be regarded as a last resort Clause. It has plainly caused the House much concern. I have always thought that it was necessary and I still think that it may be necessary for the Minister to activate the Clause if the tote is to become viable, as is the purpose of the Bill.
  I do not want to cover the ground my hon. Friend introduced, especially as he elevated me to the deputy deputy leadership of the Opposition, but I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. He will recall that I was not only present in the Committee but supported him when he cogently explained why he could not accept the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I think that he owes me an explanation why he now finds it possible to accede to that request.
  Does he envisage the Totalisator Board buying its way into SP shops by

  1427
  buying existing betting shops? Has he any knowledge whether that is being envisaged? Once Clause 3 is removed, there is little if any possibility of the board being able to open new shops, because it is obvious that the bookmakers would object strenuously to new shops being opened in their areas, and they would be entitled to object.
  Has the Minister any knowledge of the hoard being more imaginative about the type of betting to be offered to the public? Will it operate the tiercé? Will it give much bigger pools for jackpot betting? Will it offer a much greater variety of combination betting?
  I should like here to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). The Churches' Committee understandably takes the view that it is far more in the public interest that there should be a greater variety of combination betting because the greater the return on a small outlay, the better socially, because the less the public will have to visit betting shops and remain in them. It is the aim of the Churches' Committee that people should spend as little time as possible in betting shops, for the committee takes the view that it is socially harmful for people to remain in betting shops—for a whole host of obvious reasons. A combination bet is a once-and-for-all bet. It can be placed in the morning, and, if the punter is lucky enough, the dividend can be collected late at night. The punter does not have to keep on betting from race to race.
  There is much in what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said. It would be disastrous for the tote if an arrangement, an agency agreement or some other agreement with bookmakers, restricted the freedom of the tote in some way.
  I understand why the Minister has, even at this late hour, decided it would be better to postpone the operation of the Clause. I do not criticise him for doing it. It would have been better if he had done it earlier. However, he has done it, and it would be churlish of those who made certain criticisms of the Clause, who pointed out the dangers and how it would be offensive to bookmakers, to oppose the Amendment now.
  1428
  12 midnight.
  Mr. Carlisle: The Government always looked upon the Clause as a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The end is the provision of a viable tote, enabling it to provide the public with an alternative method of betting.
  I shall not get involved in the arguments over semantics in which I was involved with the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) in Committee. But I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), as I told the hon. Gentleman then, that I cannot see the basic difference between providing an alternative service and being in competition. The tote provides competition to the bookmaker by providing an alternative method of betting, assessed mathematically, and the punter can decide whether he chooses to bet with the pool betting provided by the tote or bet on the board prices or starting prices offered by the bookmaker. The purpose of the Bill was to ensure the continuance of a viable tote, providing an alternative method of betting to the public.
  The purpose of Clause 1, to enable it to provide a full alternative service, was to widen its powers, including entry into starting price betting. Clause 3 was a means to enable it to go into the off-course market. The Government always said that if they were satisfied that that end of viability could be achieved without the means of the Clause they would consider putting the Clause into cold storage. I am satisfied that as at this moment the chances are that the tote can achieve that viability without recourse to the Clause. Therefore, the totalisator is not being prevented in any way from going into the off-course market still, whether it buys its way in or negotiates a deal with a firm of bookmakers or more than one firm. The tote is still free to go into the off-course market and must make its own assessment of the economies and the commercial advantages to it of doing so.
  The only effect of this Amendment is —believing that the tote can achieve such viability without a Statutory advantage—to put that statutory advantage into cold storage, so that if in the end it finds that it cannot achieve viability without going into the market on its own account it can ask the Home Secretary to activate

  1429
  the Clause. There is no change in the intention of the Government to strengthen the competition to the bookmakers, but we have always envisaged this competition as making readily available to the public an alternative method of betting. I believe that that can now be achieved without Clause 3, by arrangements which the tote may make either with the bookmakers as a whole or with any group of bookmakers.
  Therefore, my answer to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) when he asks how the tote intends to come into the off-course starting price market is that this must be a matter for the board's commercial judgment. All the Government wish to make clear is that they do not consider that it is now necessary for the tote at this stage to have the advantages which would enable it to make its way into the market which at one stage appeared to be the only possible means by which it could be made viable.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  ALLOWANCE TO RACECOURSE MANAGEMENT PROVIDING POOL BETTING FACILITIES
  Amendment made: No. 61, in page 3, line 25, at end insert:
  '(2) It is hereby declared that the purposes for which the Levy Board have power under section 25(2)(d) of the Act of 1963 to make payments (in accordance with schemes prepared by them and approved by the Secretary of State) as purposes conducive to the improvement of horseracing include the provision on approved horse racecourses of facilities for sponsored pool betting, whether provided by the Totalisator Board or by the persons having the management of the course'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Mr. Arthur Lewes: I beg to move Amendment No. 62 in page 3, line 25, at end insert:
  '(3) After subsection (2) of the said section 13 there shall be added the following "() Before imposing under this section any condition which would or might affect the carrying on by bookmakers of their business on any ground used as a horse racecourse the Levy Board shall consult the Bookmakers' Committee"
  This is an important Amendment. I have not delayed the House, nor do I intend to, but the Amendment should be given consideration. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like the rest of us,
  1430
  that we are in trouble because we have a dock strike. We have a lot of industrial upheaval in the country because the Government refuse to do what Governments usually do—negotiate and get agreements with those involved, in that way trying to avoid difficulties before they arise.
  The Amendment provides an opportunity for consultation. I am in favour of consultation. I wish we had more of it in this House. If we had it other than through the usual channels, we might not have these long hours or such bad conditions. I am in favour of consultation for everyone, including myself. But particularly am I in favour of consultation in this case between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee. I do not see why any person or organisation, including the Government and the Levy Board, should seek to impose any conditions on anyone else without consultation with those concerned. I cannot expect the Levy Board to consult every bookmaker or every firm of bookmakers, but it is possible for it to consult the Bookmakers' Committee on matters which will or might affect the carrying on by the bookmakers of their business.
  If the Government intend taking action affecting the well-being of the big businessmen they most certainly consult the CBI and the company directors. There is nothing wrong in suggesting that the Levy Board, which gets its money from the bookmakers, should, if it has any intention of taking any action which might have an effect upon the business of the bookmakers, be statutorily bound to consult with the bookmakers before taking that action. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment because if the Levy Board means to be reasonable and generous I am sure it would not object to this.
  Mr. Carlisle: This Amendment was also discussed in Committee. All I need say to the hon. Gentleman is that the only effect of Clause 4 is to transfer the power to approve racecourses from the Tote Board to the Levy Board. I made clear in Committee, and I do so now, that in the opinion of the Government this transfer of responsibility does not in any way enlarge the scope of Section 13 of the 1963 Act and does not provide for the Levy Board any wider powers than the Tote Board has at the moment.

  1431
  The only difference is that the Bookmakes' Committee is represented on the Levy Board through its chairman who is, ex officio, a member of the Levy Board. This strengthens the position of the Bookmakers' Committee—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: While I accept what the Minister says, am I not right in saying that if there is a discussion on the Horserace Levy Board, with the bookmakers' representative present, there is nothing saying that the Bookmakers' Committee as a whole must be consulted before action is taken upon something which might affect the bookmakers?
  Is it not reasonable that the bookmakers should be consulted in the same way as trade unions? If Jack Jones is called back to his executive committee, his executive committee can be consulted.I have nothing against whoever may represent the bookmakers on the Levy Board. He may be a good chap. All I am suggesting is that the Bookmakers' Committee in tote should be consulted when something is contemplated which affects their business.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: It is doubtful whether the provision contained in Section 13 of the 1963 Act allows the imposition of any new condition which might significantly affect the conduct of betting on the course. Since the only effect of the Clause is to transfer powers, it is extremely doubtful whether the Levy Board could impose any such condition. If, despite what I say about the unlikelihood of its being able to do so, it were able to do so, at least the hon. Gentleman has the assurance that since the bookmakers' representative is an ex officio member of the Board the bookmakers' voice can be heard.
  I appreciate that consultation with the full committee may be better than being merely represented by one individual on it, but I can assure the hon. Member that that which he is seeking to protect—the interest of the bookmakers, is better protected by the powers transferred to the Levy Board than the present situation, where the powers rest with the Tote Board. I cannot accept that the further extension of the protection that the hon. Member is asking for is necessary.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Clause 6
  POWER OF LEVY BOARD TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO TOTALISATOR BOARD
  Amendment made: No. 66, in page 3, line 38, leave out Clause 6.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

  Title
  Amendment made: No. 81, in Title, line 7, leave out from first 'Board' to 'to' in line 9.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am amazed. The Minister is not going to give us any reason why the Bill should have a Third Reading.
  Mr. Carlisle: I have heard the hon. Member at such length that I thought that I should have the opportunity of replying to him and having the final word rather than the first.
  Mr. Lewis: This is amazing, because this is not the Bill which was debated on Second Reading or in Committee. It is an entirely different Bill—
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: And a much better Bill.
  Mr. Lewis: Of course it is, because every Amendment suggested by hon. Members on both sides in Committee has, in the last two or three weeks, come forward from the Government.
  I am glad that the Minister of State has allowed me the opportunity of saying a few words. I have been very brief during the stages of the Bill, particularly on Report. However, the House has been kept up late at night—
  Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman has just called a Division without putting his

  1433
  name forward as a Teller. He has hardly contributed to speeding the business.
  Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman had been a Member for a little longer, he would have realised that if there are not two Tellers the Division is ineffective. I could not find anyone to act as a Teller. I know that I am rather large, but I do not make up for two people. I tried to get an hon. Friend to tell with me, but, loyal and honest gentleman that he is, he had given his word that he would not vote.
  A lot of crocodile tears have been shed during the stages of the Bill about the poor ailing Tote Board. It has been said that we should come to its aid and that we should rescue the poor racehorse owners. It is a crying shame that we have to stay up late at night in order to help the racehorse owners and other people who follow the sport of horse racing. I should have thought that there were much more important subjects which we could have discussed at this late hour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) will probably agree that I was about the only Member who opposed the Bill throughout because I thought it was phoney. Now it has been proved to be phoney. When the pressure was put on, the Government had second thoughts about all the most objectionable Clauses about which they were scared because a number of their supporters were talking about revolting on them. Now we have a Bill which is nothing like the original Bill, and we should not allow the Government to get away with it by a cursory nod. We should not allow the Bill to go through without castigating and attacking the Government.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) present because probably he is very happy. He has obtained all he wanted. He has been very successful, and his success shows the failure of the Government. He would not wish me to say that, and the Government would not wish me to say there have been failures on their part, but I can remember that on Second Reading and in Committee we were told, "We must have this" and "We must have that", "We cannot give this away" or "We cannot give that"
  1434
  because, it was said, the whole principle of the Bill would be lost.
  So what do we find? In Committee we sat from 20th April to 22nd June. I said a few words in Committee—not very much, as I have already said. Here is the OFFICIAL REPORT, the verbatim record of our debates. There was talk of extra Sittings of the Committee. A rumour went round that consultations were going on—though there were consultations with my usual channels—about whether we should have extra Sittings to get the Bill through. The Minister had a day off the Committee to go to a conference in E.E.C., although we were told we had to get the Bill through. [Interruption.] The Minister attended a conference in Europe. The Committee was adjourned so he could go. He set a record; he will be pleased to know that that had not been done before—the Government had not got a Minister to take over and so, because the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to go to that conference in Europe, the Committee was adjourned. But this Bill was so important!
  By the way, I was in attendance all the time. I can pat myself on the back for that. I do not think I left the Committee Room even to attend to the wants of nature. At my time of life that is something to be proud of and thankful for. Some of my hon. Friends, unfortunately, had other Committees to attend. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints was a Member of the Committee on the Finance Bill. However, I was able to give the Committee my usual service and the Bill my usual diligent attention. I sat through the proceedings and battled on, and I had active help and support from many hon. Members on the other side. The Government had the active support of the Opposition Whips who rallied our people to give the Government a quorum in Committee so that they could get on with their Bill.
  All this for what? So that we can have a Third Reading now of a Bill which is entirely different from the original Bill. All has been done since 22nd June. I was going to say between 22nd June and August, but most of the Amendments which have been before us tonight were put down a week or so back. The Minister said he was glad to see the change brought about in the Bill, but it all happened in the last few weeks. It is an

  1435
  amazing situation. It could have been done sooner.
  I hope the Minister gets the opportunity to have a word with the new Chairman of the Totalisator Board. I pay tribute to the new chairman, a very good friend of mine, Lord Mancroft, who, as I said in Committee, has done marvellous work for my local boys' club, which, I am glad to say, is the best boys' club anywhere. I wish him well in his endeavours as chairman of the board. I am sure he could not do worse than the previous lot. The Minister does not get much time, because of the work which has been imposed on him in various fields, but I hope he gets time to have a word with those people who misled him, misled the Government, and, more importantly, misled this House. I hope he will tell them that when they come forward with their claims and ask for legislation and help they should see that the facts and figures they give to the Ministry are correct. I, as an ordinary back bencher, do not like —I am sure no hon. Members like—to be fed with a lot of false information.
  After we have done all the work we have in Committee, what we asked for then is given us at the last moment now; it could have been given weeks ago, and saved us this late night Sitting.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the meeting had nothing to do with the EEC.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I do not think that the Minister, even in advanced old age, will ever forget that on one occasion during the Committee stage of the Bill he went to a conference in Europe. I am sure that, like Calais, it will be engraved on his heart.
  Mr. Carlisle: I accept that. Equally, I do not think my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will ever forget that an Opposition whip provided the quorum for the Committee on one occasion.
  Mr. Walden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). When he says he has been diligent, that is putting it mildly. As always, he has been extremely diligent, and he may have done the Government a great service.
  1436
  In the end, we have come up with the best Bill possible. I have a financial interest in the Bill which post-dates my interest in the subject. I have always thought, not only on this Bill but on other Bills in the last Parliament, that the direction in which the Government were inclined to go would he fatal in terms of the betting market. The original Bill would have done nothing but damage, and the Government would have bitterly regretted having passed it. They will not regret passing this Bill.
  As a result of the Bill, the Government will be able to expand the Totalisator Board by inviting on to it people with management and financial experience, and the board will be stronger as a result. The Government will have reserve powers in Clause 3 which can be activated by Order to assist the Totalisator Board into the off-course market if the board feels that it is not getting fair treatment vis-à-vis the bookmakers. They will have got rid of the utterly odious and thoroughly dangerous practice of allowing the Levy Board to give substantial sums of money to the Totalisator Board to get involved in an agency agreement with a private bookmaker.
  The Minister will think in years to come, if he does not think so already, that in the end he did the best job he could for racing. For betting the result of the Bill will be the best of all worlds, namely, a strong form of pool betting with a competitor on-course and off-course. The consequences for the betting side and for race courses, racecourse owners and punters will be much more desirable than they would have been had the Bill gone through as originally drafted.
  I congratulate the Minister on getting his Third Reading in spite of the length of our debates in Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North for ensuring that Report and Third Reading are much briefer than I supposed they would be. I was quite prepared to have breakfast at about 11 o'clock. The Government have given us in the end an acceptable Bill, as a result of which this kind of trouble will for ever cease for the Tote, and the Government will not have to concern themselves overmuch with the regulation of the horseracing industry.
  12.34 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I shall be exceedingly brief, because the Bill as it has emerged from Report is barely worth talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), as he openly says, represents the interests of the National Association of Bookmakers, and of course that association is exceptionally pleased with the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that the Minister has done his best in difficult circumstances. I am sure that the Minister has tried to come up with the best solution. I do not know whether he has succeeded, and the less I say about that the better. When in the past I have supported the Minister I have always found that subsequently he has changed his mind, and I do not want to be put in that position again. However, I know that he has never misled the Committee intentionally; he has always been frank and open with it.
  I am sure the Minister began the proceedings on this Bill without knowing very much about betting. I think he now knows his way around it admirably. Since the Bill is now a different Bill, we ought to be discussing what is not in it rather than what is in it. Because there is so little left in the Bill, there is nothing more I feel like saying.
  12.36 a.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: I wish first to say that the basic principles of the Bill remain as they were when the Bill was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) some six months or more ago. The main purpose of the Bill was then, as now, to provide for a viable future for the Totalisator Board.
  The main Clause is Clause 1 which provides power for the Totalisator Board to enter into fixed odds betting as well as pool betting, and betting on races abroad as well as in this country; and it also empowers the tote to enter into pool fixed odds bettings on any sporting event. In other words, it removes the fetters on the Tote which, due to the changing social climate over the last 15 years, had ceased to enable the Tote to act viably.
  The second object of the Bill was to provide the possibility of a wider and stronger Board, and that remains. A
  1438
  further object of the Bill was to enable the management of race courses in those areas where the Tote found it unprofitable to carry on the Tote profitably and viably, to do so. That also has been retained.
  The only way in which the Bill has changed—and I concede at once that it has changed and that, as we conceded at the outset, we have listened to arguments with regard to its change—is in fact that, other than by parliamentary order, we have postponed the implementation of that Clause which provided a means of entry of the Tote into the off course market; and we have also, as a result of the improved financial situation of the Tote as against the fears as to its financial situation over the last 12 months, found it possible to remove the financial assistance which the Bill provided for the Tote through the Levy Board, and instead to replace this with the power to write off further indebtedness.
  Those were the two major controversial Clauses of the Bill, and throughout I have said that I would look to see whether we could alter them. With respect to hon. Members opposite, I thought they might have been grateful for the fact that the Government, as a result of discussion, have found means to meet the varied points made on those Clauses.
  I believe that the Bill as it leaves the House will achieve the aim of providing a viable future for the Tote, whose main purpose should be to provide—as the Government have always intended it to provide—pool betting with adequate outlets so as to provide an alternative method of betting to the public, though clearly indicating to the Board that, if it wishes, it may choose to go into fixed odds betting to assist in ensuring its viability. I believe that the Bill will provide that end and that the Tote has a great future under its new chairman.
  I said earlier that I did not intend to be rude about the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). However, I find it a little hard to take from him the criticism that this Bill has taken up unnecessary time in this House. I make this comment more in sorrow than in anger. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he chose on Report to table 67 new Clauses and 72 Amendments, all of which required those in the Home Office to provide notes over many weeks. What

  1439
  is more, they followed the 60 odd new Clauses and the many Amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled in Committee. His opposition to the Bill has not affected it in one iota as it leaves this House. All that his opposition has done is to cause a great deal of unnecessary work for many people who might well have been spared it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

  INTERPRETATION
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  12.42 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: When I examined the Minutes of the Joint Committee, I was surprised that there was no comment on this consolidation Measure, since I thought that the Committee's attention would be drawn to Clause 17 and its reference in line 18 to "rentcharge". Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that I said on Second Reading that I did not think it appropriate at this stage to pass a Bill containing rentcharges since we were awaiting the report of the Law Commission and the near promise of some future Government action.
  It had been my intention to table an Amendment to the Clause. I was hoping on this occasion to be 13th time lucky, having been unsuccessful with a clutch of 12 Amendments to the Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Bill last Session.
  I appreciate that this word "rentcharge" does not refer to chief rents. However, it is a Pavlovian trigger to me and, in this connection, it is no coincidence that so many hon. Members representing West Country constituencies are present. This
  1440
  is a problem which is peculiar to the West Country and Manchester. I have received correspondence from people in the West Country who read in the Press that I intended to table an Amendment to the Bill.
  I apologise to the Solicitor-General for this misunderstanding. In expiation I can only say that there are two types of Members, first and second-class. A first-class Member is one with legal training. A second-class Member is one who blunders along but who possibly does not have his feelings quite so blunted by the "on the one hand, on the other hand" attitude of his legal brethren.
  If the Solicitor-General can throw some light on the subject, even at this late hour a couple of minutes spent on it will not have been in vain.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Speaking as another first-class Bristol Member following the first-class Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), perhaps I may make a point before my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replies. This is a consolidation Measure. Therefore, presumably, it represents the collected body of law.
  I know that the hon. Member—I nearly said my hon. Friend; we can be good friends about this—for Bristol, South, does not like the law as he sees it to exist and he sought to change it. He has not succeeded in changing the law in this matter, however, and ground rents, rent-charges and other similar matters are still legal and must, therefore, be paid.
  The hon. Member has unwittingly encouraged some of his constituents to withhold from my constituents—the owners of ground rents, rentcharges and what have you—some of the money that is due to them. Lest it should be thought that up in Clifton there are rich landlords who own the land on which stand the houses of people who live in South Bristol, I should explain that it is not quite like that at all.
  There are many people living on savings, small incomes, ground rents and similar things bought for them perhaps by their parents. Elderly maiden ladies, for example, live on these things. It is a great hardship to them to try to collect any small sums from people living in

  1441
  Bristol, South, and elsewhere if unwittingly they have been encouraged otherwise by the hon. Member for Bristol, South.
  I hope, therefore, that we can at least say that this is the law and that until the hon. Member succeeds in changing it these landcharges and ground rents are legal and should be paid.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for giving me the opportunity of raising this point and, I hope, disposing of it in a modest way quite shortly.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South, appears to be dominated by canine metaphors. On the last occasion we discussed this matter he was concerned that we were not letting sleeping dogs lie. This evening he has spoken about his Pavlovian reaction. I wish no disrespect to him when I draw attention to those two facts.
  The position is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, said, that the law in relation to chief rents or perpetual rentcharges is not being changed by this legislation, for the simple reason that chief rents are outside the Bill. Clause 17(1), which is the interpretation Clause, contains a reference to "a rent-charge", which is merely a word used in the definition of "annuity", but that does not mean that the law relating to rent-charges or chief rents is being altered by this legislation, which does not touch on it.
  The Committee will recall that a rent-charge is a periodical payment in respect of land where the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. In other words, "a rentcharge" is a general expression for rent other than rent in the ordinary course of a lease.
  The hon. Member and my hon. Friend are concerned with two aspects of a particular variety of rentcharge known as a chief rent. A chief rent arises from the sale of a freehold for the income in the form of a perpetual rent rather than for a capital sum. That kind of chief rent is outside the Bill since it is not registrable under the Bill as a rentcharge of any class.
  There is, therefore, no need to amend or reconsider the definition of "annuity"
  1442
  as the hon. Member for Bristol, South at one time had in mind. That relates to interests limited to periods of years or to the life of a person. A chief rent is distinctive because it is not limited in that way. From whichever side of the argument one approaches the matter, the Committee can rest assured that the Bill has nothing to do with chief rents.
  I hope that I do not expose myself to the risk of curtailment from you, Sir Robert, before I go on to make a further comment which may be helpful to hon. Members. The Law Commission is urgently considering the question of chief rents and will be publishing a working paper in the near future setting out its proposals, which are not definitive and are intended merely to invite further comments. I understand that the proposals are likely to be, first, that legal rentcharges should still be capable of creation but only as a clear alternative to a purchase of the unencumbered freehold. In other words, the purchaser should be given a choice of buying at £x without a rentcharge or at £x minus £y with the difference being made up by means of a rentcharge. Second, any such rentcharge should not be capable of lasting for more than 70 years. Third, existing legal rentcharges should he extinguished on the basis of automatic expiry without compensation after a specified number of years. Fourth, the procedures for apportioning and redeeming rentcharges should be simplified and improved. The object should be, among other things, to get rid of the present situation whereby a property may be the subject of a number of different rent-charges. The aim should be one property one rentcharge at the most.
  I know not whether those proposals which are likely to be put forward for consideration will serve to bring together the differing viewpoints of the hon. Member for Bristol, South and his constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and his constituents, but the Committee may at least be glad to have the tentative proposals before it so that they may be considered during the coming Recess. I cannot believe that the gulf on this or any other matter which lies between the citizens of these two quarters of Bristol is all that great or is in any sense unbridgeable. I hope that the debate on this Clause will help to cement

  1443
  their citizenly solidarity on other this and other0 matters.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The House will be grateful for that statement by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I can claim to be in both camps, because I have in my constituency many who possess these rentcharges and many who pay them. This is a matter of substantial controversy in our part of the world.
  We owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) for raising the matter and for pursuing it. I have not always been totally on the hon. Gentleman's side, although his proposals have largely been to make illegal the creation of new rentcharges, as there are methods by which existing ones can be terminated.
  Without prolonging the debate, I assure my hon. and learned Friend that his announcement will be universally welcomed both by those who possess these rentcharges and by those who pay them.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am so surprised to hear what the Solicitor-General has to say that I feel that I must rise to congratulate him. This problem is not confined to Bristol. In north-east Lancashire there is a problem particularly in regard to the collection of ground rents which ultimately involves their apportionment.
  The Solicitor-General may remember that I was given leave to introduce, under the Ten-Minutes Rule procedure, a Bill designed to abolish this form of collection, whereby one person has to collect the ground rents for a whole block, this involving arguments between neighbours and the type of situation which looks like developing between my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke).
  I hope that the recommendations of the Law Commission will be published shortly and that they will ultimately result in legislation to abolish some of the worst iniquities which result from the ground rent or chief rent problem, however it is described.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I congratulate the five hon. Members who have spoken so far, particularly the Solicitor-General, on keeping so skilfully within the rules of order on a consolidation Bill. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on his assiduity in remaining here on three occasions now to a very late hour to raise this matter—on Second Reading, on Second Reading action replay a few days later, and again tonight. As a result, he has succeeded in obtaining a valuable statement from the Solicitor-General, which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome. We shall read with interest in HANSARD at some later date the proposals of the Law Commission. From what I heard of them I think that they will be broadly welcome, but of course we shall want to study them in greater detail before we can say that we shall accept them in all their content. This has been a useful short debate, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
12.56 a.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates enactments relating to basically three previous Acts on national savings—principally the National Debt Act, 1958, the National Loans Act, 1968 and certain aspects of the Post Office Act, 1969 which was the statute which made it desirable to consolidate these provisions.

1445
The Bill contains three proposals which were set out in the memorandum submitted by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, one of which appears in Clause 8, one in Clause 15 and the other in Clause 16, and I do not think that the House would wish me to trouble it at this stage with an enunciation of those matters which are of the most marginal significance.
The Bill has passed through all its stages in another place. It has been considered by the Joint Consultation Committee, which expresed the opinion
"that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949."
The committee said that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn.
That was the committee's report after its meeting on 5th July, and it is upon that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
12.59 a.m.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I do not wish to delay the House for any length of time on the Second Reading of this consolidation Measure, and I hope that it will pass through its various stages with even greater rapidity than the Land Charges Bill, but I must raise for consideration one point on the procedure which has been adopted by the Joint Consolidation Committee.
As the Solicitor-General said, the Bill contains certain minor amendments to the existing law which are dealt with in this way by virtue of the provisions of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. That Act lays down a procedure which is carefully and clearly set out in Section 1 as to the method which should be employed if Parliament, when it is dealing with a consolidation Measure, wishes to make corrections and minor improvements which have been put before Parliament by a memorandum of the Lord Chancellor. Reading the procedure as set out in that Act and reading the minutes of evidence to the Joint Committee, it seems to me that the Joint Committee, in what I consider a most praiseworthy attempt to deal with the matter expeditiously, has telescoped the procedure authorised by the Act so as to omit the part which the Act requires.
1446
That is my reading of the amendment to the 1949 Act, and my reading may be quite wrong. Certainly it appears from the report of the committee that the procedure employed in this case was a novel one which was produced through the ingenuity of the clerk to avoid the need for the committee having a second meeting to receive the approval of Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor of its report about the corrections and minor improvements that it was prepared to approve before dealing with the Bill. It appears that approval was given in advance, no doubt with the praiseworthy intention of telescoping and short-ciruiting the procedure. The procedure adopted is one which I would not fault in any way when applied to uncontroversial legislation, other than that it does not seem to be in accordance with the provisions of the Statute, provisions which seem quite clear and precise.
Others may disagree with the view I have expressed about that and all that I am arguing at this stage—I am not opposing the Bill—is that this apparently novel procedure should be considered in order that it may be ascertained whether it is in conformity with the Statute or whether it is a departure from it which would not permit the making of the minor corrections and amendments which have been made in the Bill.
1.5 a.m.
The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House, I should like briefly to comment on the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), a point characteristic of the assiduity with which he applies himself to the task of scrutinising these unexhilarating Measures which slink their way through the House at these small hours of the morning.
He is perfectly right to say that the procedure followed by the Select Committee was, as set out in the report of the Joint Select Committee, as a result of the ingenuity of the Clerk of the committee, and it appears from that that it was the first time that that procedure had been followed. The hon. and learned Member advanced the suggestion that it was not in accordance with what was required by subsections (3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. I am sure

1447
that he will not be surprised to know that the course suggested and adopted by the Joint Committee was not adopted or suggested without consideration.
He advanced the view that it was not in accordance with Statute. I would not seek on this much notice to resolve the point, but I should have thought that there were reasonable grounds for concluding that the course taken was legitimate. In the first line of subsection (3) there is a reference to the phrase
"at or after the time"
and it later says
"after considering any such representations"
and finally
"before reporting"
Subsection (3) has three indications of importance being attached to the time scale, whereas subsection (4), which deals with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker in the committee's approval, has no reference to timing one way or the other, and it would appear that the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker could therefore have been expressed or become available to the committee without reference to whether it was a concurrence arising before or after the Committee's approval, or at least that concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker could have been, as seems to have happened in this case, conveyed to the committee, as it were, in escrow in advance of its consideration.
Obviously, now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the point, it is something that will no doubt have to be considered by the Joint Select Committee and indeed by those who advise it, and the House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his indication that he does not wish to stand in the way of the passage of the Bill. It is worth commenting that this would not vitally affect the operation of the Bill hereafter. The 1949 Act in a headnote says that it is meant to facilitate the preparation of Bills, and the actual process of an enactment is that
1448
which takes place in the two Houses through the ordinary procedures of First, Second and Third Readings, Committee and Report stages and so on. Any illegitimacy which there may be, which is denied, in the preparation of this legislative child is overcome by the subsequent legitimisation of its passage through this House and another place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Murton.]
Committee this day.

POISONS BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
1.9 a.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I trust that I may commend this to the House as being no more than a straightforward consolidation Bill. It is basically a consolidation of Part III of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, as amended by Schedule 5 of the Medicines Act, 1968. There are some very small pure drafting improvements, but none which needs detain the House for any length of time. The Bill has been through all its stages in another place, and it was the subject of a favourable report without comment from the Joint Consolidation Committee on 5th July.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mt. Murton.]
Committee this day.

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

ROADS (NORTH SOMERSET)
1.10 a.m.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is perhaps poetic justice that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who had to sit through a debate on Somerset roads in the early hours of Thursday morning before debating a legal matter, has perhaps been able to get a little of his own back tonight.
It does not seem many hours since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment came to debate on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill the problems of Bristol's traffic. My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) are here tonight, as well as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate the very grave difficulties we are all experiencing in our part of the country.
Because of the lack of HANSARD and the early hour at which the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill took place, I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I briefly touch on the problems of the M5 bridge. I repeat that I welcome the decision to open the part of the motorway from Gordano to Edithmead when it is completed. I fully accept that this will cause some problems for certain parts of the Long Ashton rural district, but I am certain that it is the right decision.
Unhappily, I cannot say that anyone is pleased by the news that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open before the end of next summer. I merely quote briefly from a report in the Western Daily Press of the day after the debate, which said:
"The West was officially doomed yesterday to holiday traffic chaos again next year. The Government confirmed that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open until after next summer."
An editorial in the same newspaper asked:
"Are we really surprised to hear that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open for next summer?
Of course we are not.
We expected it.
The surprise will come when it does open, and suddenly traffic flows swiftly around Bristol instead of crawling through it."
1450
My hon. Friend has explained the difficulties his Department faces in completing the bridge, but once again may we urge on him the extra working and double shifts, and consideration of the possibility even of a single track Bailey bridge. The Automobile Association has suggested that ferries might be used. Let us examine every possible alternative, because there will be incredible chaos next summer if nothing can be done.
My hon. Friend also touched on the question of road improvements in the area. I mentioned to him my own ideas on that.
There is in addition the question of the traffic flow through Bristol. There is more than one crossing of the river Avon that can be used instead of the M5 Avonmouth bridge. There is the Clifton suspension bridge, and there are the other, low-level bridges. I am sure that the secret will be to see that at the height of the traffic flow all those routes are used equally. There is nothing more frustrating than to be stuck in a jam on the Portway while the traffic is flowing across the Clifton bridge. If there can be liaison between these various routes, a great deal of trouble will be avoided.
I repeat also the plea to see that the junctions on the A38 are kept reasonably free for local people. They are proving to be almost an impassable barrier at weekends. If police attention is needed, I hope that my hon. Friend will urge those responsible to see that the junctions are manned.
I turn to the specific problem of the expenditure on roads in Somerset and in particular the north of Somerset, a rapidly expanding area. People are moving south from Bristol and other parts of the country to settle in our part of the world. It is perhaps this, among other things, that has created the problem. Therefore, I took a look at some of the financial statistics. They go up to 1970 only, as the 1971 figures have not yet been published.
For comparison with the county of Somerset, I took my old county of Worcestershire, where I lived and was brought up, and Northumberland, in the North. I appreciate that it is possible to be selective on both sides of the argument, but I picked out these counties at random.

1451
I compare first the expenditure on trunk roads in the three counties. In this respect, Somerset comes out quite well with a figure of £25 per mile against £11 for Worcestershire and £22·3 for Northumberland. The figures for maintenance per mile of trunk roads are, Somerset £1,797 per mile, Worcestershire £7,810 and Northumberland £2,187. The population of Somerset is 600,000, of Worcestershire 459,000 and of Northumberland 505,000 so they are not so dissimilar. But if anything Worcestershire with a lower population, and lower number of vehicles than Somerset, and a lower mileage of road, still spends substantially more on a per mile basis on maintenance.
In the case of principal roads the figures are even more startling. Somerset is spending on new road construction for principal roads £1,100 per mile, Worcestershire £9,600 and Northumberland £15,100. We have 4,171 miles of small road in Somerset and the spending on these per mile is £103 in Somerset, £390 in Worcestershire and £370 in Northumberland. One has to look further into the deep West Country before one finds other counties spending less per mile than Somerset.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say that this is to a large extent not a matter for his Department, but the time has come when it has to be. We have to see what can be done to do something about the disastrous roads in the West Country, particularly in Somerset. The county surveyor is reported to have said that Somerset's roads are up to standard. His standard and mine are not the same. Our road system in Somerset falls substantially behind the standard to which I have been accustomed in the Midlands. I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to divert Government funds to assist with the road system in the West.
I appreciate that the question of economic assessment and return on the nation's capital is involved. I have a suspicion, although I have no grounds for it, that the economic assessment for tourist traffic has not been done on the same basis as the economic assessment for industrial and other traffic. But the tourist's car and very often his caravan take up as much or more space on our roads, clogging local business and other
1452
interests, and ought to be treated on the same basis. If we are to expand the tourist industry in the West, which we intend to do, and to which the Government give their blessing and money, we must do something about the roads. The question of economic assessment and economic return must be looked at.
I turn now to two particularly local problems—two bypasses, each of which will cost over £l million, the bulk of which will clearly have to come from the Government. The first and more important is at Banwell and Winscombe, two small villages both of which have substantially outgrown their original planned size. Their main streets date from the horse and buggy age. The very fact of their attractiveness has encouraged people to develop in them and it means that many people pass through them on their way to work in Weston and other places. In Banwell, the situation is aggravated because it is on a very steep hill. Despite constant pressure from the parish council, from Axbridge Rural District Council, myself and others, we seem unable to get the county council to place this work on any priority list. I hope that when he visits the area my hon. Friend will attempt to pass through Ban-well on a busy day, because he will then see immediately the necessity for a bypass. The bypass of the village will have the advantage also of bypassing Winscombe which has had to take the drastic step of controlling its parking and has temporarily at least improved the traffic flow, although many local people find the restrictions irksome. The problem in Yatton is the same. A small main street is quite inadequate to take the heavy flow of traffic.
I apologise for galloping a little, but I know that my hon. Friends would like to intervene and there is much ground to cover.
I turn to the borough of Weston-super-Mare and its major road pattern. These are matters wholly falling within the province of the Minister although it is true that the allocation of funds comes through the Somerset County Council. The county council is perfectly happy and ready to give the schemes I am talking about priority if the money is available from central Government. My hon. Friend's predecessor made a statement to the effect that £80 million would be available for urban road development in towns where transportation studies have been

1453
made. My hon. Friend will know that Weston has recently completed its transportation study. We are anxious to get at least our fair share of this money.
I quote from a letter which confirms the county council's view in which it is said that it is:
"…quite clear that the first priority is Locking Moor Bridges followed by the Southern Distributor Road."
It goes on to say that it is true:
"that insufficient allocations have been made either, in the programme or the preparation list, to cover these two schemes together, and that the Council Council's application for the inclusion in the preparation list of a further stage of the network was intended to provide a balancing figure to enable these two named schemes to proceed."
My hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me saying that the Locking Moor construction of new bridges over the railway was in the firm programme but he would not confirm the other roadworks. I am extremely anxious that both the road known as the Southern Distributor Road and the other part of the road which will go eventually on to the motorway should be completed. It would be common sense and good business practice if the Government were to consider investing in these three schemes all at once. They are all inter-related and inter-connected and will, I am sure, give a good economic return.
With the expenditure on roads, particularly in other parts of the world, I hope my hon. Friend will consider that these get their proper priority. I hope that having rushed through these problems, I have shown the Minister how seriously we view our traffic problem in the South-West, particularly North Somerset. I know the Minister has already taken a personal interest in the problem. I hope that he will turn that interest into substantial action.
1.23 a.m.
Mr. Tom King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for his diligence in yet again bringing this important problem before the House. It is a measure of the anxiety that we feel in Somerset over the situation. At the same time, that anxiety should not disguise our appreciation for what the Minister has done in the short time he has been in post in showing a real interest in our
1454
problems, which is appreciated by us all. We also appreciate the work of the Department in what it has done for the schemes in Highbridge and Bridgwater to improve the traffic flow—not all of which have worked. It has shown a readiness to reconsider the problem and to adapt itself.
What it is trying to do at present is a thankless task because it is trying to put a quart into a pint pot. This is a short-term problem. We recognise the tremendous amount of money being spent in Somerset which in the long term will make a great improvement.
I have made the point earlier about the need for the secondary road system. May I concentrate on two points directly connected with the motorway. In the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on Bristol traffic problems during the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill it was mentioned that the Edithmead-Dunball section would be ready in August, 1973. This was a serious announcement because that is months late and means that Highbridge, which was promised that it would not be faced with a further summer of heavy traffic, will face this burden for another summer. It was hoped that the improvement would be ready before next summer. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would look on this as a matter of great importance.
A further matter on which we should like an assurance concerns the bridge over the Avon. I am equally concerned with the major engineering project arising from the construction of a viaduct at Hunt-worth. I should appreciate an assurance that that is on time.
1.25 a.m.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: I also am indebted—as will be many thousands of people, not only our constituents but from all over the country—to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for raising this matter yet again. Anyone who saw the jams and the queues in my constituency last weekend will know how appropriate is the timing of this debate. I am appalled to learn that the M4-M5 bridge will not be open until yet another summer tourist season has passed. I do not think that the jams, delays and the frustrations involved for those going to the South-West

1455
are fully understood by those who plan our road networks.
Without the motorway being opened right through the tourists and visitors have to fall back on the old faithfuls—the A30 and the A303—to the South-West, both of which, in part, run through my constituency. Some lengths of those roads are only 24 ft. wide. One of the Highways Acts of last century laid down 24 ft. as being the right width. We have not progressed much since then. We are earnest in our belief that something must be done quickly to improve the situation. We know that we have a Minister who is determined to do what he can, and we congratulate him on what he has done, but I hope that he will do all he can to hurry up the M4-M5 bridge.
1.27 a.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: In bridge construction, major engineering work should be got on with well ahead, so that road construction can follow. I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Torn King). I ask my hon. Friend to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has nothing to do with this delay. He has no ministerial responsibility in the matter. We hear a lot of talk in the Press about his slowness to act, but it is nothing to do with him.
Not long ago we had a debate at four o'clock in the morning. Without HANSARD, some newspapers did not know what was said.
Whichever way the streams of traffic are diverted through Bristol they will converge at the top of Rownham Hill. Perhaps my hon. Friend can think of a way in which a motorway can be got through there expeditiously. If we cannot have a motorway bridge for the 1973 summer, will we have it for 1974? I do not think we can have an answer on that now. If we are not sure about 1974, we must have a temporary low level bridge further up the Avon from Avonmouth going right across the Avon. The railway line there is little used. Will my hon. Friend consider that, if we cannot have our bridge in good time?
1.29 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank
1456
my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for this interesting and timely debate, both on the Avon Bridge and the road problems of North Somerset. I can tell him and also my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that in the Department we certainly understand the real problems that will be caused, and are being caused, by the fact that this bridge is not in operation. I can give them the firm assurance that we are concerned that this will cause a great deal of hardship to local residents. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who talked about tourists and visitors; I stress the problems of local residents and industry, which we must not forget; it is not just a tourists' or visitors' problem.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the Avon Bridge that we had the other morning, except to say that we have looked at the question of ferries. There are real problems of navigation, and particularly of congestion. Even if we could solve all the problems of access, and the tidal and navigational difficulties, the number of cars carried on a ferry is limited, and there would be problems of congestion, even with access down to the ferry. Therefore, regretfully, although this possible solution has been considered, we have had to rule it out. I can assure my hon. Friend—and this is a vital point which I stressed the other morning—that there will be the maximum flexibility in the traffic flows between traffic using Portway and that using the Clifton Bridge. It is essential that there is not an enormous build-up on one route while the other route is under capacity. We want to achieve a balance, and we are ensuring that signing and police and traffic control in the area will bring the balance and flexibility which we all seek in a temporary amelioration of the problem.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that this has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries. If anyone should take the rap on this bridge, I am happy to take it. I note what he has said about ensuring that major engineering works, which could be the key to the whole question, are not allowed to get into this situation again. Nobody could have foreseen the box

1457
girder problems. My hon. Friend has raised a valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised a number of points which I should like to deal with. First, he referred to the weighting given to tourist traffic. The question of the economic evaluation of roads is pretty complicated. It is more sophisticated than my hon. Friend indicated. Basically there is some truth in what he says. But when we are looking at the economic evaluation, as a starting point all vehicles are counted equally. Vehicles are normally counted on an August day, and there are formulae for converting, say, February or April figures or figures for some other month into August totals.
Nevertheless, it is true that non-work trips are valued at a quarter of work trips. I could spend a great deal of time going into the whys and wherefores of evaluation. Suffice it to say—and this is an objective assessment based on detailed research carried out over the whole country—that in working out the economic evaluation, we bear in mind that non-work trips are valued at a quarter of work trips. As against that there is the balancing factor that the vehicle occupancy for non-work trips is normally 1·9 as against 1·3 for work trips. That means that in an area where there are many more non-work trips compared with work trips one could argue that this economically vitiated against that area in its road programme.
It is more positive and perhaps more helpful if I tell the House and my hon. Friend's constituents and other people in North Somerset that we have a massive programme under way for road expenditure in this area. Total road expenditure, including maintenance, by central Government and local authorities for the last few years is as follows: in 1967–68, £5,381,000; in 1968–69, £7,501,000; in 1969–70, £7,371,000; in 1970–71, £5,953,000; and in 1971–72 the provisional figure is £10,556,000. The figures for the first four years relate to the geographical area which includes Bath, and the last year's figure relates to the administrative area of Somerset County Council.
Perhaps what is even more important and dramatic is that, looking ahead, about £60 million worth of major trunk. motorway and principal road schemes are now under construction, a further £17
1458
million worth are soundly programmed but not yet started, and £73 million worth are in preparation—a total of about £150 million worth of work. In addition, many small road improvements are continually in hand in the county. The figure of £150 million for work in hand or planned compares with £4,300 million for England as a whole. So, in comparative terms, the County of Somerset has about 3½ per cent. of the English total, yet its population is only about 1½ per cent. of the population of England and Wales.
In the past two or three years we have seen a dramatic switch, not only in the South-West as a whole but in Somerset. in road schemes under construction, in the firm preparation pool or planned. It is, of course, my job, and it is the job of the Department, and of the local authorities concerned, to see that as fast as possible the roads planned are turned into realities.
A word or two about Weston. The position is largely as outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare by my predecessor in his letter of 7th January last. The situation is this. First of all, it is not quite true that the Land Use Transport Study is completed. There are one or two sections to complete, and this is in fact holding up, to an extent, the progressing of these roads. But the Locking Moor Road scheme is in the firm road programme and the county council expects to submit a firm programme report on it early next year. This means a possible start two years or so later. No detailed design work can begin till the firm programme report has been submitted. I understand that the county itself is waiting for the Weston L.U.T.S. to be completed.
As for the extension to the M5 motorway, this scheme is largely in the same position: it is in the preparation list. Of course, there was the other scheme my hon. Friend mentioned. This was not accepted in the preparation list. It was a scheme costing rather more than £2 million. Again, I believe that when the transport study has been completed the county will consider what it wishes to do with this scheme.
My hon. Friend mentioned the problems at Yatton and Banwell and I am not trying to pass the buck, but

1459
at Banwell we have not yet received an approach from the county regarding a grant for a bypass. If the county council does put up a scheme, while I could not tonight prejudge it, and say whether it would be accepted or not, it would be carefully looked at and we shall bear in mind all the things my hon. Friend has said. This must be a matter for the county, and it is for the county to put up a suggestion.
The B3133 at Yatton is a non-principal road and, therefore, not eligible for grant, or for the Department. It is a matter for the county itself in its allocations. As this is a non-principal road we in the Department have no standing in the matter.
I have mentioned the enormous amount of money which is in the programme for Somerset roads over the next few years. We are very conscious, having said that, that there are problems caused by the lack of an Avon bridge and of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater in connection with the extension of the M5. I promise him I will give consideration to the matters he referred to and write to him
1460
in the near future. I appreciate that at Bridgwater and Highbury these bypasses, which is what the extension would be, should be proceeded with sooner rather than later and certainly before the summer peaks build up. I cannot give an answer tonight, but as we have taken a decision to open the motorway, no matter what happens to the Avon bridge, we can get on with this plan before the summer peak.
In the meantime, although conditions, I am afraid, will be difficult next year, I hope that my hon. Friend will see, from the figures I have given, that perhaps at long last, and under this Government, Somerset will get a good deal and a fair deal for its road programme.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend answer one question? To help him enjoy his well deserved holiday will he read what has been said about the Avon?
Mr. Speed: I shall be delighted.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Premo Enterprises (Voucher Sales) Limited
  Premo Enterprises (Voucher Sales) Limited
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Civil Aviation Authority (Staff)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Staff)
  Air Services (London-Miami)
  Air Services (London-Miami)
  Gas Showrooms (Closure)
  Gas Showrooms (Closure)
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Continental Shipping Services
  Continental Shipping Services
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Duty-free Manufactures
  Duty-free Manufactures
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  North Sea Oil and Gas (United Kingdom Firms)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (United Kingdom Firms)
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Companies Acts (Contravention)
  Companies Acts (Contravention)
  Bolton
  Bolton
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Electricity Tariffs
  Electricity Tariffs
  M45H
  M45H
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Industrial Exhibition (Hong Kong)
  Industrial Exhibition (Hong Kong)
  Energy
  Energy
  Mass Transit System (Hong Kong)
  Mass Transit System (Hong Kong)
  Beer (Price Increases)
  Beer (Price Increases)
  Coastal and Cross-Channel Traffic
  Coastal and Cross-Channel Traffic
  Pyramid Selling
  Pyramid Selling
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dan Smith
  Mr. Dan Smith
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Motor Manufacturing
  Motor Manufacturing
  VSTOL Aircraft
  VSTOL Aircraft
  Gas Safety Regulations
  Gas Safety Regulations
  Plastics Factory, West Chirton (Closure)
  Plastics Factory, West Chirton (Closure)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Substitute Natural Gas
  Substitute Natural Gas
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  China (Exhibition of Treasures)
  China (Exhibition of Treasures)
  Middle East (Abductions)
  Middle East (Abductions)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Consular Staff (United States)
  Consular Staff (United States)
  Egyptian Foreign Minister (Discussions)
  Egyptian Foreign Minister (Discussions)
  Egypt (Arms Supply)
  Egypt (Arms Supply)
  Middle East (EEC Discussions)
  Middle East (EEC Discussions)
  Fragmentation Bombs
  Fragmentation Bombs
  Nassau Agreement
  Nassau Agreement
  Overseas Aid (Projects)
  Overseas Aid (Projects)
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Aid Targets
  Aid Targets
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Overseas Aid (Interest Rates)
  Overseas Aid (Interest Rates)
  Overseas Aid (Grants and Loans)
  Overseas Aid (Grants and Loans)
WALES
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Roads
  Roads
  Dee Crossing
  Dee Crossing
  Mortality
  Mortality
  Incapacity for Work
  Incapacity for Work
  School Building (Carmarthenshire)
  School Building (Carmarthenshire)
  MR. JOHN POULSON
  MR. JOHN POULSON
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (DELAYS)
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (DELAYS)
  MR. MAURICE O'REGAN
  MR. MAURICE O'REGAN
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Accused Persons (Position in Court)
  Accused Persons (Position in Court)
  Harrow Road, Wembley (Accidents)
  Harrow Road, Wembley (Accidents)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Visitors to Britain
  Visitors to Britain
  Homelessness (Young Coloured Persons)
  Homelessness (Young Coloured Persons)
  Fines
  Fines
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Detective Inspector Ronald Larby
  Detective Inspector Ronald Larby
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Nuclear Radiation
  Nuclear Radiation
DEFENCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  Mines (Gower)
  Mines (Gower)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Hospitals (Petersfield)
  Hospitals (Petersfield)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centre Earnings)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centre Earnings)
  Mental Health Act (Emergency Admissions)
  Mental Health Act (Emergency Admissions)
  Geriatric Accommodation (Newcastle Region)
  Geriatric Accommodation (Newcastle Region)
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Hospital (Leicester)
  Hospital (Leicester)
ENVIRONMENT
  British Railways (Restructuring)
  British Railways (Restructuring)
  Storage and Services (Underground Facilities)
  Storage and Services (Underground Facilities)
  Local Government Administration (Commissioner)
  Local Government Administration (Commissioner)
  Bar House, Hayling Island (Planning Application)
  Bar House, Hayling Island (Planning Application)
  Road Accidents (Dogs)
  Road Accidents (Dogs)
  Parking (Oxford)
  Parking (Oxford)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  River Stour (Pollution)
  River Stour (Pollution)
  A617, Rainworth, Nottinghamshire
  A617, Rainworth, Nottinghamshire
  Maidenhead Passengers Association
  Maidenhead Passengers Association
  Driving Test (Success Rate)
  Driving Test (Success Rate)
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  A38, Lulsgate (Traffic Signals)
  A38, Lulsgate (Traffic Signals)
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Coatbridge)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Coatbridge)
  Ecological Map
  Ecological Map
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  M5 (Avonmouth-Edithmead)
  M5 (Avonmouth-Edithmead)
  Eltham Train Disaster
  Eltham Train Disaster
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Frontier Controls
  Frontier Controls
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
  Finance Order
  Finance Order
  Advisory Service (Fees)
  Advisory Service (Fees)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
EMPLOYMENT
  Textile Workers
  Textile Workers
  Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944
  Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944
  National Industrial Relations Court (Scotland)
  National Industrial Relations Court (Scotland)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Disablement Advisory Committee (Glasgow)
  Disablement Advisory Committee (Glasgow)
  Industrial Stoppages (Scotland)
  Industrial Stoppages (Scotland)
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Report
  Official Report
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Gifts)
  Civil Servants (Gifts)
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES (CLEANING)
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES (CLEANING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Icelandic Fishing Limits
  Icelandic Fishing Limits
  Clumber Park Lake (Death of Fish)
  Clumber Park Lake (Death of Fish)
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Meat and Animals (Export)
  Meat and Animals (Export)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries (Free Days)
  Museums and Galleries (Free Days)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Grammar Schools (South Fylde)
  Grammar Schools (South Fylde)
  Mr. Dan Smith and Mr. George Pottinger
  Mr. Dan Smith and Mr. George Pottinger
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Invisible Earnings
  Invisible Earnings
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SCOTLAND
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Aberdeen)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Aberdeen)
  Hospital Beds (Private Patients)
  Hospital Beds (Private Patients)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Departmental Offices (Cleaning)
  Thomas Ryan and David Harrold (Remand in Custody)
  Thomas Ryan and David Harrold (Remand in Custody)
  Gun Licences
  Gun Licences
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
  General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
  Nursery Education (Accommodation)
  Nursery Education (Accommodation)

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

PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
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, in the last recorded year, was the amount of private financial investment in developing countries from British sources and what, in the same year, was the total amount received in profit, interest and dividend from developing countries by such investors.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, it is provisionally estimated that in 1971 £163 million was invested by the United Kingdom private sector in developing countries. Information on remittances of interest, profits and dividends is not sufficiently complete to make an accurate estimate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl, may I ask whether an investigation can be made, because the estimates in many surveys have been that twice or three times as much is received in profit, dividend and interest as the total aid which we give? Is this not very important in a judgment of the situation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this would be extremely difficult, but I should be willing to look into it in conjunction with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much.

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION: PROPOSED LONDON OFFICE
2.38 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to prevent the use of an office in Great Britain by any of the bodies affiliated to the Palestine Liberation Organisation who have as their declared policy the harbouring, training and otherwise encouraging of persons who hi-jack planes, and the killing of the innocent men, women and children involved in the hi-jacking.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CUL-ROSS): My Lords, my right honourable friend made clear in replies given in another place on July 27 that, while there is no power to prevent an organisation from setting up an office, he would not hesitate to use to the full his powers to keep out or expel any alien likely to engage in acts of violence or to encourage or incite such acts. My right honourable friend also said that the courts had ample powers to deal with any breach of the criminal law.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating the points that have been made by the noble Viscount, might I ask him whether he is not aware that the organisations which are affiliated to the P.L.O. have declared that they are proposing, as they have done in the past, to hi-jack planes, to commit crimes and to continue to train people for that purpose? Is the noble Viscount saying that if that kind of action is tolerated by an organisation the individuals who run that organisation are not liable to criminal proceedings? If so, does he say that if an organisation were set up for the purpose of committing murders in this country nothing could be done about the setting up of that organisation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; as to the setting up of that organisation the noble Lord is quite right. But the noble Lord has a very great experience of criminal law. He has

743
put to me a number of hypothetical situations which he knows well would or could in this country be capable of being dealt with under the criminal law. If there were any question of anybody seeking to come in from outside to take part in these activities my right honourable friend has already explained, and in no mean firmness of terms, what he can and would do about the situation.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to realise that there is considerable anxiety about this set-up, and that, it is known that in all probability any such organisation will be used as a cover for connections with individuals and other organisations abroad and for the purpose of committing murder? This is exactly what it means. With his ingenuity and ability, is the noble Viscount not in a position to advise that some steps might be taken to prevent an organisation of that description opening an office, or that some steps should be taken to make it illegal for such an organisation to open offices in this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the anxiety is not only well known to me but must be apparent to those who have listened to the Questions on this subject which have been asked both here and in another place. Yes, with ingenuity, with difficulty, with time, with a good deal of controversy and with dubious results it would be possible to pass legislation which would deal with the organisations as such. At the moment there is none. The anxiety is instant, and I have told the noble Lord and the House on past occasions what we can do. I have also told the noble Lord and the House, as my right honourable friend has done in another place, of the urgency and seriousness with which we take this matter and the degree of firmness with which we propose to use our powers.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if such an office were set up it would presumably have a staff, if only a doorkeeper, and some sort of financial administration to enable it to pay its rent. Would it be possible to charge that office with the cost of police protection for the Jordanian Ambassador who was very nearly assassinated at the end of my street?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a hypothetical question of the greatest complexity. In the first place, before one can seek to charge any body one must discover whether it is an organisation which is accepted as "a legal person" in this country. I do not know what the legal set-up would be in relation to this organisation. If there was none—and I would think this is likely—one would have recourse against only individuals. What they are worth is something I simply cannot speculate on.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that they will anticipate crime in this matter as well as they will be able to prosecute after the crime is committed?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is an exceedinely important aspect of the matter. I do not suppose that one would ever be wholly satisfied about one's powers to anticipate crime. What I can tell the House is that we are not badly equipped, and that we propose to use our resources to the best possible effect in the direction the noble Lord suggests.

DROWNING ACCIDENTS
2.44 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an independent commission on water safety in view of the serious number of drowning accidents.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government share the noble Lord's concern at the continuing loss of life in drowning accidents generally. We are urgently studying a proposal for the appointment of an independent commission which we have just received from the National Water Safety Committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I cannot yet say what the conclusion will be.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his

745
reply. In view of the urgency of the matter, would lie please consider that it should be dealt with very quickly? At present, having regard to the fact that water is being used for additional recreational purposes, for waterways and so on, the likelihood is that the number of accidents will increase; consequently it is essential that the various organisations concerned throughout the country should be brought together to find out the best way of dealing with the situation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I understand entirely the need for urgency which the noble Lord urges upon us. The Report was, I think, dated July 25, and to have made up our minds on it between that date and to-day would possibly exceed even the admirable record of this Government. But the list in Appendix A of the organisations who are responsible shows how widely this information has been put together and the range over which the inquiry has investigated. We ought to take it seriously. I do not in any way disparage the idea of there being urgency, but it is a complicated matter with a large number of interlocking Departments and voluntary and other organisations, as the noble Lords knows, and if I were to say that my right honourable friend is going to make a decision the day after to-morrow it would be misleading.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the ability of the noble Viscount—I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has replied—I am sure he will find ways of dealing with the matter rapidly.

CHANNEL TUNNEL AND BRIDGE PROJECTS
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: 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 when a Statement will be made regarding the Report on the Channel Tunnel prepared by Rio Tinto Zinc and Situmer and whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the rising costs and the apparent increasing incidence of accidents in tunnels throws some doubt on the value of the tunnel project as compared with serious pro-
746
posals put forward by responsible civil engineers for linking the shores of France and Britain by means of a multipurpose bridge capable of taking all types of modern vehicles and trains and with its support piers serving as a series of beacons which would increase the safety of navigation in the overcrowded English Channel.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on the first part of the Question, a statement will be made as soon as possible. On the second part, the project being studied is for a rail tunnel, which is the only practicable scheme at the present time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I should like to ask how soon is as soon as possible"? According to the papers, the report by Rio Tinto and Shunter is in the hands of the Department of the Environment. Secondly, the concept of a tunnel is now growing archaic. Is the noble Lord aware that throughout the world great experience has now been obtained in building safe bridges—even the one across the Yangtse for the first time in history—and, furthermore, that a mass of information has been added as a result of oil drilling in the sea? A first-class engineering project was put before the Department of the Environment, and the reply was (and here I finish) that they had studied it. The answer did not seem to indicate that they had studied it Will the noble Lord assure us that they have done so?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is the answer, but what is the question?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, my question was: have the Department of the Environment really studied the project that was presented to them in April and May this year on the possibilities of a bridge?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, if I had been able to tell him precisely when a statement could be made I should have done so, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment. As to the bridge, the study to which the noble Lord refers has been in my Department since April, but at the moment we have considerable

747
doubts about its economic viability, and a good deal of doubt about its technical feasibility, and it seems certain that international agreement would be required for it. Our belief is that it would add to the navigational hazards rather than diminish them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask whether he is aware that the bridge, with its 16 piers and beacons, would make navigation safer than ever in the Channel? Further, is he aware that we are never quite sure of a tunnel because of faultage in geological conditions?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, on the last point I would say that that is why studies have had to be so prolonged and careful. But I should certainly argue the view, which I think would be widely shared, that navigational hazards in the Channel are already great enough without this addition to them.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1962—now ten years ago—I was the representative in the City of the French-led Société D'Etudes Du Pont Sur La Manche, and that we put forward a constructive plan for a bridge-tunnel bridge, similar to that which exists in the Chesapeake Bay, but it was turned down by the determined opposition of the steel interests and the railway interests? Secondly, supposing that there is any difficulty about the Channel tunnel, and supposing also that for some reason or another the idea of a bridge similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is abandoned, would the Government nevertheless revert to the consideration of a bridge-tunnel-bridge?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was not fully aware of everything that the noble Lord said by way of a preliminary to his supplementary question, but I am grateful to know about it. I confirm that the bridge proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has been studied. The answer I gave him is an indication of our view of it at the moment, but this certainly does not preclude our looking at further proposals which may be put forward. In conclusion, I confirm that the only practical
748
scheme that is receiving serious study at the moment is for the rail tunnel.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, does the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mean that he is now converted and in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am converted to an intelligent contact with the Continent; but the Common Market as it is at the moment construed is not an intelligent activity.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, following the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, giving the French position with regard to this project, will the Minister look up the records from the time when the project first received consideration in another place in regard to a tunnel or a bridge so far as the Channel project was concerned? Further, does not the Minister think that this will take us back a long way and that it would be worth having that information published in Hansard?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall be delighted to look into that suggestion.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer that the only project receiving serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel project, will he confirm that the idea of a bridge has not been paled out? Will he also undertake that the Government will study the aspect particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; namely, that it is arguable, and I think demonstrable in certain cases, that a bridge would make navigation safer and would not produce an increased hazard, as the noble Lord suggested?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I have already said, we have studied this particular proposal since April. We have come very firmly to the conclusion that it adds to the navigational hazards and I would confirm that the only scheme being given serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, should not the Minister exercise a little caution in replying to questions about the Channel tunnel? Has he observed, as I have, that whenever there is a Statement

749
by the Government, or anybody representing the Government, about the practical nature of the Channel Tunnel scheme the shares rise? Is it desirable that the Government should indulge in any propaganda to help the shareholders of this company?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, are not the ideas of both a tunnel and a bridge somewhat old fashioned and out-of-date?

BUSINESS
2.53 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement of their intentions following the decision of President Amin to require Asians holding British passports to leave Uganda within three months.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will answer the noble Lord's Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I should also inform your Lordships that before this Question is answered my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will make a Statement on the RB211 TriStar.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which is the standard Motion for carrying over a Private Bill. The purpose of the Motion is to enable the Glamorgan County Council Bill to continue its progress through Parliament in the next Session. A complementary Motion has already been
750
moved and agreed to in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
2.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 14 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 15 to 25.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships before Amendment No. 14 is dealt with? I was also going to ask the indulgence of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, but I see that he has left the Chamber. I think it would be for the convenience of all the Members of your Lordships' House if we could be told, prior to the discussions that are to take place, what powers are still available to the Parliaments of Holland, Germany and the rest of the countries involved in the European Communities. We are going to discuss sovereignty later on and it would be helpful to Back-Benchers like myself if we could compare what powers those Parliaments have with the powers of the Parliaments of the European Communities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is now available, but in case he did not hear the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, I must say, subject to anything that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may say, that we are now in Committee upon the Bill and an interpolated statement of the kind suggested would, I should have thought, be out of order. The stage we have reached is Amendment No. 14. No doubt my noble friends and I, who are handling the Amendments as they come, will be able to give such information as is available to us within the Rules of
752
Order, but I do not think we should be able to make statements like this without any question being put or a Motion being before the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a little unorthodox, but the fact remains that we are in the gravest difficulty because so few noble Lords have this particular information available to them. I have spent the last hour trying to find the answer to this question. Perhaps it will satisfy both the Committee and my noble friend if, at a suitable moment and possibly during our deliberations on Amendment No. 14, the Government give the information required about which my noble friend has helpfully given advance notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not in a position to give the information now, even if a Question were before the Committee. However, I am sure that what has been said will have been noted and that anything which is available will be given. I must point out that we were given absolutely no notice of this point. If the noble Lord had been so keen to get the information it would have been relatively easy for him either to give us notice or to put down a Question.
LORD BESWICK: Is it not fair to say that my noble friend referred to this matter last Thursday? Unfortunately we do not have in print the OFFICIAL REPORT of our deliberations of that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My impression, having heard both interventions, was that the questions asked, although similar in the beginning, were in fact different questions. Nevertheless, we would of course seek to provide the Committee with as much information as possible within the bounds of order.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Would it be helpful if I were to walk over to the Cross Benches and ask for this information from there? I am not raising this matter in a Party way. If noble Lords will look at column 575 of the photostat transcript of our proceedings they will see that it was pointed out that this information, if it could be made available, would be of considerable help to us. We were told that the matter would arise on an Amendment, though I cannot

753
be certain on which Amendment the Government thought it would be acceptable for this matter to be discussed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is fully entitled to put his question from any part of your Lordships' House he chooses—it is not a matter for the Government from where he speaks—and we will give him the same attention from whichever part of the Chamber he speaks. We will give whatever information we have at the appropriate moment.
LORD SHINWELL: Does the Lord Chancellor appreciate that we are in some difficulty about certain Parts of the Bill? I assume that what the Government will be expected to do in dealing with Amendment No. 14 is not to explain the nature of the subsection to which it refers but to give the reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. In consequence, noble Lords will be deprived of full information about the precise meaning of the subsection. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will look at the subsection closely he will realise that it refers to a variety of Treaties and that it is somewhat complicated. One assumes that if the Government are anxious to acquaint the Opposition with the facts—those who are in favour of our entry may be quite happy to be without this and other information—they would be prepared to give as much information as possible to that section of the Opposition who, like myself, have considerable doubts about our entry into the E.E.C. If it is simply to be a question of the Government rejecting the Amendment and not giving more information, obviously we shall be in difficulty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty will cease to arise if the noble Lord will allow Amendment No. 14 to be moved, for that will enable me to give information about subsection (1). Unless it is moved I am unable to help any further.
Clause 2 [General implementation of Treaties]:
3.5 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
The noble and learned Lord said: Speaking with the opinions I hold and to which I have previously given expression, I shall be sorry indeed if the Government omit subsection (1). My object in moving this Amendment, which I do in accordance with well recognised custom, is in effect to ask the Government for information as to how Clause 2(1) will work. I do not want to be unnecessarily technical and I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am embarking on an abstruse and and inquiry which bears no relation to reality.
If one considers the various expressions of opinion which have been voiced throughout the debates on the Bill one must accept that an important clash of view has occurred. Some noble Lords and Members of another place take the view that by entering into the Treaties we are bound automatically to incorporate into our law the actual ipsissima verba of a large portion of the Treaties themselves and the obligations arising under them, such as regulations made in accordance with them. Many noble Lords and Members of another place who have studied this situation closely entirely repudiate that view and believe that by entering into the Treaties we will not bind ourselves automatically to incorporate Community law into our law in the same words as those in which the Community law is framed. All we shall be doing, they say, is to undertake, as soon as we reasonably can through our own Parliamentary processes, choosing our own language and framing the legislation as we think appropriate—so long as it gives effect to Community legislation—to alter our own laws so as to bring them into accord with Community legislation and to give effect to the Community obligations by which we have undertaken to bind ourselves.
That, I hope your Lordships will agree, is not an abstract or arid question of law but a matter which impinges directly on principle. Those who are suspicious of what we are doing say they dislike the idea that by one fell swoop we could make the language of the law of the Community part of our law. They very much object to that on the ground that this would seriously inhibit the freedom of Parliament and abrogate the sovereignty of this country and our Constitutional organs. Some say that we

755
have undertaken to do that very thing and that, by entering into the Treaties, we must go to the full length of doing exactly that. Those are the two conflicting views of principle. They engage very deep feelings and strong speeches have been made on this precise topic. It is for this reason that I think your Lordships will agree that I am not unnecessarily taking the time of the Committee by asking, in the form of the Amendment, for a full statement as to the view the Government take.
Now if I may look at Clause 2 subsection (1) to see how it operates, am I not right—and this is the question I would put—in thinking that it operates as follows? First, you have to take the Treaty in question, the Treaty which is one of the Treaties defined in Clause 1. For the purpose of my argument may I confine myself to the Rome Treaty itself? You then have to go through the various articles of that Treaty and have to ask yourself which of those articles can be said to contain or to create rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, or to bring into being remedies and procedures. And you concentrate on those articles, and on those articles alone, for the purpose of Clause 2(1).
Having performed that process, you then have to perform a secondary process. May I, for the sake of brevity, simply refer to rights? You have to ask, do those rights fall within the scope of the words which appear on lines 27 and 28?
"…as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect…"
If in the case of a given right you find that it does fall within the scope of those words—in other words, that you can say with reference to that right that there is some provision in the Treaty which requires that it should be automatically part of our law—then the result is that it becomes in its own language part of our law.
The first question I would ask the Minister to be so kind as to answer, therefore, would be whether I have correctly analysed the way in which Clause 2(1) works? If I have correctly analysed it, I should then like to put other questions and ask whether in so doing we do not go too far. In the first place, in order to pursue that enquiry I would invite your Lordships to consider
756
for a moment the Rome Treaty and ask of what provision in the Rome Treaty can one say, in the terms of Clause 2(1), that its wording does provide that the right in question is to be automatically part of our law.
Speaking for myself, and whilst I have endeavoured to make the best examination of this Treaty that I can, the only article which I can find in it which complies with that description is Article 189. Having cited it to your Lordships I will submit that that article itself is not very clear in its implication. It uses language which is ambiguous in import and it is not altogether beyond argument that it imposes the obligation on us to make the regulations with which it deals automatically part of our law. The relevant language is in the article which deals with the making of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. With regard to regulations it contains this language:
"Regulations shall have general application. They shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each member State."
In the view of Ministers, do those words or do they not, have the result of imposing upon this country an obligation to take the regulation as such without altering its language, without choosing our own Parliamentary language to reproduce its effect accurately and to incorporate it as such in our law?
I have endeavoured to make some research into the Community decisions on this subject to see whether I can find any answer which is precise. A case which is frequently cited on this aspect of the matter is the case of Costa against End. That was decided in 1964 by the European Court and that deals with Article 189. The language which it uses with regard to that article is:
The pre-eminence of Community law is confirmed by Article 189 which prescribes that Community regulations have an ' obligatory' value and are directly applicable within each member-State.' Such a provision which, it will be noticed, admits of no reservation, would be wholly ineffective if a member-State could unilaterally nullify its purpose by means of a Law contrary to Community dictates."
May I say that I cordially agree with the second sentence. Clearly, we should be infringing our obligations if we made a provision in our law which contradicted the regulation. That I accept at once. But it does not seem to me, if I may expressly put the point—and I put it wholly for elucidation to ascertain the

757
view of Ministers—that that analysis in the case of Article 189 goes the whole length of saying that we must take the actual language of the Article and automatically, without more ado, make it part of our legislation. That is the first question.
I then go on to ask a further question. I ask what is the justification in the Community legislation for our making anything other than the regulations themselves automatically part of our law? Where is the justification for the view that we are required to take portions of the Treaties themselves—those provisions of Treaties which we can call rights, powers, liabilities and so on—and make them part of our law in addition to the regulations? I believe that the answer I shall be given is that if you look at the same case, the Enel case which I have just cited, you will find that the Enel case and other cases which are sometimes relied upon decided in a European court do in point of fact put what I could perhaps properly call this "gloss" upon the terms of the Rome Treaties and other treaties, those terms which contain rights, and so on, that they are by implication to be made part of our own law. I hope I do not cite excessively from that judgment. but there are a few lines which are directly pertinent to that issue and I would submit that when they have been read it will be seen that they are again capable of an interpretation which would require us to do no more than by our own Parliamentary process, choosing our own language, reproduce the effect of the provisions of the Treaty to which they apply.
The language is this:
"As opposed to other international treaties, the Treaty instituting the E.E.C. has created its own order which was integrated with the national order of the member-States the moment the Treaty came into force; as such, it is binding upon them. In fact, by creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality and its own capacity in law, apart from having international standing and more particularly, real powers resulting from a limitation of competence or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the member-States, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves. The reception, within the laws of each member-State, of provisions having a Community source, and more particularly of the terms and of the spirit of the Treaty, has as a corollary the impossibility, for the member-
758
State, to give preference to a unilateral and subsequent measure against a legal order accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity."
If I may say so, I entirely agree with the latter part of that quotation. I accept at once that, having entered into the Treaty, we cannot proceed to make enactments in our own legislative system which conflict with the obligations we have undertaken. But I again put the question to Ministers, and I should be most grateful to ascertain their views as it is an extremely difficult question. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is a very important one, whether they think the language I have quoted, or similar language in other cases relied upon, goes the whole length to making it obligatory upon us to frame Clause 2(1) in the form in which it is framed. I ask the question: shall we not be fully implementing our obligations if we look at each particular obligation, choose our own language (many of these regulations, for example, are in extremely ambiguous language and are very difficult to enforce), and have the sort of precision which our own judges would expect to find when they are called upon to administer our laws?
If they are called upon to implement regulations as they stand, I submit that it will be extremely difficult for them to do so as they are so ambiguous, so general in scope. I think our own judges may perhaps be confronted with the difficulty which judges of the Supreme Court of the United States find in having to interpret the written Constitution of the United States. That has given rise to an enormous amount of legislation; I speak after many conversations with distinguished American lawyers who accept that the Supreme Court has to be a policy-making body; you cannot interpret with precision the very general language of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court is put in a position in which we do not want our judges to find themselves. That is the importance of this question. Those are the questions which I would put before your Lordships' House in inviting a statement from Ministers as to what their approach is.
I accept that in the Costa case, from which I cited, the result was that they did treat various Articles of the Rome Treaty as part of the law of Italy. But the issue

759
really, I think, that was before the court then was—it is not altogether clear, but I think it was this—whether the Italian Parliament would be in breach of its obligations if it introduced legislation contrary to the Articles of the Treaty which the court was considering. If that is right, if that is really what the court was then considering, my submission is that the somewhat general language in which it couched its judgment does not go the full length of establishing that we are required—I hope I do not repeat myself—to import the actual language, automatically and without more and without inquiry, into our own legislative system. I would be most grateful if noble Lords would be so kind as to furnish me with an answer on that. I beg to move.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be of great help to the Committee if, before the noble and learned Lord answers this direct question, we can put questions—and I have discussed this with the mover of the Amendment—against a certain context. The difficulty about the discussions we have had so far is, to put it mildly, that it has been confused by an inordinate amount of legal jargon. What we really want to see is if these provisions can be put into language that is understandable by all the noble Lords who sit behind the noble and learned Lord. If the Division comes to be called I venture to think there will be another hundred or so who will come in and troop through the Lobby in support of the Government. But it really is essential that the people of this country, including noble Lords opposite, who make decisions on these matters should try to understand what is being done in their name.
I submit to the Committee that, grateful as we are, and I am particularly grateful for all the coaching that I have had from my noble and learned friend, the fact of the matter is that when we get an answer in legal language to what he says there are very few in the Committee who understand its purport. I am grateful especially to my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, that he has moved this Amendment, because it does give us an opportunity of looking at this clause, at any rate at this subsection of Clause 2, against what was said on Thursday. We tried to amend Clause 1 on Thursday with two objectives in mind
760
One was to remove ambiguities, and, secondly, we wanted to strengthen the position of Parliament. The fact is that noble Lords opposite, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chancellor, got up repeatedly and assured us, and stated and re-stated their assurance, that Parliamentary control in these matters was adequate.
On that occasion the two legal authorities, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor himself, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, occasionally waxed a little indignant, not to say impatient, when we ventured to doubt their categorical assurance, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, suggests that our doubts were justified. We are grateful to him for bringing our attention to this clause because here the language is a little bit clearer than in Clause 1. Let me read subsection (1) again let us relish the language it employs. It says:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly;…"
I doubt very much whether ordinary readers of the British newspapers know what is put in this clause. They do not know what is being done in their name. They have an instinctive feeling about this, which they express in the opinion polls, but they do not know that the situation is as bad as in fact it is.
Both the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are really skilful advocates, but they should not be surprised, and the Lord Chancellor really should not be so indignant, if our doubts still remain. My noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill is as qualified as any to state an opinion, but I know that in my own case my own doubts are discounted because it is said I am from the start anti-Market. That is not entirely true, and I have endeavoured on occasions to state what my position is as far as collaboration with Europe is concerned. But still it is suggested that there are some of us who take up an a priori position, and are, therefore, not

761
properly able to consider the meaning of these words.
I agree I may be more against than I realise, but I have consulted my noble and learned friend and other authorities and I have tried to find out what is the net legal effect of this subsection. I emphasise that the net effect is what I am after, the effect after all the consequences are made, all the allowances made, all the cross references followed and all the preceding and succeeding paragraphs taken into account. I have endeavoured to find out what remains. I went to the article by the legal adviser to the Commission and read his words very carefully. He is obviously, in his position, able to say what the effect of Community law will be on the member States of the Community, and he is not in any way, I submit, biased. I quoted from the article in the Modern Law Review by Gerhard Bebr, and it is interesting to be reminded again of what he actually said. Having made the point earlier that there are a number of ways in which the Commission can put forward Community law; that there are different grades of law, he went on:
"A regulation 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 whatever on the part of 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."
My Lords, let us consider what Professor Wade had to say in an article in The Times on April 10, 1972, to which reference has already been made. He said:
"There is nothing new in abdicating sovereignty—the dismantling of the British Empire was a gigantic exercise in exactly that. But it is undoubtedly revolutionary for this country to accept as law, in advance and automatically, the dictates of the Community's executive organs…"
Or take another undoubted authority, Sir Leslie Scarman. In a lecture to the Royal Institute of Public Administration, he said:
"Community law consisting of a body of law enacted by institutions other than Parliament, will have to be interpreted and applied within the Kingdom by our courts under the guidance of the European Court, which will be the ultimate and authoritative interpreter of the Treaties."
762
So one can go on. In an article in The Times on Tuesday, May 2, T. J. O. Hickey said that Clause 2, which is the clause we are discussing:
"confers on authorities other than the Parliamentary authorities 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 since the Pope's privileges and jurisdiction within England were repudiated in the sixteenth century".
So one could go on. But it really does not match the assurances that we were given last Thursday about the adequacy of Parliamentary control of this legislation. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on Thursday, in what was, if I may say so, a superbly eloquent speech at about 11 o'clock at night, said it was pathetic that we should still go on saying that Parliamentary authority was being undermined. What extraordinary faith the noble and learned Lord has in his own eloquence!;
The final argument of Ministers opposite is that this surrender of Parliamentary control may be inherent in the Bill, but it is what Parliament has agreed. Indeed, this is what the noble and learned Viscount said to me on Thursday when I was querying this particular point. He said: "All right, you may not like it, but this is what it is, and you have got to have it." Ministers say that this is what Parliament has agreed by certain Divisions on Motions—some of which, I may add, were taken before this Bill ever saw the light of day. And they will usually add, of course, that in any case certain Labour Ministers agreed to this surrender in 1967. On this last point, it is interesting to see that Professor Wade said in his article—and I quote:
"… it is obvious, at any rate, that Community Law makes much great demands than were mentioned in the White Paper of 1967."
But leaving that aside it is no less a surrender of Parliamentary control, even though the present Parliament, by the vigorous use of Whips, has agreed to the surrender.
If a man doubtful of his future instructs another to cut his throat, one might argue whether it was suicide or murder, but the result is the same. It really does not help the cause of democracy to be told that Parliament itself has agreed to this cutting off of control which we think is an integral part of a living Parliament. It would be in the best interests of us all if

763
Ministers would refrain—if I may suggest this in good humour and in good faith—in future, from proving to their own satisfaction that this Bill makes adequate provision for Parliamentary control. That really is not the case. What we are concerned with, however, is to see that the maximum possible additional control is given. We have put forward Amendments which do something—not much, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell keeps reminding us—to strengthen the standing of control so far as this Community law is concerned.
I therefore beg the Leader of the House again not to turn down out of hand as the Government have done so far, and as they did on Thursday, the efforts that some noble Lords have made, the pros-and the antis- alike, to improve Parliamentary control. If the Government can give absolutely no indication that they will consider sympathetically some of our later Amendments, the best thing that Parliament can do in its own interests, and certainly in the interests of the British people, would be to accept this Amendment which my noble and learned friend has moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be convenient, without any attempt whatever on my part to curtail the debate, if I tried to answer the questions put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because they go to the heart of this matter and I cannot help thinking that if we get that part of it right we can discuss the subsequent words and the particular phrases used in subsection (1) with a clearer understanding of what they mean or, at any rate, the meaning which the Government side attach to them.
May I, before I embark upon that, say this to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because I think he still does not understand what I was trying to put to him the other night. Parliamentary sovereignty is one thing; Parliamentary control is another. I personally believe, and I said this the other night, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, was right in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill in drawing attention to the need for greater Parliamentary control through new organs of Parliamentary procedure which are necessitated by the nature of this type of legislation.
764
I accept that wholeheartedly. He also went on to add, and I accept this no less wholeheartedly, that in his view, as it is mine, the right way to do it is by new organs of Parliamentary procedure engendered from within each House or, better still, both Houses acting collectively through a specially devised Committee system. He went on to say, as did my noble friend the Leader of the House—and again I agree wholeheartedly—that if instead of tying oneself into knots with a number of, in my opinion, quite misguided Constitutional conumdrums we should get down to discussing in a constructive way what those particular procedures, and the institutions, would be within the Parliamentary body, we should in fact be making a step forward.
It does not follow from that that Parliamentary control should be established in the pre-accession Statute. I quite agree that we should be extremely slow to abandon Parliamentary sovereignty, but for reasons which I have given now on many occasions I do not think that we have done so. I think it is there and it always has been there. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, this is not only my own opinion, it was also the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and of my predecessors in the previous Conservative Administration. Of course we may be wrong, but it was a view very deliberately arrived at; and in the case of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—or was it the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, in 1962?—it was arrived at after a very close consultation with almost every prominent lawyer in the country. So far as Parliamentary control is concerned, I have never said that if we do nothing about it we shall have adequate organs of scrutiny or adequate organs of control. On the contrary, I think that the Committee system requires development, and I hope we may soon get a little further in discussion on those lines.
Now may I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who really put his finger on the nub of this particular matter. I should first like to say that we are in the presence of a new legal concept. I shall try to describe to the Cornmince—it has been done before—what this legal concept involves, and what it

765
is. It is new, and therefore old-fashioned English legal language, or technical English legal language, is not always apt to make it plain. I think that it is bold and imaginative, and I think it is highly desirable; but I want to describe it as it is rather than advocate its introduction, because I think it is a failure to understand what it is which gives rise to a good deal of the confusion of thought that exists about this subsection. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, began by saying that he would be extremely sorry if this subsection was not passed. Therefore, his Amendment, which he claimed, I think with complete justification, to be well within the tradition of the Committee stage in either House of Parliament, was a probing Amendment designed to elicit the answers to certain questions from the Government.
Before I tackle the questions themselves I want to emphasise the nature of direct applicability as it is envisaged in the Common Market. What differentiates a common market from a free trade association pure and simple is basically that if you are going to have a common market the market must be run on certain mutually agreed lines. The persons who are members of the market are not allowed to take advantage of one another by special tariffs or by special subsidies, and equally are forbidden to do so by means of restrictive practices of a particular kind which would prevent the competition from operating, or the market from being a market equally open to all. In other words, the market must have rules which are mutually agreed and which are applied universally among the members of the market. This is basic to the whole conception.
It also follows that if these rules are to be the same for all, they must in the last resort be, not enforced but at least interpreted by a single juridical institution—in fact, in this case, the Luxembourg Court. The result is the development of the directly applicable system of law. To understand what it is, in my Second Reading speech I drew two analogies which I think are fair enough and which I will repeat, but which are misleading, each in a different respect. I want to point out how far they are fair enough and how far they may be misleading before I go any further. I drew attention to the development inside English law in the 17th century in particu-
766
lar—I think perhaps a little earlier, but at any rate at the turn of the 17th century—of what was called the "law merchant". Almost all the law affecting bills of exchange has its origin in the law merchant, which was not a specifically English conception but was drawn from the practice of merchants, particularly in Western Europe, among the trading nations. This was a source of English law different from the Common Law and different from Statute Law. I drew that as an analogy and, like all analogies, it was fair enough up to a point but it was misleading beyond that point. The point at which it was misleading was that although the law relating to bills of exchange is basically international in its origin, it is enforced by separate national courts, and was ultimately enacted after very many years—more than two centuries—in the Bills of Exchange Act drafted by the late Mr. Chalmers. But in the course of the development of the law merchant as part of English law it became true in detail, although the thing was basically an international system, that the different courts of different nations had in detail, and in minor details to some extent, different rules relating to bills of exchange, because each national law developed a different law relating to bills of exchange out of a common root. So to that extent my analogy was misleading.
The second analogy that I drew was that of prize law in time of war. This was to some extent in one respect a better analogy, because in time of war, in theory at any rate, the various belligerents and neutrals operate the same international law of prize. But in practice, of course, the prize courts are nearly always the courts of belligerents, and it became true that, although in theory the law was international and was the same—and indeed the text books are international and are the same—the prize courts in different countries did in fact arrive at inconsistent results. Therefore, to that extent that analogy is slightly misleading.
That brings me back to the Luxembourg Court. The essence of the conception of directly applicable law in the Common Market is, first, that there should be a common set of rules—sometimes going into detail, and sometimes consisting of general rules contained, very

767
often, in Articles of the Treaty—interpreted by a single court in the last resort, so that the courts of the individual countries cannot, in practice, develop idiosyncracies of their own which cannot be corrected. I agreed with the analysis, as one would expect I would, of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, very closely up to one point. However, there was one point where I think I would demur on the particular language he used. He talked of the directly applicable law of the Common Market as forming part of our law. Strictly speaking, this is a misconception. It is directly applicable in our courts. It has, where it is directly applicable by virtue of the subsections of the cause we are now discussing, "preeminence" (which was another word I think he used) over rules of domestic law here—that is to say, where there is inconsistency between the two systems, the Common Market rules must be applied—but it is a separate system of law applied in our courts, and it is not part of our law as such. The Court at Luxembourg tends to call it a new legal order; other people, I think, have called it an independent legal system; I liked to call it in my Second Reading speech a new source of law. But it is important, not that you should use the correct label but that you should get the right idea about its legal characteristics, and it is that idea which I am trying to convey to the Committee.
Having said that, I think we can go back to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked, and I start from the Act of Accession which is annexed to the Treaty of Accession. The Act of Accession annexed to the Treaty of Accession contains the following provision in Article 2:
"From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act".
What we have agreed to accept, of course, is membership of this society as contained in the original Treaties, but in the original Treaties as they are now interpreted authoritatively between the existing members themselves. Many of the ambiguities which might have existed in 1957 (if that is the right date) do not now
768
exist, because a particular interpretation has been given authoritative effect.
Two things are clear, for instance. The first is that certain of the Articles of the Treaties themselves, although not necessarily all of them, are part of the directly applicable law in all the States which adhere to the Treaty. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that if we had started at the beginning it could have been possible to argue that this was not so; but it is not possible to argue it now because the Treaty has had authoritative interpretation and has been so understood throughout the negotiations by the proposed new member States and by the old members inter se.
If I may just give an example, there is a case (and noble Lords will forgive me for not being able to pronounce the various names of these cases) called van Gelid en Loos v. Nederlandse Tariefcommissie which establishes that Article 12 (I think it is) of the E.E.C. Treaty is of direct effect in the Communities. In that case the obligation or the restriction was a negative one: not to introduce any new customs or equivalent duties against other member States; it would inure for the benefit of individuals, and it would impose a restriction on member States. There are a number of Articles in the Treaty which have been held to be of directly applicable effect. They include Article 12, Article 13, Article 31, the first paragraph of Article 32, the first paragraph of Article 37, Article 53, the first paragraph of Article 85, the second paragraph of Article 85 and Article 95, as examples. They are of directly applicable effect, the acknowledged test being—and I think this came from my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the Second Reading debate—whether they are (I use the words in inverted commas) "complete and perfect".
Now exactly the same test as to direct applicability applies to the instruments deriving their authortiy from the Treaty, which is the second source of directly applicable law. Nearly all these are in fact regulations, and nearly all regulations are in fact directly applicable. It is not in fact true that something which takes the form of a regulation is absolutely certainly directly applicable. Nor is it absolutely true that that which takes

769
the form of something other than a regulation—for instance, a directive—is not directly applicable. The test is one of substance and not of form, and the test applied by the Court is whether it is complete and perfect; that is to say, whether it is capable of imposing an obligation without any intervening legislation by the member State. I must say, as a corollary to that, that there are of course regulations which do, as an ancillary part of them, impose an obligation on a member State to take certain action ancillary to the main obligation, in which case, of course, to that extent the ancillary obligation is not part of the directly applicable law.
I hope I have been reasonably lucid about all this. If I am not reasonably lucid, I have been doing my best. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, wanted it in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand, and, of course, I am anxious to put it in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand. But I cannot do so at the sacrifice of accuracy or at the risk of misleading the Committee. One has to recognise that legal concepts are not always such as the ordinary newspaper reader can understand, and if one starts trying to expound the law in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand one is apt to get it wrong or to state it wrongly; and I have tried to be as accurate and as lucid as possible.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He says now—and I am trying to follow him—that some regulations are directly applicable and some are not. I have read that passage from the Modern Law Review by Gerhard Bebr. If what the noble and learned Lord says is correct, then the legal adviser to the Commission is inaccurate. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that he is inaccurate? Because if, for the noble and learned Lord's benefit, I may just repeat it again, he says:
"A regulation 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 whatever on the part of member States."
There is no qualification to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I am trying to give the noble Lord a
770
correct answer and I am not trying to follow the language of the legal adviser in the Modern Law Review. What is set down in the Modern Law Review is, I should have thought, in 999 cases out of 1,000, absolutely correct; but it is in fact not in theory absolutely correct because, as I say—and I am trying to explain to the noble Lord—what is directly applicable or not is a question of substance and not of form. There are cases where a regulation contains matter which requires further action by the State, in which case it is not directly applicable. It is also possible—it is theoretically possible; I am not sure that I could point my finger to an actual example—for something to be written in the form of a regulation which was in substance something more in the nature of a directive. The question is one of substance and not of form. The test is one of completeness and perfectness (if that is the right word) and not one of the actual form which it takes. There are directives which are directly applicable, although the majority are not; and I am told there are some regulations, but very few, which are not directly applicable—and I believe that to be a correct answer. I am not concerned to criticise an article the exact phraseology of which I do not fully recollect. I think I have given the Committee an absolutely correct answer so far as I can.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask one question? The noble and learned Lord is, I think, making sense to me—just—in this difficult area. He says that most of the directly applicable Community laws will be made in the form of regulations, and that these regulations can be made by the Council or by the Commission, or both. This is a very important point, because the Council has Ministers represented on it and the Commission does not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Council is the authority under which the Commission works; but I think it works informally to the extent that a great number of regulations are given the imprimatur of the Commission. But if a State wishes to take it to the Council it can do so. The Council is the body of ultimate resort subject to negotiation between the States.
LORD SHACKLETON: How can a State take it to the Council if it is within

771
the possession of the Commission? Or does the Council know everything the Commission is doing? I understood that this was not the purpose of the basic constitution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commission, just to make an analogy, is the Civil Service and the Council is the political authority of Ministers.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord is on a very important point. The Treaty of Rome specifically makes it clear that the Commission is not the Civil Service. This is important, whether we are for or against the Common Market. We must be right on this vital point. It is laid down very clearly in the Treaty of Rome that the Commission is in this respect an independent body and has an independent life. I admit that there are links between the two and that there is a very carefully worked out relationship; but, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord. I think it is misleading to say that the analogy is with the Civil Service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To some extent all analogies are misleading. I think it was not misleading in the context in which I used it. But if it does not help the noble Lord, I will not persist in the analogy. Obviously, it was no more than an analogy. It was not designed to say that the Commission was exactly the same thing as the Civil Service, nor did I wish to create that impression.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Before my noble and learned friend leaves that point, may I ask him to clarify a phrase which I think fell from his lips. He said that it would be possible for negotiation in the Council. Could he enlarge on that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I said "negotiation between the members". That is a different thing.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: With great respect, it is a very different thing indeed; and this is what worries some of us. Is it not the case, from what my noble and learned friend has said, that there are matters which may be right or may be wrong and that they will be decided by horse-trading; that this will
772
be done over our heads and that we shall have no recourse other than the veto?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. I was talking simply in terms of negotiation between States which can always alter the terms of the legal obligation. That is so whether we enter into the Common Market or not. My noble friend is trying to read too much in what I have said.
May I move back to the point on which I was touching? I am seeking to describe the nature of directly applicable law. I hope I have established that it is a separate system of law. It is applicable in each country not as part of the legal system of that country but applied by their courts. Where there is a conflict between a rule of domestic law, in each one of the member countries, the directly applicable law is pre-eminent in the sense that it is the duty of the courts of that country to give effect to the directly applicable law of the Community. If in doubt as to what the law is it refers or can refer to the Luxembourg Court for a positive interpretation. Sometimes one forgets the train of argument when one is, quite properly, interrupted; but I wanted to add that what is or is not directly applicable is itself a question of Community law. That is an important addition to what I was saying because, for example, I read out a number of clauses in the articles of the Treaty which I said were directly applicable; and I said that because they had been so held to be directly applicable. But if I had given the impression that no other article could hereafter be held to be directly applicable I should be giving a misleading impression.
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to point out to me in which clause, or phrase, or subsection of any clause it is stated that some regulations are not directly applicable?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not to be found in the Treaty at all; that is why I found it necessary to state it in my speech.
: Oh!
LORD BESWICK: With respect, a statement in the noble and learned Lord's speech is not sufficiently good. The

773
country wants something rather more authoritative even than that. I should have thought that it would go into an Act of Parliament. Can the noble and learned Lord say in which part of this Bill which we are now considering, in which clause or which phrase, it is even hinted that some regulations are not directly applicable?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord is really being a little discourteous. I am only seeking to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. If I had given a different answer it would have been an inaccurate one. I was seeking to answer the question he put. It is true as a general rule that the directly applicable law is to be found either in certain articles of the Treaty or in regulations, but it is not true as an absolute statement of unqualified fact that there is nothing in the regulations which is not directly applicable or that there is nothing, for instance, in the directives which is not directly applicable; because both those statements as absolutely unqualified statements would be wrong.
The noble Lord asked me to say which phrase in Clause 2(1) contained that information. The answer is that that information is not contained in Clause 2(1). The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to provide that those obligations which are of direct application shall have direct application. It does not seek to give their sources; it does not say either that they are regulations or directives. It mentions the Treaties, but not, by name, the different kind of instruments under the Treaties. Nor, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would one expect it to do so.
I did not want to take too long at this stage, I know noble Lords want to discuss the aspects of the clause. Therefore I want to bring this intervention to an end as quickly as I may. The fact of the matter is that we are at the heart of the Bill. The concept which we are being asked to accept is that of a Common Market with common rules—in so far as they are not contained in the original Treaty formulated under the institution of the membership of the Common Market—in a way that we shall be discussing in due course and directly applicable in the sense in which I had
774
I been trying to describe it. I had not intended to go further than that; but it seems to me that those were the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was putting. The answers to them, if I may go back to his speech and then draw my remarks to a close, is that you do have to look at the articles of the Treaty to see which are directly applicable; and the test is completeness and perfection. You cannot leave it to the Legislatures of each individual member to enact the directly applicable system by its own processes because they take effect immediately once you accept membership of the Treaty. They are enforceable, or at any rate are of direct application from the moment they take effect, and they do not take effect from the moment you legislate them by your own legislative process.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that question can he tell us at what stage the regulations become effective? Is it possible for them to become effective purely on the decision of the Commission and not that of the Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They become effective, I think, on publication or on the commencement date. It is the same, I think, in principle as our own legislation. The regulations have to be published before they can be effective, and they may contain a commencement date.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Is the noble and learned Lord telling us that they can come just from the Commission, the Civil Service body?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They come from the Commission. It is not in that sense that it is independent, but in its regulation-making power that it operates in implementation of the policies laid down by the Council. It formulates regulations in implementation of policies laid down by the Council. The Council itself may make regulations but if it does so it makes them only on the proposal of the Commission.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me where in the Treaties are the words which make this particular clause necessary? Assuming it has been arranged between a willing

775
buyer and a willing seller. We have a "commitment of honour"(I think those were the words used) and we are obligated to do something. I cannot find out where we are obligated to have such a wide clause as is proposed here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause gives effect only to those obligations and rights which are of direct application under the Treaties; that is all it does. We are obligated to give effect to those rights under Article 2 of the Act of Accession. It is—
LORD BALOGH: Would the noble and learned Lord confirm—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do let me answer one question at a time. It is Article 2 of the Act of Accession to which I referred. It is not a question of words. I have been trying to explain to noble Lords that it is inherent in the conception of a Common Market that there are common rules, and this is the way in which the common rules of this Common Market have been operated. This is the interpretation put upon the Treaties. It has been put upon the Treaties from the very early days, from the start, and this is the obligation which we undertake when we enter into the Treaties. Clause 2(1)—it is not a question of words—simply gives effect to such obligations and rights as are, by the operation of Community law, of direct application.
LORD BALOGH: Would the noble and learned Lord confirm that an analogous clause has been enacted in France, Italy and the various other countries? That is my first question. My second question is in reference to what the noble and learned Lord said before. He said that Parliamentary control is unimpaired. I do not know whether perhaps he used the word "control" in a legal sense which I do not understand; but if he did not use the word "control" in this particular "Hailshamian" sense I should like to know what he means by it. If something is directly applicable without any discussion in Parliament, surely Parliament cannot be said to have control over it. That is the very essence of the Common Market, and that is why some of us are doubtful whether at this particular juncture in these particular circumstances one should enter the Market.
776
Surely the noble and learned Lord cannot possibly say that Parliamentary control is unimpaired when a clause is directly applicable without discussion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord had been attending to me as carefully as I had hoped, he would have heard me say that what was unimpaired was Parliamentary sovereignty. I began my speech, I should think during fully the first five or ten minutes of it, by saying that I thought that further instruments of Parliamentary control on the lines of those suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on Second Reading, were required. So I did not make the statement attributed to me. I must say, in passing, that I found his reference to a "Hailshamian" sense offensive.
As regards the first question that he asked, of course all the Six have slightly different processes in their Legislatures, but there is no question that all the countries of the Six have accepted the equivalent of Clause 2(1). The directly applicable law of the Community applies, without further national or domestic enactment, in all the countries of the Six. I cannot, without notice, describe the exact legislative process in all six cases by which that result has been arrived at. This is the result which we arrived at by our own legislative process, but the result is the same in all six cases.
I think that I have answered Lord Stow Hill's question. I am afraid that I have been tempted into a rather longer intervention than I had intended by a number of questions which really relate to other parts of the subsection. I did not wish to intervene at this length at this stage, but I felt that I ought to give some account of the direct applicability of Community law since that was the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, put to me.
EARL JELLICOE: I hope that I shall not be confronting the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, "eyeball to eyeball", but, with the permission of the Committee, and in order that the House may hear Statements by my noble friends Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

UGANDA: FUTURE OF BRITISH ASIANS
4.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient for the House to turn to a completely different subject, and I should like, if I may, to repeat a Statement which is being made now in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the subject of Asians in Uganda who are holding British passports. The Statement is as follows:
"In a speech to troops on August 4, President Amin is reported to have said that he will ask the British Government to take over responsibility for all Asians in Uganda who are holding British passports, because they are sabotaging the economy of the country. Our High Commissioner in Uganda has asked to see the President to establish his reason for his statement and to obtain an indication of Ugandan intentions. We have had no official communication from the Uganda Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in touch with other East African Governments."
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—and not wishing at this moment to go into the rights and wrongs of this question—whether the Government will do what many of us have urged for a number of months: initiate a conference between representatives of the Commonwealth Territories in Africa—Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania—and India, with a view to the solution of this very difficult problem?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Well, my Lords, we did in fact have an arrangement with the Uganda Government in May of last year whereby we doubled the quota of vouchers to those who could come in, as well as giving a special allocation of 1,500 vouchers, and it was agreed that this would be observed. So far as we are concerned, this arrangement of an orderly entry into this country is still the one in existence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my noble friend's question. There may be good reasons for not having this conference. There may be reasons which the noble Baroness, for some reason, does not want to give. But since my noble friend has an unfortunate ability to be right when I do not always expect him to be right, the noble Baroness, if I may say so, would be rather well advised to answer his supplementary question.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I was seeking to explain to the House, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we already have an agreement at this moment with the Uganda Government. Therefore, to go on to the particular question, we do not at this moment see that it is necessary to have a conference until we know exactly what the facts are. We have had no official communication.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Her Majesty's Government must know the facts, may I ask, would it not be most desirable, since India is deeply involved in this issue, and particularly because the influence of Kenya might be extremely valuable in reaching a solution, to call the kind of conference that I have suggested?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I said in the original Statement that my right honourable friend is in touch with East African Governments on this issue. Of course that would also involve India in the sense that these extra vouchers were meant to help those of Indian origin.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that, though we undoubtedly have some responsibility for the Asians of British nationality in East Africa generally, our responsibility can be discharged only within the limits of the possible? That being so, would not the noble Baroness think that the announced policy—if it is a policy—of the dictator of Uganda is in itself inexcusable, and indeed incapable of execution, short of mass murder and starvation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we certainly accept that these Asians who are holders

779
of British passports are our responsibility On the other hand we have always sought, and in fact had, an arrangement for their orderly entry into this country for their own benefit and also for the benefit of the people of this country.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Uganda Foreign Secretary was in this country towards the end of last week and made a statement on British television on Saturday evening prior to leaving London airport? Is it not inexcusable for the Foreign Secretary of Uganda to come to this country as a guest and make a statement on television confirming what General Amin said without saying one word to Her Majesty's Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is exactly why our High Commissioner has sought an interview with President Amin.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I also heard the statement referred to by the noble Lord, and without wishing to prolong this discussion on what is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation, or to complicate the efforts which I trust are strenuously being made, may I ask the noble Lord if he will still bear in mind—because these issues are likely to arise in the future—the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Brockway?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly bear carefully in mind any suggestion which comes from any noble Lord. May I just point out that I am not yet a noble Lord?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say what is the subject of the communications between the High Commissioner and General Amin? Is it purely a question of ascertaining the exact meaning of his speech or speeches over the weekend? Would the noble Baroness confirm, as Mr. David Lane said, that we must accept ultimate responsibility for these people, and that if in the ultimate General Amin repudiates the Agreement he has with this country and throws the 40,000 United Kingdom passport holders out, we must accept the responsibility for bringing them into this country and making proper and orderly arrangements for their arrival? But,
780
nevertheless, would she represent to General Amin that such a thing is totally impossible physically within the space of three months, and that, if he wishes to alter those arrangements, it must be done in an orderly and progressive manner over a much longer space of time than he has allowed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the purpose of the meeting requested by our High Commissioner in Uganda is, first of all, to find out whether Press reports are in fact accurate; and if so, what really is intended. Then will be the time to take action on some of the lines mentioned by the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is at least one noble Lady who comes from North of the Border and who maintains that there is no such thing as a "Peeress" in your Lordships' House and prefers to be called a "noble Lord"?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is a fascinating comment of which I was not aware. I must study it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness if, when considering the proposal I have made, she will bear in mind that this is now becoming an international question; that European Governments are refusing to receive these British passport holders and that the whole matter may be raised at the Human Rights Commission? In view of that fact, will the Government take active steps to bring about a conference as I have suggested?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the first thing the Government are trying strenuously to do is to find out the exact facts of the case. Then we shall have to decide how we are to sort it all out.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that, while we have a rather uncomfortable obligation to the Uganda Asians, we should also condemn this obnoxious kind of repatriation in which the President of Uganda is indulging?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must repeat that we have yet to find out officially what

781
the facts are. We have heard a great deal about them. If they turn out to be true, of course we shall deeply regret it, particularly as many of these Asian holders of British passports have never been to this country and do not particularly want to come here.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she does not agree that it is not helpful to the people under pressure in Uganda at the moment to carry on this form of questioning of Government policy, and that it would be far better if the matter were left now until the Government have full knowledge of the facts because this is a difficult and dangerous situation not for us but for Uganda and for the Asians there.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said that Her Majesty's Government have been in touch with other Commonwealth territories, can she say whether in effect Her Majesty's Government have been in touch with non-Commonwealth territories; in other words, other African or Malagasy Governments? Can she say whether in effect she would recognise that Madagascar is large enough to accommodate some of these Asians? They already have some Mauritian, Chinese and Indian nationals. Could not an approach be made to the Malagasy Government in exchange for further technical assistance, capital aid and private investment for them to accommodate some of these nationals? If the noble Baroness does not feel that an approach can be made direct to the Malagasy Government on this issue does she not feel that an approach could possibly be made to the French Government with a view to co-ordinating our policies in Africa and the Malagasy Republic?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while I very much appreciate my noble friend's comments I really feel that we must first find out what the exact facts are. This is the whole point of what our High Commissioner is trying to do, because we hope that there will be second thoughts in Uganda and that the agreement we
782
have with Uganda will still be carried out.

RB.211 ENGINE AND LOCKHEED TRISTAR
4.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace is making in another place on the Rolls-Royce RB.211 and Lockheed TriStar. It is as follows:
"I wish to inform the House that two major decisions have been taken on the RB.211 programme. First, we have accepted proposals from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. to develop the engine from 42,000 to 45,000 lb. thrust. Rolls-Royce (1971) estimate the development cost to be £31 million. They will meet 25 per cent. of this from working capital. If the development cost should exceed £31 million they will meet 50 per cent. of any increase up to a total project cost of £61 million. The remaining development costs will be met by the Government. Production costs will be met wholly by Rolls-Royce (1971) and arrangements will be made for recovery of the Government's development contribution.
"This stretched engine, to be known as the RB.211–24, will be used in the first instance in an extended range TriStar, the -2, which Lockheed are determined to develop with a view to introduction into service in 1975. Development of the engine, on which some preliminary work has been done by Rolls-Royce (1971), will start at once, because it will take longer than the modification of the airframe. Continuation of this programme will, of course, depend on a final decision by Lockheed to develop the -2, on which they have already started preliminary work, and on the conclusion of satisfactory contractual arrangements between Rolls-Royce (1971) and Lockheed.
"Second, the British Airways Board have decided that the introduction of the TriStar into their fleet best suits their particular commercial requirement. They have therefore decided,

783
provided Lockheed decide to develop the -2, to place an initial order for six TriStar -1 s with an option on six more aircraft which might be -Is or -2s. My right honourable friend has approved this decision, which is primarily one for the commercial judgment of the Board.
"There are possibilities of a European application of the RB. 211–24 in versions of the A.300B Airbus to which the Hawker Siddeley group are already making a substantial private contribution. I have made it clear to the French Minister of Transport, and Rolls-Royce (1971) have made it clear to Aerospatiale, that we are very willing to consider specific proposals for suitable applications of the RB.211. In doing so, I explained to M. Galley my view that for the future it will be essential for European countries to develop a more co-ordinated procurement policy for aircraft and a more integrated manufacturing capability. I have made clear my readiness to enter into discussions of these wider issues at any time with the French and other European Governments.
"I believe that these decisions should give a substantial new impetus to the RB.211. programme. They will also play a major role in securing the future prospects of Rolls-Royce (1971) which we are determined to maintain as a major manufacturer of aircraft engines in its own right and in due course as part of a wider European grouping."
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and welcome the substance of what he had to say? Everything we have learned about the RB.211 since we discussed the affairs of the Rolls-Royce Company some months ago has gone to show that this is a quite remarkable engineering achievement, and we are pleased to think that it is now going to be used on the routes of a British carrier. I would like to ask one question of the noble Lord on the first part of the Statement. When it says in the Statement that if the development cost exceeds £31
784
million they (Rolls-Royce) will meet 50 per cent. of any increase up to a total project cost of £61 million, the remaining development costs being met by the Government, does that mean that anything over £61 million is going to be met by the Government as an open-ended commitment? What happens when it goes beyond £61 million?
As to the second part of the Statement, I should like to congratulate the Government on allowing the British European Airways Corporation or the British Airways Board to exercise their own commercial judgment—though I understand there was a good deal of pressure upon the Government to bring their influence to bear. I would just say in passing that it must have been a difficult decision to make in view of the excellence of the other contender in the field, the A.300B. May I ask a further question on the second part of the Statement? Where it is said that:
"I have made it clear to M. Galley my view that … for the future it will be essential for European countries to develop a more co-ordinated procurement policy for aircraft and a more integrated manufacturing capability"—
may I ask along what lines it is proposed to achieve this more co-ordinated procurement policy and more integrated manufacturing capability? Will a Statement be made about that, and in particular about the Marshall proposals?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I point out an inconsistency in this Statement in that at one point it says that Lockheed are determined to develop the -2 and to go ahead, and later on in the same paragraph that continuation of the programme will depend on a final decision by Lockheed to develop the -2. Have they definitely decided one thing or the other, and what further information is required by Lockheed in order to decide whether or not they should go ahead? May I also ask the noble Lord what arrangements will be made for the recovery of the Government's development contribution mentioned in the first paragraph of the Statement? Is this to be done by means of a levy and, if so, can the noble Lord tell the House what will be the amount of the levy to be placed upon each of the engines to be sold? As a further question, may I ask whether the development of the -24

785
depends on any major advance in technology such as carbon fibre front fans, as was the case with the original version of the RB.211? Could the noble Lord say what response he had from M. Galley to the suggestion that was made?
We very much welcome the fact that the RB.211–24 should be used in a further version of the European Airbus. Finally, may I ask who will decide the total amount of money to be spent by the Department of Trade and Industry? I had imagined that following the White Paper on Research and Development, this was to be a function of boards within the D.T.I.; but it seems that this decision to spend up to £38·25 million if the development cost reaches the £61 million figure mentioned has been taken quite separately from any other decisions by the Government on research and development. It does seem to us a very large sum of money compared, for example, with the £40·2 million which has been allocated to I.C.L. for the development of their new computers. By what process in Government has this money been allocated to one particular project?
4.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first may I thank both noble Lords for having welcomed this Statement—I think they both did welcome it; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did. The noble Lord asked what is to happen if the cost of the -24 development goes above £61 million. It is extremely unlikely that it will, because the estimate of the Rolls-Royce Company itself is that it will amount to £31 million, and this is roughly confirmed by such estimates as the Department has been able to make. Rolls-Royce (1971) of course, have a very great advantage in keeping prices down to that figure because on the first £31 million they pay only 25 per cent. of the cost, whereas they have to pay 50 per cent. if it goes above £31 million. On the other hand, they want to limit their total commitment, and that is the reason for the arrangements that I have outlined. In other words, if it should go above the £61 million, this would be a cost which the Government would have to meet.
The noble Lord then asked along what lines the integration with Europe referred to would take place. This has to be discussed. I think it will be realised that
786
we are at the very early stages of this integration, but the Government firmly believe that integration of some kind or another is very necessary and we shall pursue that as our policy. The noble Lord also asked about the Marshall Report. It is not likely that a Statement will be made on that Report before the next Session, but, as I said in an earlier debate, decisions arising out of the Marshall Report will be announced in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether Lockheeds were really going ahead or not. They have to make the arrangements. They are determined to go ahead, but they still have to make the arrangements which will enable them to do so. If they are able to do so then the arrangement that we have made for the purchase of the TriStar holds, but not otherwise. We expect they will be able to tell us definitely about this towards the end of the year—probably in October or November.
The noble Lord asked about arrangements for the recovery of the Government contribution. These have yet to be made. The noble Lord will remember that the previous arrangements for Government contributions were criticised—I think by the Estimates Committee in another place—and these have yet to be made to supplement the contribution in this case. He also asked whether the development of the -24 depends on a major advance in technology. It is rather beyond my competence to speak on this point. I understand that it is a matter of compressors and the arrangements that had to be made for the higher temperatures involved. I gathered from what I was told that this represents no major advance in technology. The noble Lord asked who decides the total amount of money to be spent. This would normally come within the Estimates. If the Estimates are exceeded it would be a question of supplementary Estimates in order to meet this particular kind of aid, and it will be met from the contingencies aid fund. The noble Lord also asked about the response from M. Galley. M. Galley and my honourable friend have been in communication. M. Galley is disappointed that we have not bought the A.300B. This disappointment was inevitable. The fact remains that we were morally committed as soon as we had entered into

787
arrangements with Lockheed for the -1 to go ahead with the -2, and I think he appreciates this.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House when the British Airways Board are likely to get delivery of the first TriStar 1 and when has the option to be taken as to whether they have the second six TriStars—either 1s or 2s? May we urge my noble friend to try to see that the Government take an early opportunity to outline the future of the aerospace industry by making a Statement on the Marshall Committee, which reported some eight months ago'? Could he strive on with the integration with Europe since clearly the French, who are using an American General Electric engine in the A.300B, may be persuaded to take the European engine—that is, the highly developed RB.211?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that delivery of the Lockheed-1 can be expected from April, 1974. The RB.211–22 will be in service in April next year.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement from my noble friend, can he say whether Rolls-Royce have made an estimate as to how long it will take to develop the RB.211–24? Secondly, will my noble friend be a little more explicit about Lockheeds and their determination to build the TriStar-2, bearing in mind the difficulty they had last year in raising funds from the United States Government? Can we be absolutely certain that funds will be available that end in order to take the developed Rolls-Royce engine?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, dealing with the first question, the intention is that the TriStar-2 should be capable of being offered for sale in 1975. So far as the resolution of Lockheeds is concerned, the question here is clearly that what they want to do is to produce a new family of aircraft. This is extremely important for them. Obviously it will be much easier for them to sell TriStar-1s if they have a TriStar-2 in prospect as well. It is for this reason that they are so anxious to achieve this object and we believe that they will succeed.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether we have to wait until Lockheeds have further orders for the Mark II TriStar before Rolls-Royce can be certain of getting orders for the engines?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my understanding is that Lockheeds will reach a definite decision as to whether or not they will go ahead with the -2 in October or November of this year.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very encouraging Statement; but he made a reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was a little disturbing. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that the development of the RB.211–24 involved higher temperatures and that consequently one was not quite certain what the costs would be. Surely higher temperatures might easily cause Rolls-Royce to use new materials and the costs could be enormous.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that may be so. I understand that engines with this thrust in the subsonic sphere have already been developed, and presumably the same physical conditions apply there also.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what the temperature is?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord let us have the facts about the technical parameters of the new engine? Perhaps he could write to us, rather than answering questions across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to put down a Question for Written Answer, and I will endeavour to get the necessary information for him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, when the noble Lord said that the Government will meet all costs above £61 million if this particular figure is exceeded, is he giving an open-ended commitment, especially in view of the fact that aerospacial estimates have been fairly inaccurate and that figures have been underestimated in previous years?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I suppose that the answer to that question must be, "Yes". The British Airways Board are doing this in the confidence that the expenditure will not exceed anything like £61 million.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is one of the most encouraging Statements that has been made in recent years on the aerospace industry? Unless Rolls-Royce puts "stretch" into the RB.211 accordingly with the -24, the likelihood of further orders coming to Lockheed for the TriStar will be very remote. By putting "stretch" into the British RB.211–24 it makes it possible for the stretched TriStar 2 to have a very much longer range which suits the route pattern of both British Corporations and independents. It also opens up the very great possibility of the European Airbus, the airframe of which is largely made from British component parts, being powered by a British engine. This gives the opening for a very much increased export business in British aerospace materials.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. With his great experience he has been able to put this point over very much better than I could.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
4.49 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): The Committee is discussing Amendment No. 14.
LORD HALE: One question was put by some of my noble friends to the noble and learned Lord, who made a very helpful and lucid speech but who, with respect, did not go quite far enough in one particular direction. It was said in another place—and I do not know that it has ever been specifically denied—that in this clause we go further in subjecting our laws to Community laws than any other member of the Community has ever done. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned only one case. He mentioned the article in the Modern Law Review. I apologise if I have to mention law, but this is a ques-
790
tion of law. He mentioned the case of van Gend en Loos v. Administration fiscale Neérlandaise, which was a 1963 decision. It is the first case mentioned by the writer of the article, Mr. Gerhard Bebr, who is said to be one of the legal advisers of the Commission. There was the normal note to say that he was not speaking on behalf of the Commission; he was expressing his own views which must be viewed with great respect. The van Gend en Loos case is his introduction to his theme which is the power of these laws, the power of making laws, and the power of the court is growing—and he is delighted about it—case by case.
He goes on to quote the series of cases; I do not want to bore your Lordships with them. Surely a very important case was that on Italian nationalisation, the Flaminio Costa case. There is another which he does not mention, as one can well understand, but which Professor Wade mentions. This was a decision in relation to Algerian fiscal arrangements upon which the Court of Luxembourg pronounced. The French Conseil d' Etat said that they were not taking any notice of it and that they were permitted to do so. One of the reasons for this was the power of the French Conseil d' Etat, which has varied under various republics and monarchies, as laid down in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic.
With very great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Mr. Gerhard Bebr finishes with an account of the German case. That was the case of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft which may not yet be finished. It involved an export licence for 20,000 tons of cereals granted in 1967. Under the rules it should have been accompanied by a deposit as a guarantee of execution of a limited licence; one of the litigants had not performed his duties under the licence by the time it expired. The question was whether he could be penalised. With three or four other collective cases that case went to the Luxembourg Tribunal in 1970. This is the judgment upon which Mr. Gerhard Bebr is making his comment when he says:
"The Community did not hesitate to uphold the supremacy of the Community law even over national constitutional law."
This is because Germany has what is called its basic law which basically is its

791
written Constitution. We have no written Constitution or anything like that. We only have an unwritten Constitution.
The Advocate General, M. Alain Dutheiller de Lamothe, made a long submission. It is quite a serious submission and I am trying to make a serious point. One of the things to which he called attention was that it would be exceedingly unfortunate that a contract which was to be dealt with in six months in 1967 was still being argued before the Luxembourg Tribunal in 1970 and that this might be an unfortunate and unpleasant procedure for all people interested in merchandise law and in the execution of mercantile contracts. The Luxembourg Court said that they derived their authority not only from the written Treaty of Rome but from the spirit of the Treaty. They held quite definitely that the legislation in Germany which had been referred to them was in contravention of the law of the Community.
Unfortunately, the matter had not ended at the time Mr. Gerhard Bebr wrote his article. I have only just been able to find out what happened next. This is the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main on the case arising out of the permit of November 24, 1971. That judgment occupies 16 pages of the written report; there are 24 clauses in which they say that they do not care what the Court of Luxembourg has said, that this is still a contravention of the German Constitution and that as a national court they are bound by the German Constitution. Under this clause in our Bill, if it is passed, all this would be lawful in the United Kingdom because we do not have a Constitution. We have nothing to bar any regulations. It said in Clause 9:
"This Chamber cannot agree with the decision of the European Court. It considers the Community provisions cited to be unconstitutional. It remains to be said that neither this Chamber nor"—
there follows another body with a very long German name—
"is bound by a preliminary ruling of the European Court. A preliminary ruling would not have the force of law such as decisions of the Bunclesverfassungsgericht."
The position is that the German courts can say that they are not going to take any notice of the Court of Luxembourg and that this infringes their written
792
Constitution. The Italian court, as I understand, did not accept in toto; there was negotiation over the electricity case. The French Conseil d'Etat say that they are not going to take any notice at all and that they will carry on with their policy in relation to Algeria whatever the Court of Luxembourg says. Yet in an act of almost supreme statutory abnegation we are saying in this clause that we will be bound by every rule, right, obligation, and, as I understand it, even every opinion expressed by the court formally in response to a British application and by every regulation made by the Commission.
I said that I would not criticise, and I have not. I am seeking information but I am giving to the Committee the limited amount of information I have available at the moment and asking what the position is. I should like to know whether the complex of the various courts has been resolved, whether any agreement has been reached or whether it is really true that under Clause 2 of the Bill we are submitting ourselves to a whole series of obligations which do not necessarily and totally bind the other countries.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: May I ask one very small question of the noble and learned Lord? During the course of his speech, of which a considerable amount went over my head but which I admired greatly, he referred to a case being brought before the British courts; the decision made on it was objected to and it then went to the Court at Luxembourg. What is the basic language in which all these Treaties, regulations, et cetera, are written? Are they in French or in English? Do the courts have to take the English wording or the wording of the original language? I am sorry if I am asking a rather stupid question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The languages of all member-States which have separate languages are official languages. From accession there will be an official English version.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: May I reply—
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to speak. Is my noble friend hoping to end the debate?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us get this clear. I was hoping that the debate would continue until no other noble Lord wanted to speak. I do not want to stop the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, making a second speech. This is a Committee stage but I thought that two or three noble Lords behind the Leader of the Opposition were showing signs of getting up.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord who raised the question about the language has raised a very important point. All laws have to be interpreted, whether they come from the Treaty of Rome or wherever they come from. An effort has been made by the opponents of our going into Europe to create a state of alarm and despondency by this theory that matters are immediately applicable in England. They cannot be. They must be brought home to the people to whom they are going to apply—and that must be done in language. All these other earlier laws which we are accepting are not in English. They must be put into English so that the English people to whom they are applying can understand them. It may well be that there is great difficulty about coming to a firm conclusion as to the obligation that they in fact establish. That is of course where there has to be a supreme court—the Court of Luxembourg. That is the whole point, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out. His analogy about the law merchant was an interesting one. The law merchant, which was in mediaeval Europe a general system, was broken up by the growth of national States. But in the last century—and this is interesting—there was a movement back towards establishing uniformity, at any rate in connection with maritime law, of which the leaders were we in England. The most recent example of this movement back was the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which, although it is called "The Hague Rules", was in fact created in London. An interesting point about this Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is that it has been adopted by all the maritime States and applies to anyone throughout the world; it has been interpreted by national courts all over the world, too, in the light of the decisions made by the English courts. In that way uniformity has been obtained.
794
The Treaty of Rome and E.E.C. law is really just a continuation of this process. It is widening it out. After all, the Scandinavians knew quite well that the commercial judge in London was the most eminent man on matters of this kind and when he gave a decision on some point arising under a bill of lading they by and large accepted it. Now we are in the position of joining a Common Market which has a Supreme Court in Luxembourg, and we are going to accept what that Court lays down. We are going to have a judge on it soon, and I am quite sure—because these matters are largely commercial ones—that our judge.who will be a very experienced man, will quickly become a weighty influence in that Court. I would reply to my noble friend Lord Hale that we are in no different position from anybody else. It may well be that there is a dispute from time to time about the British Constitution. He is quite wrong in saying that there is not a British Constitution; of course there is—
LORD HALE: If the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, I said, "No written Constitution"; and the laws are already printed in 42 volumes, with an index, and further volumes are coming out.
LORD CHORLEY: Of course they are. The laws of England amount to a great deal more than 42 volumes. The area of this legislation is quite a narrow one.
I was speaking to a prominent commercial lawyer only a day or two ago, one of the most eminent commercial solicitors in the City of London, with close connections with Germany. He said that it is a scandal the way the opponents of our going into Europe are trying to frighten the legal profession in England into believing that they must adopt a whole system of new law. The area of this law which is going to impinge on English lawyers is a comparatively small one. This man said: "Only last week in Germany I put it to one of the most eminent commercial lawyers practising in the Rhineland: ' In how many cases which have come before you as a practical lawyer since the Common Market came into force among the Six have you had to take into account the Treaty of Rome and the regulations and

795
laws emanating from Brussels? ' The man thought for a few minutes and then said, ' I think about three '."That is a very significant statement.
It is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Hale was saying, that the law is being built up. That is happening all the time. Even a treaty as long as the Treaty of Rome and these forty-two volumes cannot lay out the law all at once, even over a period of fifteen years. It is rather like the American Constitution. The American Constitution came into force in about 1790, and even after twenty years, indeed even after about 200 years, all sorts of points are arising upon it. The Supreme Court in America has been the great moulding force. It has been doing this work, just as the Court at Luxembourg is going to do it. About twenty years after the American Constitution had come into force a case came before the Supreme Court in which one man said, "This is not in the Constitution and therefore this decision which has been given to me by the lower court is wrong". The Chief Justice at that time, perhaps the greatest of all American Chief Justices, Marshall, said, "We must not forget that it is the Constitution we are expounding". That has been the leitmotiv in the work of the Supreme Court ever since that time. One spells out from the document which is the Constitution what are the rights and obligations of the citizens of the different States in the United States: and in the same kind of way there will be spelt out at Luxembourg what are the rights and obligations.
We ought to remember these facts and not assume that the whole thing is a trap in which the English can be caught. This is a free, voluntary union into which we are entering with other Great States of Europe in order to improve our legal position and in many ways our cultural heritage. This assertion that, "They are just leading us up the garden path and everything is going to be done for the purpose of breaking up the English" is the most dangerous and nonsensical attitude to take. I hope that this point can be got over to the people of England. instead of trying to frighten them into the mood of fear and despondency which is being deliberately worked up and which is so vicious and dangerous.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: So far as this Bill is concerned there is only one kind of language that is applicable, and that is bad language. When I listened to the noble Lord just now I was fortified in the contention I ventured to make in the Second Reading debate: that this is going to be a lawyers' paradise. It is so now and it is going to remain so for some considerable time to come. What has been said has nothing to do with the Amendment. We are not discussing the Constitution because we have not got it. If my noble friend referred to the English Constitution or the British Constitution I would say that we do not happen to possess any Constitution.
LORD CHORLEY: Of course we do.
LORD SHINWELL: All right. Let the noble Lord enjoy himself with the British Constitution. But I was never aware of it, and am not aware of it now. Of course we have rules and regulations and a way of life and a way of civilised behavour. But when it comes to a written Constitution, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree with me, if he agrees with nothing else I venture to say, past, present or future, that we have not got a Constitution, whatever else we may possess. So much for that. In saying that, I dismiss the whole of the speech to which we have just listened, in particular the reference to the nonsensical attitude of those who offer any objection to the loss of our sovereignty, freedom and liberties. If there is any nonsense it is on the part of those fanatical and aggressive and emotional pro-Common Marketeers. We have just listened to a speech from one.
Now let us get on with the Amendment. We listened to a lengthy dissertation of a legal character from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said he was doing his best, which reminded me of the old saying, "Don't shoot the pianist. He's doing his best!" But the one thing he failed to do was to convince. He convinced himself, of course. That never did present him with any difficulty—and I have known him for a long time; probably for longer than anybody else in this Assembly. He has ability; we know that—he would not have got where he is if he had not. All he succeeded in doing was to convince

797
himself. But a layman such as myself is completely unconvinced. He was replying to a question from my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, but the one thing he failed to do was to deal with the Amendment. It is a pity that he did not respond more favourably to the suggestion that I made early in the debate, that instead of arguing against the Amendment—or purporting to argue against it—he might have explained what is meant by this clause, but lie failed to do so.
Let us now deal with the substance of the clause and with the content of the Amendment. It is just as well that it be read out. After all, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a long time to explain it, and perhaps I may be permitted to read the Amendment, if even my noble friend Lord Chorley can appreciate it. Subsection (1) states:
"All such rights"—
no qualifications or affirmations there—
"powers"—
whatever the powers might be. I do not understand this, but then I did not draft it and I had nothing to do with the Amendment—
"liabilities, obligations and restrictions"—
And now I come to the part that I should deliberately like to put in brackets because it is the subject under review. We should look at the Amendment itself from this particular aspect—
"from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for, by or under the Treaties,…"
Although I am opposed to British entry into the Common Market I can understand the motivation of those who are in favour of entering it, despite the fact that we are in a dire situation ourselves, almost in a bankrupt situation and in a great deal of trouble. Of course there is no trouble in any other part of the world, not even in Italy or in France, and therefore we have to go into the Common Market and accept the abandonment of our sovereignty.
I can understand the Treaty of Accession. We have had a decision in the other place and we have had one in your Lordships' House. We have not had one from the country but we will leave that aside for the moment. We have a
798
decision of Parliament in regard to the Treaty of Accession and by that decision we accept 248 Articles, apart from a great many other directives, regulations and rules about which we know nothing but which we are bound to accept by accepting the Treaty of Accession. The one thing to which I am opposed, and I hope many of your Lordships are also opposed, is accepting something about which we know nothing at all, which is in the foreseeable or remote future and which, in effect, means something to which we did not agree and which has not been negotiated. There has never been a word of negotiation, so far as we know.
Something is contained in the Bill which means that we have to accept regulations and rules and directives—in effect, modified Treaties, or indeed substantial Treaties—about which we know nothing at all. The other place and your Lordships' House and the country at large—our sovereign Assemblies and our civilised public—have had no part at all in deciding what is to be done in future. Accept the Treaty of Accession—very well, but do not go beyond that.
I want to say a word about something which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his speech on Thursday night. I left a little after 10 o'clock and so I was unable to hear his speech, but I read it and I would direct attention to something he said. During the debate the noble and learned Lord objected to what my noble friend Lord Balogh said. He said that my noble friend spoke offensively, but sometimes he is inclined to indulge in offensive observations himself. However, I do not want to go into that in depth, at this stage anyway.
I want to refer instead to something which the noble and learned Lord said about our sovereignty. He produced the most amazing argument; I have never heard anything like it before, not even from him. He said that we express our sovereignty by agreeing to abandon our sovereignty. If noble Lords do not accept what I have said I shall read it out. Of course he took a long time to say what I have said in a sentence, but then I have not got the forensic ability or the long years of study that the noble and learned Lord has had. I am just a

799
layman with horse sense—common sense. I will read out what he said:
"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."—(OFFICIAL REPORT; 3 /8 /72, col. 601.)
That is to say, that Parliament expresses its sovereignty by agreeing to the Treaty of Accession—to the 248 Articles with the Schedules and the directives and the annexes and all the rest of it. We express our sovereignty by agreeing with this—that is what he said.
There has been a great deal of argument as to exactly what is meant by "sovereignty". NATO has been mentioned, and also the United Nations and Treaties that British Governments have entered into, but there is not a single one of those Treaties or Agreements, historically remote or not so remote, which is not reversible. We can withdraw from them at any time. Our agreement with NATO provided that we could withdraw our troops if at any time it was essential to do so, and indeed we have done so. We have withdrawn far more troops than was anticipated in order to send them to Ulster. There is not a single Treaty which this Government or any other Government have entered into that is irreversible. We could reverse them at any time.
But when we come to the Treaty of Rome, what do they say? Entering into this Treaty, with all that it means, is of unlimited duration. If that means anything at all it means that we cannot come out. It is a great pity that the Treaty of Rome was not made available by the Government, the Conservative Party and the pro-Common Marketeers in a form that could be understood by the people of this country. I personally doubt whether it is fully understood even by every Member of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether every Member of your Lordships' House has read every one of the Articles and has sought to interpret them without the aid of members of the legal profession.
Now, what are we to say about this Amendment? To me the Amendment is objectionable because as I understand the position of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill he is anxious that we should enter
800
the Common Market. He is anxious that we should improve this Bill, and this leads me to the final few sentences in which I wish to indulge. Time and time again in the course of our debates we have spoken about the function of your Lordships' House as a Revising Chamber, and it has been suggested many times that we could improve the Bill. The intention of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is to improve the Bill, but I cannot see how the measure will be improved by this Amendment. In my view there is only one way to improve the Bill to make the position clear beyond doubt, and that is to have nothing whatever to do with entering the E.E.C. However, I do not want to make what might be regarded as a Second Reading speech.
If we are to revise, improve or in any other way modify the Bill we are at the very least entitled to clear explanations, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind about what it is all about. Such explanations we have not had, and for that and other reasons I cannot support the Bill. Nor, however, can I support the Amendment because it does not mean very much. I object to the terms of the clause as a whole because it says, in effect, "When Britain enters the Common Market it will accept the Treaty of Rome and all the paraphernalia associated with it, along with anything that comes thereafter, determined not by Britain but by the Commission and Council of Ministers." I object to that.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I do not intend at this stage to comment on the points made by recent speakers. When we come to Clause 9. which deals with commercial matters, noble Lords who are interested in industry will no doubt have something to say about commerce in so far as it relates to the Common Market. In his Second Reading speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"… Parliament, after exhaustive public and private discussion, committed the honour of this country to entry on the terms negotiated."
He went on to say that the way in which the Bill was drafted was
"… the only practicable, and at least the only acceptable, way of achieving that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/72, col. 1225].
Is this really the only way of achieving that purpose, leaving aside the question of honouring our commitment? In the

801
other place there were endless debates about whether the way in which the Bill was drafted was in fact the only way of achieving that purpose. The Government said that the Bill had been drafted by them and not on instructions from the Community. Many Members in another place said that the Bill overlapped in many ways, lacked clarity and was too wide in its scope, which would result in many interpretations being placed on its provisions. There can be no doubt that the basic powers rest with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Nobody has said otherwise.
I believe that the Amendment would, if accepted, improve the Bill and not affect the need for us to honour our commitment. The Lord Chancellor referred to the committee system, while in another place there was much reference to an ad hoc type of organisation. It seems surprising that the Government thought of these things only at the last moment and could not find anything in the Bill of that nature to help them. The Lord Chancellor then spoke of a new legal concept. As a layman, I always understood that new legal concepts had eventually to stand the acid test of the House of Lords and the Law Lords. What will happen as a result of the Bill we have not been told. If we wish our future partners in the E.E.C. to respect us, we could ensure that respect in several ways; knowledge of the past and great battles fought and won, our general behaviour in times of stress and our great inventiveness. All these things have helped to form the character of the people of this country. I suggest that they might also respect us for our skill in negotiating and for our skill in producing a Bill which is clear, understandable, unambiguous and which still honours a commitment made.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has told us that the Bill represents the terms which we have accepted for entry into the Community. I wonder just who knows what are the terms to which we have agreed; and we still await a reply to the question I asked last Thursday and again today. It is a simple question: "What are other Parliaments doing?" I do not see how we can accept Clause 2 or any part of it until we know the facts about Parliamentary restrictions placed on other countries in the Community—so as to
802
be sure that we are being treated as equals. For example, have we offered too much too soon? Until the Government clarify the clause I will feel obliged to vote for the Amendment, and I hope that noble Lords opposite who have the same desire for clarity will do the same.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for assisting with what I can only call a clear tutorial lecture on the meaning of the subsection. Perhaps I may change the metaphor and conduct a viva with him because this subsection is crucial to the Bill and is not easy to understand. Indeed, I am not at all satisfied that its drafting provides satisfactory legislation which is clear from the standpoint of Parliament. It may be clear from the standpoint of the courts, although my noble friend Lord Beswick referred to a number of different opinions about that. At any rate, it is certainly not clear from the standpoint of Parliamentary control.
Having said that, it might be helpful if I were to give my personal understanding of what the subsection is all about. I take it that it refers to all those regulations or directives—except directives specifically calling for legislation—and decisions or Treaties which are directly applicable and which take effect without further enactment as if they were the law of this land; in other words, from the moment of publication they become binding either on this country or on the citizens of this country. I hope I am correct so far. I appreciate that it may be difficult for the obtuse pupil that I am to appreciate all these matters and that I may be straining the patience of the Government Front Bench. I can only say that the Government have been patient with me, and if I am right so far I will go on to develop my doubts about the subsection. It begins with the all-embracing phrase:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions …"
and we are talking about future ones. I take it that the past is past and that the provision is referring to future obligations and so on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It refers to both the future and the past.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for making that clear. We are, however, primarily concerned with the future. I suppose that to the greatest extent these changes will be made by regulations. We must, in considering this matter, look, if only briefly, at subsection (2). That clearly applies to certain categories of regulation and possibly directive in that subject to Schedule 2 there are certain types of obligation, liability or restriction to which it will be necessary to give effect by some form of legislative process, perhaps by subordinate legislation if it comes within the categories of Schedule 2 which are excluded by the main legislation. Difficulty arises over what will be automatically applicable. One assumes that they will be automatically applicable unless intrinsically they cannot become applicable and a regulation must be introduced. If this is so, it is intelligible but it does not tell us what those regulations are likely to be. Furthermore, there are no provisions in this Bill for informing Parliament of them. Clearly, if there is to be an order under subsection (2) Parliament will have to be informed because it will have to pass it. But in the directly applicable law this will not be necessary.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that this new Community law, the directly applicable law, was not part of the law of this country. As a layman I was unable to distinguish the significance of this statement and why it was important to emphasise it. After all a law, whether made by the Community or made by Parliament, which without further enactment is to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom, seems to me to be, for all practical purposes, the same as British law and I am wondering what is the significance of the distinction that the noble and learned Lord gave to this. If I may make one further point, it seems to me in any case to be a rather artificial distinction, because equally there may be an enforceable obligation which in order to give effect to it has to be the subject of either legislation or subordinate legislation in this country, in which case presumably it becomes part of British law.
This may be a completely unimportant point. I may be on what my noble friend Lord Shinwell would say was a
804
lawyers' point. But the noble and learned Lord gave some importance to this, and since it has some bearing on my subsequent remarks I wonder whether he would care to comment on it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is difficult to comment without being either inaccurate or misleading. For a very long time and for very many purposes I have always treated the directly applicable law, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, treats it, as being part of the law of the country, simply because it is enforced, or is capable of being enforced, by the courts of this country. Theoretically that is wrong. From the practical point of view, from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, I dare say that is good enough and I do not complain that it should be done. If I were making a popular speech about it I could very likely do it myself. I was however trying very hard, in the speech I made earlier, to be strictly accurate, even at the expense sometimes of making points against myself.
Theoretically the situation is that it is a separate system of law applicable in this country and not part of the law of this country. As we get through some of the other Amendments I may be able to give better examples than the one I am just about to give, but the obvious example which occurs to me at this moment (perhaps the noble Lord who is fixing me with a basilisk stare can do better than I am doing) is the question of the rules of construction of documents and statutes which will be the rules of construction of the directly applicable law and will not necessarily be the same rules of construction as the Chancery Court would apply to an English will, or the Commercial Court would apply to an English contract. It will be the rules of construction as interpreted by Luxembourg. Probably it is within the knowledge of the noble Lord that the way they read statutes on the Continent is not the same as we read statutes here, which is one of the reasons why their Statute Law is rather shorter than our Statute Law. The other day I looked at M. Pleven's Legal Aid Bill which was not, I think, more than a quarter of the length of our principal statute. They have different rules of construction and it will be the rules of construction of the European Court that apply and not the

805
rules of construction which apply in English law. As we go along there may be other particular examples where the importance of the distinction may be apparent. But I was concerned in my first speech simply to state it as I thought it ought to be stated, in order to be entirely correct in strict legal theory; and I was not primarily concerned with the practical importance of the distinction.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I felt there was a significance in what he was saying in that somehow there was an implication that this perhaps rather alien law which we had to obey was at least not to get British citizenship, although it would have a sort of associated citizenship. But it seems to me (and I think the Lord Chancellor has confirmed this) that clearly it does affect the British citizen as if it were British law, although I take his point—and this is a further complication—that the rules of construction may be different. It will be interesting at some stage to hear some further comments on that aspect. No doubt the judges and others will know under which law they are operating although if they are looking at the vires of a particular measure it may be difficult if there are two different sets of rules of construction. I think that is about as far as I dare go on this particular subject. It certainly seems to me that the inference under Article 85, the application of unequal conditions to parties undertaking equivalent engagements in commercial transactions, is forbidden. That seems to me to all intents and purposes to be a pretty decisive rule of competition, and for practical purposes people will regard that as British law.
The noble and learned Lord referred to M. Pleven's Bill. Was that a French Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I was only giving an example. It was M. Pleven's purely French Bill about French legal aid. When I went to Paris quite recently for the 25th anniversary of UNESCO I was most hospitably received by M. Pleven. as I think I told the House in a Statement. In the course of our conversation he showed me what was then a draft projet de loi of his legal aid system. and asked me questions about our system in order that he might deal
806
with some criticisms of his proposals which were being made by the legal profession. I gave that as an example of the fact that when the French pass a law they do it in very much less detail than we do. As I say, my recollection is that it was something about a quarter of the length of ours. But it was a French law, and not a Common Market law. I was only pointing out that other systems of law interpret their Statutes in slightly different ways, and that we tend to take a very close view of the interpretation of Statutes which is not common on the Continent. The noble Lord asked me what I meant by the importance of the difference, the distinction I had drawn, and I gave an example which came most readily to my mind. It may not be the most important one, and I am not sure, as I said to begin with, that, apart from strict legal theory, I would attach enormous importance to the distinction I have drawn. But it is important to get it right, and a Minister speaking on behalf of the Crown should not state it wrongly. That is why I drew the distinction.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am afraid that I am leading the House down legal by-ways but there is a point of some significance. Although I hesitate to use an inquisitorial approach to the noble and learned Lord, he has exposed himself in one or two respects, particularly in relation to French law. Having studied quite a number of French laws, I find them so much more intelligible in French than I do English laws in English; and this is a striking contrast of course to the particular subsection with which we are dealing now. Furthermore, the French proceed much more by subordinate legislation and decree; and of course they have a different constitutional set-up and a Conseil d'Etat which clearly takes authority of law. If there is a conflict between French law and the Community law, and if they consider that the French law is within the vires, if that is the right word, that is in fact superior.
TIIE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My noble friend Lord Hale did, I think, give a particular example.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dealt with this point at some length in my Second Reading speech. It is of course the case that there is an unresolved conflict between the Community and the Conseil d'Etat in a particular case, but it would be wholly wrong to infer from that any general doctrine such as that which the noble Lord has now sought to enunciate, that the Conseil d'Etat does not give to the Community law in general the pre-eminence that is given by this subsection. There is a conflict in three cases, all of which were referred to in my Second Reading speech, in a particular kind of way between the written Constitution countries and the Community. I do not know how important it is, but it is not quite what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHACKLETONThis does not reduce my anxieties at all, because there were many remarks that the noble and learned Lord made. We shall come on to, and concentrate on, it much more when we come to subsection (4), the position of a particular British law which may be made in the future, and the extent to which it may well be ultra vires under this law.
Anyhow, I want now to move to the particular point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock was making, which applies particularly to this subsection. One of the difficulties in debating this subject is the amount of paper involved; it is beyond my Pelman patience capacity to find the relevant piece. The noble and learned Lord on Second Reading was referring to the difficulty of informing Parliament and the limitations that would affect Parliament if in fact the first they knew of a new obligation was when the Order was actually laid, and he pointed to the limitations that confront us in dealing with Orders.
The great majority of matters that are dealt with in subsection (1) will not come before Parliament at all. It may well be that a large number of them are essentially very minor matters. But we know that not only the Council can make regulations but so also can the Commission—although there is some doubt; my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is still doubtful as to whether the Commission can make regulations. But, looking through them, I find a large number
808
of regulations made by the Commission, and my anxiety increases when I hear the noble and learned Lord liken the Commission to the Civil Service, because it is specifically not like the British Civil Service; it has powers. No doubt there is communication, but they have an independence. Indeed an argument in favour of the Commission, if one is pro-Market, is that they take a European view. But we ought not to deceive ourselves as to whether they are an independent body and have power to make regulations. There is no provision in this Bill for informing Parliament of what those regulations are or what the obligations are.
My noble friend Lord Bernstein asked at the beginning of the debate what provisions there were in other countries, and it may well be that we shall be told this at some point or another. I have, if I can find it, the relevant Article from the German law which specifically provides that both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat should be informed. We have no such provision in this Bill. My objection—and we shall come on to this later—to this particular subsection is the absence of any provision whatsoever for informing Parliament what it is that the Commission are doing and the Council are doing, and enabling us to know, and indeed this is equally relevant to subsection (2).
We have a number of Amendments down to this subsection, which is an extremely important one. I know the Government Front Bench think it is right that we should examine it at some length. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord, or the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will be able to relieve some of my anxieties with regard to the subsection. The noble and learned Lord knows that I am in favour of going into Europe, but I did not expect in the legislation a clause of this kind, which is so wide and so unspecific; it does not specify the kind of regulation, it does not specify the kind of decision. It does not distinguish between those directly applicable which will not require legislation. Statutory Instruments, and others intrinsically in the particular subject; we do not know what they are. I do not know what my noble friends want to do. It was not my original thought that I should want to vote against this particular subsection, which is a key one to the Bill; but in the light of such discussion as we have

809
had and unless the Government can answer some of the points in regard to this subsection, particularly in regard to informing Parliament, if my noble friends do wish to register a protest against the extremely tight, the over-tight, drafting of this subsection, I shall go with them.
5.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has expressed surprise at what is in this subsection, but I cannot think why. As I pointed out to the House on Second Reading, the subsection in all its essential provisions was foreshadowed in the Labour Government's White Paper and in the speech in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I gave the references (I have not them with me now) and the quotations in my Second Reading speech. So that I really do not think there is a very great deal in that.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, if he were to read out the passages he gave then and this subsection he would find a very great difference. One is a declaration of intent and the other one is enforcing certain law without the sort of controls we would expect and without specifically stating what it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought they were exactly the same, and I would have read them out if I had had them readily available. I am quite convinced they are the same, although of course White Paper language is not the language of the Statutes, which this is. It is a little difficult to know what is worrying the noble Lord. Of course different countries have different Constitutions. I cannot give a review of the exact equivalent in the German act of accession, or in the case of the French or the Dutch or of Luxembourg, Italy or Belgium, exactly how in the light of their own legislative procedures, they have achieved the same result as we propose to achieve by this subsection. They are not identical but they achieve the same result.
It is, of course, true that I had to explain to the Committee on the last debate we had exactly why it was not appropriate, and, I repeat, it is not appropriate, to put reference to a committee system into an Act of Parliament. I hoped I had made that plain, but when the
810
noble Lord says there is no provision in the section for informing Parliament, to my mind that exactly covers the same point. We want Parliament to be informed; we want Parliament to be informed before the regulations which have direct effect or the regulations which have indirect effect come into force. That can only be done, I believe, in the kind of way the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, suggested. As I said in my original speech, we are only too eager to await the moment when some constructive attitudes are struck by the Opposition so that we can get on with the provision of the necessary mechanisms.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this point, he has convinced me that it is appropriate to put into a Statute a provision for a committee. He convinced me of that last week. But what I am saying is that there is no provision of the kind that is normal in a Statute for keeping Parliament informed. I have here, if he wants to see it—I will read it in German or in English as he wishes—the relevant article in the German law which makes it obligatory to inform Parliament of obligations of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was fully aware of the provision of the German law, though not of all the others, and we may have to discuss it in a little more detail on Amendment No. 29, I think it is. But that does not help me for the purpose of the point I am now making. The German law does provide for quite a different Constitution in their Act for something connected with their committee system. That is what in effect it does; that is not appropriate to our Constitution. We want to create the mechanisms which are appropriate. The sooner we get rid of all this constitutional mystification and get down to constructive discussions, the happier I shall be. I do try to make the noble Lord appreciate this fact, that it is inherent in the notion of directly applicable law that it is applicable without anything prior being done at all, because it is part of the system of Community law which I was trying to describe. Therefore we cannot, in an Act which enables us to perform our obligations under the Treaty of Accession and under the Treaties to which

811
we have acceded, put in a prior condition because that would be contrary to the essential nature of the kind of obligation we are discussing.
If I may move on to the next point which the noble Lord made. I think there was only one error and not a particularly important one at the beginning of his speech. It is not all the obligations of the Treaty, or all the regulations, and still less all the decisions and directives to which effect is given in this subsection. The subsection says:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are, without further enactment, to be given legal effect."
What I was trying to tell the Committee in my former speech was simply that not all the obligations of the Treaty are directly applicable; those which are applicable are those which are held by the Luxembourg Court to be complete and perfect. It is they, and only they, that are given direct effect and christened by a particular name under subsection (1). This is to give effect only to those things to which effect must be given if we are to discharge our international obligation, and to nothing else; and that is why the subsection is so tightly drawn. It is limited to what we have got to do and it does not extend to anything we have not got to do. In other words, it is as tightly drawn as it possibly can be.
From recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Hall, said, I tried to deal with his particular problem during my Second Reading speech. I pointed out that in cases where countries have a written Constitution, and may I now say in passing that I far prefer the phrase used by Lord Birkenhead in 1930, "a controlled Constitution" because we have a Constitution, pace the noble Lord Lord Shinwell, and most of it is written down, for instance in Magna Carta and other documents of that kind which were certainly in writing. In a controlled Constitution, in countries which have a written or controlled Constitution. there can be a conflict between the directly applicable theory of Community law and the terms of the written Constitution. I do not pretend that that has been fully resolved; its resolution will be a political problem
812
between the institutions of the Community and the country concerned according to the nature of the way the problem has arisen. It cannot happen that way in our Constitution because we have not got a controlled Constitution, although, as I have said, we have a Constitution and much of it is in writing.
The point at which conflict can occur is basically the same but it will occur in relation to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament which is, in my judgment, unimpaired by this legislation. That is the point at which conflict could occur, and I have no doubt whatever, subject to the rule of construction in Clause 2 subsection (4), to which we shall come, that it is completely unimpaired by this piece of legislation. I feel confident of that. But we cannot have the same kind of conflict—or, rather, the same kind of conflict cannot occur in the same kind of way—because we do not have a controlled Constitution. But conflict can occur in a different kind of way if it is basic to the same conflict with our unwritten Constitution. The fundamental dogma of our unwritten Constitution is the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, just as there are many written dogmas in the controlled Constitutions as to the precise functions of the institutions created by the Constitution. I hope I have made that as clear as it is capable of being made—
LORD SHACKLETON: Did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that there could be a conflict with the unwritten concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I intended to say was that clearly there could be a moment, to which we shall come when we are discussing subsection (4), at which Parliament might deliberately intend to break its international obligations. I do not mean inadvertently or by virtue of a rule of construction by which a later Statute takes pre-eminence in English law over an earlier Statute; I mean a moment at which a British Act of Parliament deliberately set out to break its international obligations. That can happen in relation to any Treaty you choose to name, including this one. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out in his rather similar speech some five years ago, the point is that this legislation does not impair the

813
sovereignty of Parliament and there is no doubt, whatever might be true of the consequences of what we did, which of the two doctrines the courts would then have to apply, because the courts are obviously caught, as is every institution within this country, by the terms of our Constitution, written or unwritten.
I hope that I have made that as plain as it is capable of being made. If there
are any other points I can help with I certainly will do my best, but I have done my best to answer them so far as in me lies.
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 127.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Summerskill. Bs.

Collison, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Watkins, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Woolley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Eccles, V.

Alport, L.

Elles, Bs.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberlev. Bs.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ashbourne. L

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

Barnby, L.

Gage, V.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Belstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Polwarth, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Reay, L.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Blake, L.

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

Remnant, L.

Bledisloe. V.

Rhyl, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Robbins, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rootes, L.

Brentford, V.

Hawke, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hayter, L.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hives, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L.

Chorley, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selborne, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Colyton, L.

Jessel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe. L.

Kemsley, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Sherfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Crathorne, L.

Listowel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swaythling, L.

Davidson. V.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Trevelyan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drogheda, E.

Milverton, L.

Vestey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Wolverton, L

Yarborough, E

Waldegrave, E

Wynford, L

Young, Bs

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.8 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("such") to end of line 25 and insert ("provisions of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I move Amendment No. 15, and in developing my argument on that may I similarly put the argument on Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 22? My object in moving these Amendments is really very similar to that which I had in mind in moving No. 14, namely, to elicit information and to ask Ministers what their thinking is on these matters. This group of Amendments would change Clause 2(1) in the sense that it would result in the subsection making directly applicable as part of our law only the regulations which are passed under Article 189 of the Rome Treaty. In other words, it would have the result of excluding reference to "rights, powers, liabilities" and so on, and limiting the application of the subsection to regulations only.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his very valuable speech on the last Amendment, indicated the general views of the Government as to the proper scope of subsection (1) of Clause 2, but in the course of that discussion it seemed to me that a number of matters emerged which required further elucidation. May I categorise them and ask the noble Viscount, if he is to reply, whether he would be so kind as to give the Government's thinking on those points? First, what was said in the course of the last discussion was that not all regulations become part of our law, I think that what was said in terms was that not all regulations become directly applicable. I slightly question that phrase; it seems to me to be one which is slightly ambiguous. I preferred the noble and learned Lord's later formulation of the position, when I think I remember him correctly to say that, although technically the situation is otherwise, the substance of the matter is that the regulation or provision of the Treaty, or whatever it is that one is talking about, becomes part of our law in the sense that it must govern the
816
activities of Her Majesty's subjects in this country. In that practical sense it becomes part of our law, and I myself would prefer that way of looking at it, which seems to me the more realistic way, than the use of the phrase "directly applicable", which seems capable of a considerable amount of ambiguity.
May I go back to my question? As I said, it was stated in the course of the last debate that not all regulations become, in that sense, part of our law (or directly applicable, as it was then put). I do not quite know how that
view is reconcilable with the provisions of Article 189. Article 189, which I suppose is the article which is relied upon by Ministers as producing the result that regulations become part of our law, is applicable to all regulations without any distinction. I would have thought that, if one looks at the second paragraph of that article, it must have the result of making all regulations part of our law if it has the result of making any regulations part of our law. I ventured to question the precise scope of that language, and your Lordships may remember that I cited some comments from the Coster case on the meaning of Article 189. But what cannot be gainsaid is this: that in the language of Article 189 no distinction is drawn between one regulation and another. Now the explanation may be—and perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me whether I am right or wrong about this—one which I thought I heard in something that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said during one of his addresses to your Lordships. What he said, if I remember correctly, was that some regulations are so formulated in their terms as themselves to necessitate further legislation; and it may be that he had in mind those regulations as regulations of which it could not be accurately predicted that they automatically became part of our law. That is the question I should like to put, and I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would be so kind as to furnish me with the answer.
The second question I would put is this. It relates to directives and to a statement which was made in the course of our debates that directives themselves

817
sometimes became part of our law in that sense. I am a little puzzled by that, because I read in the third paragraph of Article 189 that a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved. upon each member-State, but the form and manner of enforcing it shall be a matter for the national authorities. That language seems to me to involve that the directive in form, in its own literal language, is not intended to become part of the law of any of the member-States. On the contrary, it is what it is described to be—a directive. It is a directive to the member-State that that member-State must alter its own law, choosing what language it thinks appropriate for that purpose, through its own legislative process, to give effect to the purpose towards which the directive is aimed. That is a very radical distinction, I should have thought, between the character of a directive and the character of a regulation. The distinction is precisely drawn. The regulation in its actual terms is to be part of the law: the directive in its actual terms, we are told, is not to be part of the law of the member-State; it is the converse: it is for the member-State to choose its own language and its own law to give effect to the directive. That is the second question.
The third question is one which arose incidentally but is, I think, of considerable importance, and that is a question which relates to the nature and powers of the Commission. Those powers are set out in one of the regulations, and I think, if I construe them correctly, they confer no power on the Commission to make regulations itself. Certainly, as has been said, the Commission formulates proposals, and it takes those proposals to the Council. It has a very independent and active existence of its own; it has precise tasks assigned to it. But if I read the Rome Treaty aright, the legislating power is vested solely in the Council. It is perfectly true that in some cases the Council can reject a proposal by the Commission only by a unanimous vote. That is a limitation on the powers of the Council, and I agree that it confers a considerable measure of authority on the Commission. But the actual powers of the Commission are set out in Article 155 and those powers, if I may go through them, are to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions by virtue of the Treaty
818
are carried out; to formulate recommendations or give opinions on matters within the scope of the Treaty if it expressly so provides, or if the Commission considers it necessary; to itself take decisions and, in the circumstances provided for in the Treaty, participate in the shaping of measures taken by the Council and by the Assembly; and to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Council to ensure effect being given to rules laid down by the latter.
I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount could indicate to the Committee whether there is something I have missed out. Is there something which extends the powers of the Commission beyond those powers formulated in Article 155 which I have just read out? If the answer to that question is "No", then it seems to me to follow that the Commission itself certainly has no power to legislate. It has power to formulate proposals, but it cannot make regulations—regulations being the legal framework of the Community. I think that that is a matter of considerable importance, because the Commission is not an elected body. It is not like the Assembly: it is not a body composed of the Ministers of the various member countries. It has been likened to a Civil Service. Perhaps that description should be amended by saying that it is a Civil Service with a very independent and important role—a role which it must exercise independently on its own judgment and which will lead it, generally, to recommending a proposal which the Council of Ministers must take seriously into account. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would tell me whether I have correctly understood and formulated the position of the Commission.
LORD BALOGH: May I ask my noble friend, before he sits down, whether he intends voting for his own Amendment?
LORD STOW HILL: I always keep an open mind in debate, listen to the counsel given by Ministers and allow my judgment to be influenced by the reasons propounded. I then decide whether I vote or whether I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think that is the proper attitude in a legislative Chamber.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: Before my noble friend Lord Stow Hill sits down may I ask, in respect of

819
the legislative powers of the Commission, whether he has fully taken into account the provisions of Articles 189 and 190 of the Treaty itself? It seems to me that it is reasonably clear that the wording of those Articles does confer legislative power directly on the Commission. The first part of Article 189 reads:
"In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives …"
and so on.
Article 190 reads:
"Regulations, directives and decisions of the Council and of Ole Commission"
shall state the reasons on which they are based, and so on. I should have thought, with great deference to my noble friend, that those Articles do indicate in reasonably plain language that the Commission itself has legislative power.
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend asked me a question "before I sat down". In the circumstances perhaps the Committee will allow me to answer him. I considered the Articles most carefully and I see his point. My own view is that one has to read those words in Articles 189 and 190 in the light of and as qualified by the formulation of powers which I cited, and as qualified by various other provisions in the Treaty which make it perfectly clear that it is the Council which takes the final decision. May I give the Committee an example? Article 43, which deals with the Common Agricultural Policy, reads in the third paragraph of heading 2:
"The Council shall, acting on a proposal of the Commission, and after consulting the Assembly, … adopt regulations or directives …"
That is the sort of phrasing very regularly repeated throughout the Treaty. My answer to my noble friend is that I thought that the wording he referred to should be qualified by those other passages.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I shall be happy to try to answer the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. They are all important and I think that their elucidation may be of some assistance to a number of Members of the Committee. First, I hope the Committee will forgive me for not going through the terms of this selection of
820
Amendments but to use them in the way the noble Lord did as a platform to speak to his points. I think it is inevitable that the wording of Clause 2(1) should go beyond the scope of regulations made under Article 189. I will illustrate that, solely for the moment, by saying that there are other resources of directly applicable law which have been mentioned earlier in debates (which I shall revert to in a moment) which do not derive from Article 189. There are other Articles in the Treaty and other sources, and merely to limit it to regulalations made under Article 189 would be a mistake and would not be in accordance with what is now the directly applicable system of law which covers the other countries in the Community already. In their jurisdiction and jurisprudence there are sources accepted and recognised other than regulations under Article 189.
On the other hand, the noble Lord was a little puzzled by the apparent conflict between that wording in Article 189 which says that regulations shall be binding and what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about there being occasions when further implementation had to be carried out by the member States, even in the case of regulations made by the Community. The answer to this, like the answer to so much of the difficulty of directly applicable law, is that—and I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said this earlier—one does not look at the form so much as at the substance. Even the form, however, may be helpful because in the case of regulations it is not uncommon for them very largely to be directly applicable but at the end, for instance, to say, "and the member States shall take certain steps to enforce this regulation
That does not mean that the earlier parts of the regulation are not directly applicable, but it may leave a certain amount of subordinate legislation, or indeed full legislation, in the hands of the member States in order to enforce what the regulation has imposed. That is what my noble and learned friend had in mind; not uncommonly, it comes at the end of a regulation. A regulation which says that new States shall "go away and enforce" requires some further action; it does not create any rights or

821
obligations on the people of this country but creates a right and obligation on the Government to bring in legislation to enforce that regulation. That is the way that one works.
The noble Lord then went on to ask about directives and suggested that these would almost certainly not be directly applicable. Again, as a rule, he is perfectly right; but if you look at substance rather than form you can get a case like the one called S.A.C.E. against the Italian Ministry of Finance, which was decided in 1971. Without going into the details of the case, there is in Article 13(2) of the E.E.C. Treaty a requirement to abolish certain customs duties. Then a directive, No. 31 of 1968, was issued and made the further supplementary provisions about this abolition of customs duties. The point about directive No. 31 of 1968 was that it applied only to Italy and gave a date when the obligation was to come into force. Therefore, after it had come into force the European Court said that, read together, Article 13(2), which laid down the general duty, and the directive, which applied it with a date in Italy, combined together to produce a directly applicable situation for the benefit of the Italian citizen. Therefore, you have two sources of indirectly applicable law, one an Article of the Treaty itself and one a directive sent specifically to Italy which, read together, had this effect. That is the sort of way it happens but it does not happen very often.
The third point the noble Lord made was about the power of the Commission to make regulations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for drawing attention to Articles 189 and 190. Article 155, which Lord Stow Hill mentioned, is perhaps the basic one and probably reinforces both the other two; it deals with rules. What happens is that the Commission make a fairly large number of ephemeral regulations, for instance, fixing the intervention price for various commodities within the Common Agricultural Policy, and that comes under the other instance the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned, I think Article 43.
This intervention price is governed basically by a target price laid down by the Council but it has to be laid down by some temporary, subordinate regula-
822
tion made by the Commission over a fairly short period. So that you get this sort of situation where major policy is dealt with by the Council and the Commission are left to the day-to-day running of it, although in fact the rules they make are of the character of a regulation. There is another instance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might like to look at and which comes under Article 48(3)(d) of the E.E.C. Treaty.
Here we specifically have "conditions" as they are called, which would be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission. These affect conditions under which a worker, having been employed in a member State, may remain in that State. There, again, are some very detailed matters about which the Commission would make regulations. So there are scattered about in the Treaty one or two examples of this sort where, under a general broad policy laid down by the Council, the Commission are left to use a regulation-making power in the detailed case. I think this is of assistance and that it is well documented in the Treaty itself.
Just to round this off, if I may, I think it would be useful if one looks at the terms of Clause 2(1) to see where one would get examples of the several legal words—"rights", "powers", and so on—which are set out in this subsection. I take these absolutely at random but in the right order. Regarding "rights", I have already explained that Article 13(2) held that the S.A.C.E. case creates rights in the Italian citizen relating to the abolition of customs charges or something equivalent to a customs charge. With "powers" you get, for instance, Article 9 of the E.E.C., Regulation 17, declaring as inapplicable Article 85(1), which concerns the restrictive agreement. One gets some powers here exercisable where the Agreement, which I think would otherwise have been restrictive, satisfies the requirement of Article 85(3). So you find that you get a "power" created this time by a regulation made under Article 85.
Regarding "obligations", again the first example that I have been given comes under a regulation relating to obligations laid on transport undertakings and their employees. They concern minimum ages and lengths of periods of continuous driving, and at the moment

823
relate only to international journeys. But you have that under regulations. Again there is a restriction that you can find in the regulations under Article 85. But for "procedures" you have to go back lo Article 177 of the Treaty because here you have the procedure on recourse to the European Court. And although it will not as a rule be directly in the hands of a citizen, nevertheless there are occasions when directives which give an exceptional right to go to the European Court are issued to an individual firm. There is also the case where an individual law suit in this country has a reference to the European Court, made in relation to it by the Court itself. So there are procedures and remedies in relation to the European Court which go back to the terms of the Treaty itself.
This, I think, indicates that we have a full range here of the kinds of directly applicable law. You can get it from the Treaty; you can get it, and usually would, by regulation; and you can occasionally get it from directives. As I said before, I have not an example of this, but I believe that you can get it, exceptionally, from a decision as well. That is why we say that the way Clause 2(1) is drafted covers all these possible sources which are identified by the European Court as being directly applicable; and why to modify the wording would be mistaken, because we should tend to miss out one of the possible sources, or confine it in such a way that we should not be able to comply with our undertaking to make all directly applicable law applicable in this country. I hope that that answers the specific questions of the noble and learned Lord, and at the same time I trust that it throws a little clarity on the way this works.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his answer, which I thought extremely helpful and full. On the powers of the Commission, he mentioned two cases in which the regulation-making power related only to subordinate matters—rates and so on. The first one he referred to is in Article 43. If I may say so, that is a power which may be exercised only by the Council—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that 48(3)(d) was the one I specifically mentioned.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, I should like to look at that. But he has entirely answered my questions, and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("from time to time created or arising") and insert ("already created at the date of accession").
The noble Earl said: Reeling and dizzy from a whole term of legal tutorials squeezed into a few hours, I feel quite sure that it will be to the advantage and comfort of noble Lords if I may be allowed to refer to Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 together. Since I would hardly expect to get anything better than a delta treble-minus on the tutorials we have had, this Amendment raises not an obscure or difficult question of law but an exceedingly simple question of principle relating to the future; future actions, future obligations, as yet unwritten, as yet unknown, as yet unpredictable and, so it would seem, even without any statutory duty to tell Parliament.
My Amendment accepts what has been, has been. In Pilate's words: "O γεγραφα"—"What I have written, I have written." But the Amendment concentrates on the future and would limit this subsection to what has already been done. It makes the simple proposal—in a simple, ignorant kind of way which no doubt the Government will be able, and I hope willing, to polish up for Report—that we in this Committee should recognise, clearly and frankly, as an historic principle, that Parliament has a duty to the electors whose rights we in this House are endowed with a privileged station to protect.
That duty to protect the elector's rights is paramount. In 1945, the late fifth Marquess of Salisbury declared that duty to be paramount. This Party, in Opposition after the war, declared that duty to be paramount. Indeed, more than 100 years ago, to be exact in 1871, the third Marquess of Salisbury is on record as saying words that amount to the same; that this duty—the duty to protect the electorate—is paramount. We would surely all agree that it is never wise to

825
issue a blank cheque, even to a member of the family; certainly not in business affairs, and least of all in public affairs. And because this is common sense that is why the genius of our nation has developed the principle and the machinery of public accountability. That is why it has developed a constitutional practice never to give any Government a blank cheque, except possibly during the period of Cromwellion rule, for which I sometimes fear some of my respected noble friends are beginning to have a certain fresh uprush of sympathy and liking.
The defence of the Quinquennial Act has since 1911 been written into our deed of trust, and if it is our paramount constitutional duty in this House to save the electors from any deprivation of their five-yearly rights, what then are those rights? Surely they are to furnish a mandate to a Government for five years; for five years only and not a day more. Yet the proposal in Clause 2(1) is that this House, as it were, signs away goodness knows what as yet unwritten obligations, not just for six years—that is, over into the term of the next Parliament; not even just for 20 years, as in the NATO Treaty (in regard to which of course we reserved an annual right of review of the means of implementation), but for ever, indefinitely, without any review of any kind inserted in the Statute. Are Ministers fully satisfied that this clause does not contradict the purpose of Parliament and therefore the Quinquennial Act which is designed to protect it?
I look forward with interest, but after last Thursday with an interest now alas! more heavily laden with apprehension, to the Government's justification. Another member of the Government, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said in another place that the issue of sovereignty is, broadly, as it is under other treaties that we have signed in the past. How does this Bill, let alone this clause, compare with any other treaty that we have ever signed? On what popular mandate are we invited to provide this blank cheque for the future? By what Party political manifesto are we entitled to do this thing? My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to, as I think he described it, a "widespread failure to understand", and to the fact that this causes much confusion on the Bill. I certainly
826
come within that category, because there is much here that I cannot pretend to understand: and when eventually we are told that the final exercise of sovereignty is to break the Treaty and walk out, then I ask myself like a drunken man: "Am I, or does it?".
I therefore hope that we shall have from the Front Bench two things. First, I hope for a genuine and simple explanation and not an argument from political or diplomatic expediency. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stressed—and I sympathise at least in this regard with what he has said, although some of it I did not understand—the need to get down to discussing this Bill in a constructive way. In the light of that expression, I have a second hope of the Government; that is, evidence of a sincere and real readiness to listen: not just patiently and courteously to sit through, but to listen to at any rate sincere arguments, and a readiness to consider them between now and Report. I beg to move.
LORD SHINWELL: It has been my experience that it is customary on the part of Governments to enter into treaties which are to some extent indefinable; that is to say, they have not been fully negotiated in detail in advance. That is not only customary, but desirable, because it is difficult in respect of the provisions of some treaties into which Governments of this country have entered to foresee the future. Take, for example, the treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the French Government before 1914 relating to resistance to an act of aggression on the part of a potential enemy. As a member of the Government many years ago—indeed as far back as 1924, on behalf of the first Labour Government—I had the experience of entering into a treaty with the American Government on a matter of oil supplies, and subsequently a document was produced which in effect ratified the treaty. There again, for various reasons, it was impossible to be too specific in advance: we could not anticipate what the future would bring.
But here we are in a different situation. Over and over again in the other place in the course of their various debates during the Committee stage the argument was adduced that negotiations had proceeded on a variety of topics—the

827
agricultural policy, and many other matters associated with this legislation. That argument was adduced in order to fortify the contention that there has been sufficient debate on this subject. As regards the Amendment now before your Lordships it is clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has pointed out, that, setting aside the Treaty of Accession, which has been accepted—one may be in opposition to it, but there it is—we are now being asked in the clause under review to accept liabilities, rights and powers which would lead to regulations, some restrictive and some positive in character, which would become enforceable, and—I particularly direct your Lordships' attention to this aspect—without further enactment. I think that is highly objectionable. It is one thing to accept a treaty after negotiation, even if some particulars have been ignored or left out for one reason or another, but it is another thing to ask us to accept liabilities which are unforeseen, impossible to define, and which are in the power of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, or a combination of both to implement, without Parliamentary sanction. This brings me to the matter of Parliamentary control. I noted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier that there was effective Parliamentary control. I do not see it myself, and I am satisfied that many other noble Lords are unable to discern anything of the nature of effective Parliamentary control in many of the clauses under review. So I am concerned not so much with what has been done after negotiation, accepting the Treaty of Accession with all that that means, but with what I regard as obnoxious and repugnant; that is, that we should take this further leap into the dark with a further pig in a poke without regard to the consequences.
Who can tell what is going to happen? We are then placing ourselves without reservation in the power of the Commission and the power of Ministers. It may well be that in the future, with some form of political integration or association, we shall have elected representatives in Bonn, Brussels or Paris, or wherever it may be. We may have a voice in the discussions; but our representatives will not, as this clause indicates, have any
828
power to prevent the implementation of the various directives. I have already directed the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the clause itself says "without further enactment". That means that absolute power—and I repeat those words with emphasis: absolute power—is going to be vested in Brussels, Bonn, Paris or where the Commission may be. We are going to be utterly helpless. For that reason I support the Amendment which has been advocated by the noble Earl.
7.1 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am not going to delay the Committee, but I feel very sad about this matter. I have listened to delightful expositions, legal explanations beautifully delivered by both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Viscount. We have been told how the Community will work, but no one has admitted that we have given power away and that in giving away this power the corridors of power, so far as the people of England are concerned, have become the corridors of impotence. I agree entirely with the phrase "a blank cheque" which has been used. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill put forward a point and asked in simple English that while accepting the Treaty we should have some power over regulations and instruments that may come in the future. We have had a brilliant explanation of how the law will work but the explanation did not contain the confession, as it should have done, that power is being taken away from this House.
Finally, I should like to quote what Sir William Blackstone said, in looking at the law between 1723 and 1780 with some understanding:
"It was a known apophthegm of the great Lord Treasurer Burleigh that 'England could never be ruined but by a Parliament': and as Sir Matthew Hale observes. this being the highest and greatest court over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom, if by any means a misgovernment should in any way fall upon it, the subjects of this kingdom are left without all manner of remedy. To the same purpose, the President Montesquieu. though I trust too hastily presages; that as Rome, Sparta and Carthage have lost their liberty and perished, so the constitution of England will in time lose its liberty, will perish: it will perish whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive."

829
And after two million words of speeches, and after going through another place for weeks and after going through your Lordships' House for further days, if not one word is changed that is corruption of power when there has been such skill in debate emanating from both places. And for this Government not to change one iota is an insult to Parliament and an insult to the people.
6.54 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and I do so with conviction but, I confess, with little hope of success. The reason for my support is really summed up in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinwell: that we are buying a pig in a poke. Every Government goes through a period when it seems to be accident prone, but the trouble with this Government is that the condition seems to be becoming chronic. One cannot, I suppose, blame noble Lords opposite for the fact that two days before we debate the noble Lord's Amendment, The Times, on Saturday. printed an article by Mr. Tom Harper headed "First step towards a book of law that the citizens can understand". The article began:
"Statute law—the law enacted by Parliament—should, according to Bentham, be so readily accessible to the ordinary citizen that a father would have merely to 'open the chapter on fathers', and an agriculturist, 'the chapter on agriculturists'. Fathers and agriculturists, and others, who put the matter to the test today will very soon discover that we are still a long way from Bentham's ideal of accessibility: but a substantial advance towards it has been made "—
and I understand that following the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who set up a Committee in 1966, we now have a document called Statutes in Force. There appear to be 3,000 Statutes. It is possible now for the agriculturist to look up "agriculture" and find it more simply than has been the case in the past; so, at any rate in theory, every agriculturist will know what the law is.
I hope it does not seem indelicate to ask your Lordships to put yourselves into the shoes of the ordinary common man. Let us, for the moment, visualise the ploughman homeward plodding his weary way, asking himself what price he is going to be allowed to charge for his turnips, confused by all the regulations and laws
830
with which he is faced, fumbling in the pockets of his moleskin waistcoat for the appropriate sections of Statutes in Force and asking himself what the law is. Of course, theoretically, Bob should be your uncle, but there are further difficulties because our unfortunate ploughman has not simply to understand the appropriate Statute out of a total of 3,000. Indeed The Times itself ends with a rather gloomy summing-up and says that the agriculturist
"will nevertheless find it as difficult to comprehend, at times as utterly incomprehensible, as ever"
On top of that, we have the fact that there are several thousands of statutory instruments which the ploughman is also expected to know. Many of your Lordships will remember the days when Lord Chief Justice Hewart was waging his great campaign against the "new despotism" and what he regarded as the menace of delegated legislation. Now we are delegating legislation not simply from your Lordships' House or from another place but to another body, sitting outside this country—a body which is not an elected body but which can, according to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, issue regulations which are immediately applicable to this country. So the ploughman has to cope first of all with the Statutes, then with the Statutory Instruments; and no doubt he is reassured about the Statutory Instruments because he knows that at least Parliament scrutinises them. They all come within the scope of the Statutes under which the indirect legislation is made, and in many cases they can in fact be rejected either by your Lordships' House or by the Members of another place. So the poor old ploughman, poring over his Statutes, has also to bear in mind the Statutory Rules and Orders.
There is worse to come. There are also the 42 volumes of Community law. There may even by that time be the leading work of Hailsham on Directly Applicable Regulations. There will certainly be the 42 volumes of Community law, some of it based on precedent, not all that impressively translated into the English language. There will be abundant scope for ambiguities of major proportions. I have been told that there is one article in the Treaty of Rome of which there have been three Germanic versions and two French versions. The

831
matter had to be taken to the Supreme Court of Luxembourg to decide which was the correct version. One of the two French versions was regarded as having the appropriate wording for the Article.
We have this great body of legislation already enacted. Now we are proposing, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, to buy a pig in a poke. One of the things about legislation in both Houses of Parliament over the years has been the care that we have taken to get exactly the right wording to suit the situation that was confronting us. I listened the other day to what I thought was a most impressive speech from my noble friend Lord Hale about the hours that he and I sat in another place arguing about single words, as to whether they implemented what the Goverment stated they wanted to do and whether they reflected the will of Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Hale reminded us, quite often when Parliament had spoken judges later said that Parliament ought to have been more careful in its choice of words. We have spent months and years of our lives arguing about the wording of Statutes. Now, at the drop of a hat, we are going to commit ourselves in perpetuity to accept regulations that come from these distinguished gentleman sitting in Brussels. I find that an utterly unacceptable situation. I believe that any Member of your Lordships' House who has the respect for Parliament and democratic institutions which all of us ought to have will find that, too, an unacceptable proposition.
I have said that I do not object to the principle of going in; I am prepared to accept, much as I dislike it, the Community law which has already become Community law. That is what the noble Earl is asking us to do: to accept what has been decided upon already, not to commit ourselves, willy-nilly, to accept whatever may be brought forward in the years to come. We have bought a pig the looks of which we know. What the noble Lord and I are objecting to is committing ourselves to buying a still further pig which it is at present impossible to see or even visualise.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERR ARD: What the three noble Lords who have just spoken have forgotten is that the decisions of the Council
832
have to be unanimous. Therefore, if our representative thinks something is going to be against the interests of this country it will not be a unanimous decision.
7.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have heard a number of speeches in support of this Amendment, none of which has faced the issue that if we want to go into the Community we must observe the rules of the club. One of the rules of the club is that Community law, as and when it is promulgated, becomes directly applicable in the courts of the member-States. I can quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, does not like it, because he does not want to join the club, but I do not understand the argument by which he sought to say, "I am not at this stage against the principle of entry; I am not at this stage against joining the club, but I will not observe its rules"
It is very difficult indeed to see how the noble Lord could have made the speech that he did, remembering what was said in the White Paper of 1967, for which he was collectively responsible with the other members of the Government of which he was an ornament. I will read what that White Paper said:
"It would be necessary to pass legislation giving the force of law to those provisions of the Treaties and Community instruments which are intended to take direct internal effect within the Member States.… The legislation would have to cover provisions in force when we join …"
And now I draw the noble Lord's attention specifically to the words which follow:
"and those coming into force subsequently as a result of instruments issued by the Community institutions."
If that statement, for which he was fully responsible as a member of the Cabinet, can live with the speech the noble Lord has just uttered, all I can say is that I am a Dutchman, which I do not think I am—at any rate, not yet.
Moreover, Mr. Harold Wilson, then the Prime Minister, said in May, 1967:
"Accession to the Treaties would involve the passing of United Kingdom legislation. This would be an exercise, of course, of Parliamentary sovereignty, and it is important to realise that Community law,"—
and now I draw the noble Lord's specific attention to the words which follow—
"existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from that legislation

833
passed by Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/5/67; col. 1083.]
If that were not enough, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, then speaking from the Woolsack in this House on May 8, at the same time—and I quoted this in my Second Reading speech and I quote it now because the noble Lord has not hoisted it in—said:
"This legislation—that is, the pre-accession Bill—would include an enactment applying as law in the United Kingdom so much of the provisions of the Treaties and of the instruments made under them as then had direct internal effect as law within the Member States and"—
and again I must draw the noble Lord's specific attention to the words which follow—
"providing that future instruments similarly took effect as law here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1202.]
We have spent about twenty minutes with speeches from the other side talking about the corridors of impotence, the noble Lord eating every particle of the words contained in his former utterances, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, making a diatribe of the most general kind against us, and we are asked to take this seriously. What I take seriously is not the speeches that I have heard from the other side, because, in the light of what I have read out, it is not really a reputable argument for them to support this Amendment. What I take more seriously are the words which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale used in his speech in introducing the Amendment. He supported his remarks rather strangely—if he will forgive my saying so—by breaking into his pretty Greek with the remark of Pilate on a famous occasion: O γεγραφα Pilate was resisting an Amendment when he said that. The quotation therefore rather tells against my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Would my noble and learned friend not agree that he has put himself on a par with Pilate in resisting an Amendment? Perhaps he is going to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was my noble friend who sought to derive comfort from Pontius Pilate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK rose—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will answer my noble friend first. I do not
834
derive support from Pontius Pilate. I, breaking into my pretty Italian, will say to my noble friend, Che sera, sera.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. His analogy has gone completely awry. The trouble that the world has had since Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the Amendment completely! All this Government are doing is washing their hands completely of the intricacies into which we are getting. Is the noble and learned Lord not aware that that White Paper was set out for discussion and showed fairly the position we should have if we went in the Common Market without proper negotiation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Pilate was dealing only with the Committee stage of the Bill. It had already passed its Second Reading.
As regards the last point, the White Paper was showing the inescapable consequences of membership. The fact is that member States must give effect to directly applicable law as and when it arises. The effect of the two Amendments proposed by my noble friend goes clean against the fundamental obligations which are imposed upon us by accession to the Treaty. They are therefore, in the strictest sense, wrecking Amendments. Although my noble friend asked me to listen as well as to reply courteously (I hope that I have done both) to his sincere argumentation—and I doubt not that it was sincere—he has not hoisted in it the fundamental proposition with which we began subsection (1) of Clause 1, which is that the whole system of the Community depends upon the member States' accepting the rule of directly applicable law in the sense that I earlier tried to explain. In a sense, of course, all Acts of Parliament are permanent until they are repealed. We have had this argument before. We intend this to be a permanent arrangement, but we have not impaired our legal right to repeal any Act of Parliament. There is nothing in this Bill which does that.
7.12 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: We are in the Committee stage, and if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor wants to enjoy himself by indulging in what, I suppose, is a form of Hailsham humour, he is entitled to do so. But some of us would

835
prefer that he should address himself rather more seriously, and, if I may say so, objectively, to what was a reasoned argument adduced by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. It may well be that nothing worries him more—much as he may dislike what a few of us on this side say about some of his alleged arguments and contentions—than the idea of somebody on his own side being inclined to indulge in what might be called an incipient revolt against the Government. So what does he do? He parades his knowledge of political history:
"And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew."
He parades his political history; he brings in Mr. Harold Wilson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
If I felt like it, I also have the capability—there is no use indulging in false modesty—to go into history. I could produce quite a number of quotations, not from people on the Labour side, but from high-ranking people on the Tory side who have expressed objections about British entry to the Common Market. I could recall the speeches by Mr. Maudling several years ago, and also speeches made by the late Sir Winston Churchill, whose views have been paraded as if he was in complete agreement with the policy of the present Conservative Government. I happen to know better. Anyone can indulge in that sort of thing, quotations dragged out of the ghosts of the past. But I should prefer that the noble and learned Lord addressed himself to the argument.
There has been a lot of bragging and boasting about the negotiations. Almost everything has been negotiated—the Common Agricultural Policy; tariffs; our association with the Commonwealth countries; how we are going to deal with New Zealand, and so on and so forth. After prolonged negotiations there is a Treaty of Accession. I agree that once a decision has been reached in the other place and in your Lordships' House on Second Reading we are bound to accept it. The Treaty of Accession is acceptable, so far as Parliament is concerned, whatever the public outside may care to say or to do. But it is a horse of a quite different colour when we are asked to accept provisions in addition to the
836
Treaty of Accession which includes a great variety of decisions already reached on many aspects of Community policy which we are bound to accept and for which there has been enactment already at the Committee stage in another place, and also to some extent here. I accept all that. But, as I say, we are asked to go further and to accept provisions.
What do we mean by provisions? Will some noble Lord who has trained himself in medical jurisprudence or has forensic abilities, none of which I possess, define what is meant by "provisions"? There has to be a substance and a content in this term. What does it mean for us in the future? Does it mean that there will be further modifications to the Common Agricultural Policy? Could it mean that? Could it mean that we are going to be hemmed down even further by the imposition of restrictive practices; or, for example, that we are going to be dictated to about regional policy? We have no information on these matters. Yet this is what we are being asked to accept.
The remarkable thing is that we are getting this from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who for years has prided himself on his convictions about liberty, freedom and British sovereignty. He now asks us to accept this. I can understand the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, revolting against this. The Government can go a bit too far. I know that your Lordships want to go to dinner and that there is other business coming along to interrupt the Committee stage, but I want just to say this. Go ahead! Do these things. What is going to happen? Can anyone foretell? We leave ourselves in the hands of a Commission, independent or otherwise; we are leaving ourselves in the hands of a Council of Ministers. What is to happen? There is no assurance and no guarantee of protection, not even on sovereignty. I know that there are a variety of definitions and interpretations of sovereignty. I do not go all the way about British sovereignty; I know that we have to abandon some of our ideas in that context. We have now to leave ourselves in the hands of people over whom we have no control whatever. We cannot dictate to the Commission.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, ventured to interrupt to

837
talk about control, or something of the sort; he said that we had agreed to do certain things and that we must go all the way. I do not accept that. I do not know of any treaty ever entered into by a British Government which meant that we had to go all the way. There were always reservations. All the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, says is that there should be certain reservations in order to protect the interests of the United Kingdom and its people. That is all he is asking for. I cannot understand why members of the Committee will not accept that. It has nothing to do with opposition to entering the Common Market. It is simply a means of providing essential reservations that will afford some measure of protection. That is all we are asking for. There is a bit of a grin on the faces of some Members on the Front Bench when I say that it has nothing to do with the Common Market. I know what they are thinking: that I am such an unrepentant opponent of British entry that all this is play acting. Nothing of the sort! After all, if we are going in, let us support something for the protection of our people. But the Government will not do it. So there we are. We shall be helpless; unprotected; hopeless; with no future whatever, except a future that is vested in the hands of people on the other side of the Channel.
That is the situation. Why do your Lordships not go and tell the British public that? Why do your Lordships not go to the British public; get on the platform; get on the hustings—though I know that one cannot apply hustings to Members of the House of Lords. But why do your Lordships not go and tell the public, "It is a leap in the dark. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. But we think everything in the garden is going to be lovely"? How do we know? We do not know. We are just proceeding on assumptions, In other words, it is just hope and faith. They are excellent virtues; high moral virtues. But for heaven's sake! afford the British public some charity.
7.21 p.m
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I think it is common to us all that we should like to go to our dinners. Therefore, may I answer just one or two of the points that have been made? First of all, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who has obviously succumbed to the temptation that is troubling us all and is no longer in his place, referred to this great point about the unanimity rule. Of course the difficulty about referring to the unanimity rule is this. Suppose that a Government do not behave in the way the public or Parliament would like and are overthrown for failing to use the veto. That still makes no difference to what goes on in the Council. That is my answer to the noble Viscount.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor enjoyed, I think, his excursions into the 1967 White Paper. He was not, happily, addressing that argument to me. But, as has been said many times over, we are not here discussing a White Paper, or what was in any White Paper; we are here discussing a Bill. With the greatest respect, I could not help discerning a certain dolce vita note about my noble and learned friend's excursion into Italian, Che sera, sera. This is not, I submit, an occasion for a dolce vita at all. MY noble friend took us again through the point that this open-ended commitment is basic to the Bill. He explained the relationship of directly applicable law to Britain. But he did not do so with any reference to a statutory obligation to refer to Parliament. He replied to me without comment on the effect of all this on the rights of electors. He replied to me without reference to the duties of this House. Therefore, if only for the historical record, I am afraid I must ask the Committee to divide.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 115.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Bernstein. L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Beswick, L.

de Clifford, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Blyton, L.

Fiske, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Somers, L.

Hoy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Watkins, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Drogheda, E.

Newall, L.

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L,

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Perth, E.

Alport, L.

Eccles, V.

Polwarth, L.

Amory, V.

Elles, Bs.

Poole, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Falmouth, V.

Reay, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reigate, L.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Remnant, L.

Barnby, L.

Gainford, L.

Rhyl, L.

Belstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V.

Rothermere, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bethell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Blake, L.

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

Saint Oswald, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Sandford, L.

Bradford, E.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Selborne, E.

Brentford, V.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Carrington, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmer, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Swaythling, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Limerick, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Trevelyan, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crathorne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Daventry, V.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Davidson, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Yarborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, Bs.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

7.31 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred to the fact that some of your Lordships were seeking some refreshment, and I think it was agreed that we should interrupt our Committee stage al about this time in order to take two Bills which are before us. I think it has also been agreed through the usual channels, in order to facilitate progress, that we should have no artificial break after we have dealt with those two Bills but that we should immediately resume our Committee stage. With those preparatory remarks I beg to move that this House do now resume.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
7.32 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there may appear to be a fairly formidable list of Amendments to the Bill, but I think it is fair to say that the majority of them are improvements and they do not represent any major change of substance to the Bill. Therefore perhaps it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move the Amendments in

841
groups, where this is possible, briefly but I hope sufficiently, and if any noble Lord wishes to ask for more detail I shall be pleased to do my best to answer.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 54 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Leave out Clause 1.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It may be something of a surprise to noble Lords to know that the other place should have deleted Clause 1—a clause which dealt with brucellosis and which was generally welcomed on all sides. As the House will recall, the original compensation terms for the compulsory eradication of brucellosis included the payment of replacement grants on slaughtered reactors, as well as incentives on beef and milk from the time of the first test until the year after accreditation. The authority for this scheme was given in Clause 1 and 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' union in March 1971 that the operation of the scheme during this "voluntary year" would be reviewed in 1972. We carried out a review in the spring of this year, when it became clear that the existing compulsory terms needed revision and that owners of some heavily infected herds had suffered significant losses.
The terms also tended to operate unfairly as between owners of herds of different types and breeds. We therefore decided, after consultation with the unions, to replace the existing terms by a new scheme which my right honourable friend announced on May 19. This scheme provides for the payment of compensation for reactors at full market value during the pre-accreditation period, subject to a limit of £240 per animal. Under these new arrangements—and this is the important point—the powers which Ministers would have been given under Clause 1 of the Bill are no longer necessary. Instead, we shall simply act in future under the existing slaughter and compensation powers which are contained in Sections 17 and 19 of the Diseases of
842
Animals Act. Therefore rather than introduce legislation which is no longer required we decided to delete Clause 1.
I should make it abundantly clear that what at first sight may appear to be a revolutionary Amendment in fact is not so disastrous as it may seem; it in no way affects the pace of our eradication programme or our determination to rid the country of brucellosis as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I just want to say that this Amendment was unanimously agreed in another place and indeed, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, I am certain that your Lordships will agree with the step that has been taken. During the passage of the Bill it was pointed out that it is very easy sometimes for people to say that brucellosis has occurred and that slaughter ought to take place, without finding out where the replacements will come from or, indeed, the cost of the replacements. This is indeed an improvement, and I am glad to give it support from this side of the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2–7]
Clause 2, page 3, line 1, leave out "or to animals affected with it".
Clause 2,page 3, line 6, leave out "and to an animal in which it is present".
Clause 2,page 3, line 8, leave out "and the animal were affected with that disease"
Clause 2,page 3, line 37, leave out from "require" to end of line 38 and insert" the owner or person having charge of any animals on".
Clause 2,page 3, line 41, leave out "any animals on the land" and insert "them".
Clause 2,page 4, line 6, leave out "birds" and insert "poultry".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, and I would suggest that we might consider at the same time Nos. 3 to 7. They may fairly be described as drafting Amendments which improve the Bill with regard to zoonoses without altering the Ministerial powers. They make more clear and less open to doubt the position which Clause 2 had originally intended to make clear. l beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 7.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
Clause 8, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
"(3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
EARL PERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This is a drafting Amendment. Owing to a fault in the original drafting the form of Parliamentary control over The regulation-making power prescribing the methods alternative to stunning for rendering animals insensitive to pain prior to slaughter, was omitted. This Amendment prescribes the same form of Parliamentary control as applies generally to regulations governing humane slaughter; namely by statutory instrument,, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Earl Ferrers.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 9, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) 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."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9, and, if I may, I would suggest that we might consider No. 21 at the same time. After the Bill left your Lordships' House, consultations on the detail of the new veterinary-based bull licensing arrangements continued with the profession and the livestock industry. These pointed to the need for additional statutory requirements which are incorporated in these Amendments. Briefly, these Amendments enable Ministers to grant or to refuse 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
844
Veterinary Association. These powers are enabling powers; the details will be spelt out in Regulations which will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
Ministers are also given power to suspend bull licensing by order. I should emphasise that these are only reserve powers which we do not contemplate using without good reason. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, it is true that this Amendment brings the position up to date, but when the noble Earl says that it will be spelt out in regulations, and that an order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure I wonder whether in fact this is the correct way to do it. I should have thought that when a Government is taking this power it means a change and that it would then be the duty of the Government to spell it out by an order requiring Affirmative Resolution. I suppose it is a little too late to take this step, and I rise simply to make it clear that in my view the Government should have proceeded by way of the Affirmative rather than the Negative Resolution procedure.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in a number of places in this legislation the practice is to proceed by way of the Negative Resolution procedure. Possibly it is rather more simple to proceed in this way. In any event, I have noted the noble Lord's point, though I hope he will be agreeable to accepting the Amendment as it stands.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
After Clause 11, page 13, line 12, at end insert the following new clause:
Grants for farm improvements
" … In subsection (9) of section 30 of the Agriculture Act 1967 (which limits the grants referred to in that subsection to one hundred and seventy million pounds) for the words 'one hundred and seventy million pounds' there shall be substituted the words' one hundred and eighty million pounds'."
7.41 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with

845
the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a simple provision to raise the ceiling on expenditure under both the 1957 and 1967 Farm Improvement Schemes from £170 million to £180 million. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, how was this figure arrived at? While I am not quarrelling with the increase, may I ask the noble Earl to explain why an extra £10 million is required? This may not be an extremely large sum in relation to agriculture, but it is nevertheless a lot of money, and I am sure that the noble Earl will be anxious to explain why the Government chose the figure of £180 million.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is typically and correctly Scottishly prudent. There is a reason. The grant already paid, taking the 1957 and 1967 Schemes together, amounts to £154 million. It is estimated that the outstanding grant liability, after allowing for price rises since applications were approved, is somewhat more than £19 million. The total expenditure would therefore come to something over £173 million. Obviously our estimates cannot be exact, and as we needed to allow for a safety margin and as the limit was £175 million, we thought that it would be prudent to increase the sum.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 12, page 13, line 19, at end insert:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring authority on the Minister or Secretary of State to wind up the Agricultural Marketing Fund or, as the case may be, the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is a clarifying Amendment and even without it the clause would not give my right honourable friends power to wind up the Funds mentioned in the Bill from which loans are made to agricultural marketing boards. Section 22(1) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 lays down that the Funds shall continue in
846
existence by the names which they now bear, and I am advised that nothing in this clause would supersede or alter that provision. I can also assure your Lordships that my right honourable friends have no desire to wind up these Funds. They consider, however, that power should be taken to keep the balances in the Funds in line with requirements. An assurance was sought in Committee in another place that reducing the balances to zero would not automatically wind up the Funds. This Amendment makes it abundantly clear that that is not so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No 12]
Clause 14, page 14, line 20, leave out "one" and insert "two".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. Your Lordships will recollect that when the Bill was last before you the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, moved an Amendment to increase the maximum penalty under the agricultural safety legislation from £50 to £500 rather than to the figure of £100 which the Government pro. posed at that time. After discussion, your Lordships allowed the Government's proposal for £100 to stand. When this matter was discussed in another place it was suggested that a figure higher than £100 should be written into the Bill, and after discussion with numerous bodies interested in the matter, which were by no means unanimous in their view, the figure of £200 was inserted in another place. I hope that your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will agree to the Amendment being made. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to another place for making this change in the Bill. The offence dealt with in the clause is a crime for which a fine of £50 is not sufficient. If people indulge in this form of depredation they should be made to pay. I sug-

847
gested £500 in the hope that the Government would settle for £250. In the event they decided in another place to make it £200.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
No. 13]
Clause 16, page 15, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (4) of section 16 of that Act (which makes provision for the Ministers by order to approve, modify or revoke a scheme) after the words 'Ministers by order' there shall be inserted the words 'after consultation with such persons or organisations as appear to the Ministers to represent the interests concerned'."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. An undertaking having been given in this House that the proposed levy arrangements will not be used without the agreement of cereals growers and buyers, the Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt and its acceptance by the Government underlines our genuine desire to proceed only after proper consultation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14]
After Clause 18, page 16, line 14, at end insert the following new clause:
Use of poison against grey squirrels and coypus
".—(1) The relevant Minister may, by an order made for the purposes of this section and applying either to the whole of Great Britain or to any specified part or area thereof, specify a poison for use for the purpose of destroying grey squirrels or coypus and the manner of its use for that purpose; and it shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence against any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) of this section to show that—

(a)the act alleged to constitute the offence was done for the purpose of destroying grey squirrels or coypus and was done at a time when, and in a place where, such an order had effect; and

(b)the poison used and the manner of its use were such as to comply with the provisions of the order.

(2) The said enactments are section 8(b) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, section 7(b)of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (which restrict the placing on land of poison and poisoned substances) and so
848
much of section 5(1)(a) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 as relates to poisoned or poisonous substances.
(3) The relevant Minister shall not make an order for the purposes of this section except after such consultation as he considers appropriate with such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned and unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) Any order made for the purposes of this section may make different provision in relation to grey squirrels and in relation to coypus; and the power to make orders for the purposes of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to vary or revoke a previous order.
(5) In this section "the relevant Minister" means—

(a)in the case of an order which does not apply outside England, the Minister;

(b)in the case of an order which does not apply outside Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland;

(c)in the case of an order which applies both in England and in Scotland but not in Wales, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly;

(d)in the case of an order which applies in Wales or both in England and Wales but not (in either case) in Scotland, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly; and

(e)in the case of an order which applies in England, Scotland and Wales, the Minister and those Secretaries of State acting jointly.

For the purposes of this subsection Monmouthshire shall be treated as part of Wales and not of England.
(6) This section is without prejudice to any defence available apart from this section in proceedings for any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; and nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring any exemption from any provision contained in or having effect under any enactment not mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable Ministers to make orders permitting the use of poison for the control of grey squirrels and coypus, two species which have been introduced into this country and are now responsible for damage of economic significance. Noble Lords who attended the Committee stage will remember the interesting debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who sought to introduce a new clause amending the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in such a way as to allow poisons to be used against grey squirrels, as they

849
are already permitted against rats and mice and other small ground vermin. My noble friend Lord Denham drew attention to the danger to wildlife generally if poisons were used indiscriminately and mentioned that it was important to await the results of field trials which were being conducted by scientists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Forestry Commission to develop a safe and efficient method of presenting Warfarin to grey squirrels with minimal risk to other species before considering whether any revision of the law was desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, kindly withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would introduce a new clause giving Ministers appropriate enabling powers. An additional clause to the Bill was accepted in another place, which would enable Ministers to make orders permitting a specified poison to be used in a specified manner to control grey squirrels by extending the defences provided under the Protection of Animals Acts and in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 to include the poisoning of grey squirrels by the method specified in the order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I remember our Committee proceedings well because I could not understand why so many noble Lords were present on the Bench opposite. I soon discovered that the forestry interests had turned out in great number. This is, of course, exactly what they want, and my only regret is that they are not present tonight when the actual work is being done. Considerable interest has been shown in this problem and last Thursday a number of questions were asked on this subject. I do not think the Government had much alternative but to introduce an Amendment of this kind after one of my noble friends had commented that he could not get into his house because it was occupied by squirrels. Something had to be done and I welcome the new clause on behalf of, among others, absent noble Lords opposite.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that this clause is necessary and desirable, not only for
850
forestry interests although the forestry interests may predominate. There will be no naturally growing sycamore in this country very shortly and I doubt whether there will be much beech unless we can learn to control squirrels. The depredations on the fruit industry are getting quite intolerable.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask one question? Warfarin seems to be curiously ineffective against mice. Perhaps the squirrels are not so used to it. But is it really going to be any good putting it down? The mice are still very active in the Palace of Westminster.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, a lot of the success of the product seems to depend on the person who puts it down. If there are many mice running around Westminster despite Warfarin it is perhaps being put down in such a way that the mice will not eat it. Alternatively they may have become used to it. But I rather doubt it. I am advised, and in my experience, Warfarin is pretty effective. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—and I am grateful to hint and to my noble friend for welcoming this particular Amendment because it has caused a lot of concern to a great many people—that this should help on the problem of the grey squirrel, which is a quite substantial one, although the clause was not included in the Bill specifically in order to enable the noble Lord, Lord Hale, to rid his house and live in peace free of squirrels.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 15]
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Recovery of expenses incurred by authority exercising default powers under orders made by virtue of Plant Health Act 1967.
".It is hereby declared that an order made or having effect under the Plant Health Act 1967 may contain provisions for requiring a person to pay to a competent authority or local authority for the purposes of that Act the cost to the authority of doing anything which that person has, in breach of a requirement imposed on him by or under the order, failed to do."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15, and if I may I would speak to Amendment No. 28 as well. This simple new

851
clause makes no new provisions. Its purpose is to remove a doubt which was cast on a power in the Plant Health Act 1967 by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place. The clause serves to make it clear that Orders under this Act may empower local authorities to recover costs which they may incur in taking default action. Successive Ministers have believed the powers to be in the Act, but this is a consolidation of legislation going back nearly a century and its regulation-making powers are not so precisely expressed as in more modern legislation. This has left room for doubt which should be cleared up by this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 16]
Clause 21, page 17, line 15, after "power" insert "to manage, maintain and improve the land and".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This subsection as originally drafted enabled the Secretary of State to provide facilities such as laboratories, glasshouses and office accommodation at Logan and any other gardens which might be required. It was, however, defective in that it did not empower the Secretary of State to spend public funds on the day-to-day work in maintaining, managing and improving land. That defect has been repaired by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17]
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Recovery or possession of redundant farmhouses
" . Paragraph (f) of Case 14 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and paragraph (f) of Case 15 in Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (under which the right conferred by those Cases to recover possession of a dwelling
852
house is available only if proceedings are commenced within the appropriate time limit specified in those paragraphs) shall cease to have effect except where the relevant date for the purposes of the said Case 14 or, as the case may be, Case 15 was before the passing of this Act."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. If I may, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 29 at the same time. The new clause, which covers Great Britain, removes the requirement that orders for possession of redundant farmhouses which are let on regulated tenancies must be applied for within five years from the date on which the last "agricultural" tenant vacated the farmhouse.
The particular provision to which the new clause is directed could, I am advised, create problems in the efficient use of agricultural land. I emphasise that care has been taken in this Amendment to preserve the really important protective measures for tenants. Regulated tenancies entered into before the commencement of the Act will be unaffected. Orders for possession cannot be granted by the courts if the tenant, or his widow, was or had been responsible for the farming of the land, or had been employed in agriculture by the landlord; if the tenancy was preceded by an amalgamation under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967; unless the farmhouse is required for occupation in connection with the farming of the land; and finally, unless notice that repossession might be required was given before or when the regulated tenancy was created. The highly important safeguards which now exist are all preserved by this clause. It may appear to deal with a rather insignificant matter, but it would remove what could be an obstacle to the efficient farming of a block of land. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18]
Clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert:
"( ) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1), and subsections (2) and (3), of section 6, section 7, and Schedule 1;

853

(b) Schedule 5 so far as it relates to the Slaughterhouses Act 1954, to sections 65, 70(1) and 75 to 78 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, to the Slaughterhouses Act 1958 and to section 54(2) of the London Government Act 1963,

shall not come into force until 1st January 1974."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The purpose of this Amendment is to postpone, with one exception, the introduction of the slaughterhouse provisions of Clause 6 and Clause 7 until January 1, 1974, so that both the public and the private sectors of the industry can reassess future requirements in the light of the new proposals and put in hand any transitional arrangements in an orderly manner. The exception is the removal of Ministerial control over public slaughterhouse charges in England and Wales (there is in fact no control over the charges made in Scotland). The Government agree with local authorities that they should have financial freedom in the operation of their public slaughterhouses, and it is therefore proposed that this control should be removed as from the date of enactment of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation; and I was grateful also to hear him say that this gave a little more freedom to the local authorities to fix the charges. I am now about to say something which I am sure must be out of order but I will say it in one sentence. I understand that in very recent legislation dealing with slaughterhouses—I think it is the Industry Bill—slaughterhouses have been left out for support from Government grant. I have drawn it to the attention of one noble Lord and I would merely take the opportunity when we are discussing slaughterhouses to bring it to the attention of the noble Earl so that he might have a look at this particular problem before we deal with the Industry Bill. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to the Amendment. The important part I think is the point I have just raised.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that he was quite sure he was out of
854
order. I shall certainly take note of the point he has raised which I believe is in fact already receiving attention.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19]
Clause 24, page 18, line 16, after "11" insert "12,"
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I spoke about this Amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 20–29]
Schedule 2, page 20, line 40, leave out "subsections (3), (5) and" and insert "subsection (3), in subsection (5) the words from `and' onwards, and subsection"
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  LICENSING 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 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 subparagraph (2) above on the occasion of its

  855
  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 asociations 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;

  "1968 c. 23.

  The Rent Act 1968.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph (f) of Case 14 except where the relevant date for the purposes of that Case was before the passing of this Act."

  Schedule 5, page28, line 55, at end insert—

  "1971 c. 28.

  The Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph (f) of Case 15 except where the relevant date for the purposes of that Case was before the passing of this Act."

  In the Title, line 19, after "statistics" insert "to make further provision as to the use of poison against grey squirrels or coypus;"
  Line 19, after "statistics "insert" to clarify the Plant Health Act 1967 as respects the recovery of expenses incurred by an authority exercising default powers under orders made by virtue of that Act;"
  Line 23, after "Scotland" insert "to repeal paragraph (f) of Case 14 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and paragraph (f) of Case 15 in Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971;"
  (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 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."

  Schedule 4, page 24, line 25, after "Act" insert "where it first occurs".
  Schedule 5, page 26, line 54, at end insert "where it first occurs".
  Schedule 5,page 27, line 45, leave out "subsection (3), (5) and" and insert "subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards; and subsection".
  Schedule 5,page 28, line 43, at end insert—
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the remaining Amendments are either drafting or Amendments which we have spoken to already, and if it is for the convenience of your Lordships I suggest that the remainder of these Amendments, Nos. 20 to 29, should be moved en bloc. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  HARBOURS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  7.59 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. May I just remind your Lordships that the purpose of this Bill was to make possible the development of the Peterhead Harbour of Refuge as a base for servicing of the North Sea oil industry. I drew your Lordships' attention at an earlier stage to the need for speed and flexibility in the approach to meeting these needs. Point is added to that by the reports to-day of a major new oil strike in the waters to the North-East of the Shetland Islands, and I would only thank your Lordships for the general measure of support you have given to this Bill.
  Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD HOY: My Lords, may I just say one or two words, because this find that has been announced makes it all the more important that Scotland should be equipped to deal with it? This find does not surprise some of us on this side of the House, including my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, because in our day a great deal of this research work was put in hand. Indeed, we have known for some time that certain finds were likely to be made. What we are grateful for is that this one is turning out to be as good as our advisers thought it might be. It is all the more essential perhaps that we have some further statement from the Government later on with regard to oil and its future for this coun-
  858
  try. This is not the time to raise it. But if oil is going to be found in these quantities obviously there has got to be a further agreement between the Government and those exploiting the oil. They are spending considerable sums of money; we are well aware of that. The rewards may be very rich, but I should not like to think that in the process the country is forgotten.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
  8.2 p.m.
  House again in Committee on Clause 2.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("are") to ("in") in line 29, and insert ("to be applied directly").—(Lord Beswick.)
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: From that remarkably explanatory moving speech which the noble Lord has just delivered I entirely understand exactly what he wants to do. I must however tell him that, despite his eloquence, I think it is better to leave the Bill as it is, and I will try to explain why. It really is a matter of drafting, and I think the Committee will probably agree that we ought to leave the Bill with the words it now has in it rather than accept the Amendment.
  LORD BESWICK: Before the noble Viscount reads his own eloquent speech, may I ask whether before he delivers it he has consulted his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because the noble and learned Lord, at an earlier stage this afternoon, said that despite the words "without further enactment" in the Bill it will in fact be necessary to have further enactments with respect to certain regulations. He did in fact spell it out and say that in 99 cases out of 100—or it may have been 999 out of 1,000—no further enactment will be necessary, but in certain cases it will be. I am therefore suggesting that, instead of having these words, "without further enactment", which are misleading, we simply say "to be applied directly"; and whether by enactment or otherwise will be left to the circumstances of the time.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is a question I can answer with the greatest ease. I do not know if the noble Lord was here when I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a little earlier. I took an illustration which does sometimes come up with regulations made under Article 189. A regulation is in fact made in a form which is directly applicable, and, therefore, under a scheme which is common throughout the Community, it is accepted as part of the law of that country—although we have had a certain amount of philosophy about this this afternoon—without any further enactment; in other words, it is directly applicable. But you do get sometimes a regulation which says, "The following is something that is going to be applied in all the member States", and is therefore directly applicable, and at the end is inserted, "and there shall be penalties for the enforcement of this particular regulation", which have to be implemented by the individual member States according to their own law. That bit and that bit alone of the regulation is not directly applicable, because it does not do anything to for any of the citizens of any of the individual States. It therefore requires subordinate legislation under Clause 2(2), or under some existing Statute, in order to provide for the necessary enforcement powers. To that extent you would have enactment, but it would be enactment of indirectly applicable law and not enactment of directly applicable law. Therefore, the directly applicable law, even in that situation, gets into the British courts without any form of enactment at all.
  LORD BESWICK: We will study what the noble Viscount has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.7 p.m.
  LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 2, line 30, after ("accordingly") insert ("in each part of the United Kingdom in so far as practicable in accordance with the law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom.")
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. The argument I want to base my Amendment on has really been made to-day,
  860
  because this particular subsection of this Clause has been explained over and over again. Many interpretations have been placed on it, but so far as I am concerned I think it is quite clearly stated what the subsection means; indeed I think it is stated with an abrasive clarity. It means that the power will not rest in our own country but that decisions will be made overseas, either in Brussels or Luxembourg. I will not for argument's sake even quote what was said by honourable members of the Government in another place who were opposed to entry into the Common Market and who carried on a considerable debate on this particular subsection. I do rot think there is any doubt at all that this subsection makes it clear that Community law will be superior to our own, and by "our own" I mean England and Wales.
  It may be all right for England and Wales to accept this argument, but what I want to ask is what right the Government have to decree that it also will take precedence over Scottish law. We do have two legal systems; I do not think anyone would care to deny that, and I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would not care to deny it. Indeed if that were so, it was stated quite clearly last Wednesday during a Question about the time of the House being employed by Bills that might well be joined together and become applicable to Scotland and England. At column 274 Lord Brooke of Cumnor said:
  "My Lords, as saving of Parliamentary time was mentioned in the Question, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that anyone who has taken through Standing Committee in another place a Town and Country Planning Bill covering both English law and Scottish law, as I have done, would never willingly repeat so prolonged an experience?"
  So what he was in fact saying was that the great differences in law between the two countries were such that if in fact you want to save a lot of time this is the way to do it.
  My noble friend Lord Beswick followed by saying:
  "… in view of the very formidable case that the noble Lord has made for Scottish legislation, may I ask him why it has been found possible to bring in just the one Bill in relation to the European Communities? Flow is it conceivable that we can foist on to Scotland the same body of law as we are foisting on to England?"

  861
  So my noble friend was making the case that I am seeking to put to your Lordships to-night. Despite the remarks about the Government's not being able to accept Amendments, I can only hope and believe, seeing a few Scottish nobles sitting, opposite, that they are here for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to uphold Scottish law. After all, they were supposed to be the great defenders in the past of Scotland's right and of Scotland's heritage and all the chieftains selected from them. All we are asking in this very simple Amendment is that, while you may do what you will to the rest of the country, so far as Scotland is concerned, whatever else you may take from her—and the people South of the Border have always been unable to do it—please leave us with the law of Scotland as it is with the right of administration for ourselves.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I apologise to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy for not being in your Lordships' House when this Amendment was moved, but like others I have been trying to slake my thirst. It is possible, and may well be probable, that this Bill as it stands is in conflict with the legal rights secured to Scotland by the provisions of the Act and the Treaty of Union. The possibility of doubt or conflict should be removed, and the relevant Article is Article XVIII, which I hope I may be allowed to read to your Lordships. It is:
  "That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Cuftomf and fuch Excifcs to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the fame in Scotland, from and after the Union, as in England; and that all other Laws in Use within the Kingdom of Scotland, do after the Union, and notwithstanding…"—
  then follows something that I cannot read in the photostat—
  "remain in the fame Force as before, (except fuch as are found not to be inconfiftent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain; with this Difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government, and thofe which concern private Right, that the Laws which concern publick Right, Policy and Civil Government, may be made the fame throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for the Utility of the Subjects within Scotland."
  It may or may not be the case that there is a conflict here between the reservation of private right in Scotland and
  862
  the Scottish law and the impact upon the United Kingdom of regulations, directives and other laws emanating from the Communities, but at least it should be made clear, and there are many pitfalls to be encountered unless it is made clear. To that end I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in his Amendment.
  8.14 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there is a separate point based on Article XVIII of the Act of Union my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has an Amendment down, Amendment No. 67, which covers it as a separate point. As regards the general question of this Amendment I can only confess a total failure to have persuaded noble Lords opposite of the minimum requirements of the Treaty. I have tried to persuade them, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in particular raised a point in his speech earlier on to which I tried specifically to reply: that the directly applicable provisions of Community law are not part of the law of the land but a separate system which takes precedence over the law of the land.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what possible practical application that could have, and I made two answers to him: one was the law of construction which arose immediately to my mind, and the second was that he would find as we came to discuss a series of Amendments that there were various matters of practical force in which the distinction was important. Amendment No. 22 would have been one. This is another. The law of Scotland remains unimpaired by this Bill to the same extent, neither more nor less, as the law of England remains unimpaired by this Bill. I must remind your Lordships that there is another part of the United Kingdom for this purpose (Northern Ireland) which has a separate law again, probably resembling the English law more closely but still quite distinct, and that equally is affected by this Bill neither more nor less than the law of England or Wales or the law of Scotland.
  If what the noble Lord means is that if you go into a Scottish court after the Act has come into force and after we have acceded, you will see no difference in the procedure, the judges will be the same, the procedure will be the same, then of course this Amendment is

  863
  unnecessary because I can give him the most exquisite assurance that that will be so, as it will be in England and as it will be in Northern Ireland. The language designed, and effectively designed, to keep out English lawyers will still be as difficult to understand as it ever has been, and no English lawyers will be present or allowed to be present while the Scottish court are administering their ordinary business.
  The system of law in so far as Community law is directly applicable has to be as part of the conditions of membership; it has to be accepted as applicable in all the courts of the member States. It does not matter whether the court is being held in Belfast or in Edinburgh or in London; the Community law prevails over the local substantive law if there is a conflict and if it is directly applicable. It is just as much a law which the Scots must accept, if they wish membership, as the unfortunate English or the unfortunate Northern Irish or, for that matter, the Southern Irish or the Luxembourgeois or the Belgians, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Norwegians or the Danes. They all have to accept the directly applicable provisions of Community law. This Amendment is basically inconsistent with this provision because it fails, like the other Amendments we have discussed to-day, to appreciate that fact. Although I fully accept the general proposition that Scots, being immune from original sin, are entitled to special consideration in almost everything, in this one respect I must urge the Committee to say that they are only ordinary human beings who must accept the facts of life.
  LORD SHACKLETON: May I just ask the noble and learned Lord one question? Is it possible that a directly applicable regulation, or whatever it is, could be directly applicable in England without the need to have an Order in Council, but might, because Scottish law is different in certain respects, require an Order in regard to Scotland? This is a rather important question from our point of view.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is, No, it is not possible in principle. What is possible is that where the provisions of Community Law are of
  864
  indirect application—we are discussing in this subsection where they are of direct application—the two Orders in Council required to give effect to the same indirect provision might be different Orders in Council, or different parts of the same Order in Council. I should not, in the main, think it was possible that where a provision of Community law applies without any direct legislative action on the part of the member-State it could require any direct legislative action on the part of the member-State in respect of different parts of itself.
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord said, "in the main". That does not mean universally. I wonder whether it might be helpful if we divide the Committee, and he can think it out a bit more.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I want to think it out any more at all, because I consider that I have given a perfectly correct answer. My noble friend sitting on my right points out that under Clause 2(2)(b), which is the clearing-up provision of consequential amendments to our own law as a result of direct application, you could, as I have said, have separate Orders in Council, or an Order in Council in one and not an Order in Council in another, because there might be no consequential provisions. In so far as the law is of direct application it is not possible in principle to have a separate action in respect of different parts of the same member-State.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble and learned Lord is opening up an interesting field for speculation. What the noble and learned Lord has said, as I understand him, is that when we come to indirect legislation, or subordinate legislation or direction, it may be necessary to have a separate Order in Council for Scotland from the one for England. That is what the noble and learned Lord said. If so, what he is in effect saying to us is that on the less important legislation it will be possible to have two Orders in Council, or two regulations, or two pieces of legislation, whatever is appropriate, but on the important legislation it will not be so possible. I suggest to him that if there is this possibility because of language, or for other reasons, for it to be necessary, for clarity's sake, to have two

  865
  Orders for the subordinate legislation, then surely it is doubly necessary to have the opportunity to make two Orders in Council for the more important legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid the noble Lord is showing too much zeal or, if I may use Common Market language, trop de zèle. His point is a bad one. I do not for a moment concede necessarily that the indirect application of Community law by way of direction is necessarily less important than the direct application. The order of importance has nothing whatever to do with whether the application of a particular rule is direct or indirect. The question of whether it is directly applicable depends upon its completeness and its perfectness, as I have explained before. What I have said is that the Community law is a separate system applicable to member-States as a whole and taking precedence where, and if, it conflicts with the domestic law of a State.
  The member State proposed in this Bill is the United Kingdom. The Community law, in so far as it is directly applicable is directly applicable to all the different parts of the United Kingdom, whether those parts, like Cornwall or Cardiff, have the same law as London, or whether, like Belfast or Edinburgh, they have a different law from London. Those provisions of Community law which are directly applicable are directly applicable to all equally, and take precedence over any local variations of the law, or local laws with which they may be inconsistent, without any intervening action whatever on the part of the member State. If I have not got that across, I have been wasting my breath the whole evening.
  On the other hand, if and in so far as either the Community law concerned is indirectly applicable, or if, being directly applicable, it has consequences which require a revision of local laws—which is dealt with in subsection (2)(b)—then in so far as the local laws may be different, both the language in which the domestic legislation of a subordinate character is couched may be different in order to preserve the right of the Scots to keep
  out English lawyers, which is well recognised, and also the substance may be different because in matters of some kinds of law—there are a very few—the substance of Scots law differs from English law. Therefore, in the subordinate provisions of indirect application, or the consequential revisions of local law, it may be necessary, and it will be possible under subsection (2), for the Orders in Council, or regulations, or instruments to be different. In relation to subsection (1) it will not be practicable, it will not be desirable, but above all it will not be possible to have a separate law for Scotland, or a separate law for England, because the member of the Community is the United Kingdom.
  LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. I understood the first part perfectly well; but as the argument proceeded I began to understand it not quite so well. May I just reiterate what this Amendment says? It says:
  "in each part of the United Kingdom in so far as practicable in accordance with the law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom."
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to explain why two Orders in Council might be made, but this is what I thought I was, by my Amendment, attempting to do without. In fact, I thought that this particular Amendment was in fact helpful to the Government, although it may not appear to the noble and learned Lord to be so. This is why I put it down and persuaded my noble friends to join with me. I am glad to have such approbation from the other side of your Lordships' House. We are not going to convince each other by argument, but I am certain that noble Lords from Scotland would be very disappointed indeed if they did not have the chance to register their decision on the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
  8.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 95.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Gaitskell, Bs.

  Beswick, L.

  Champion, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Hale, L.

  Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

  Slater, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Popplewell, L.

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E.

  Segal, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Lindsay of Birker, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Watkins, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Onslow, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Orr-Evving, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Alport, L.

  Gage, V.

  Poole, L.

  Amory, V.

  Gainford, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Goschen, V.

  Reay, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redmayne, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Balfour, E.

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

  Remnant, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Robbins, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  St. Just, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Hawke, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Hewlett, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Brecon, L.

  Hives, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Brentford, V.

  Hood, V.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Chelmer, L.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Strathclyde, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kemsley, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell. L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Latymer, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Thomas, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Lothian, M.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Twecdsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Davidson, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Waldegrave, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Newall, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Elles, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  8.37 p.m.
  LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, unless there is in force on 31st December 1982 a revised common fisheries policy for the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then on 1st January 1983 the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December 1971 shall immediately revive.")
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment, which is really self-explanatory. In fact, the whole purpose of the Amendment is to safeguard Britain's fishing industry.Yur Lordships will know that, over the years, there has been some considerable trouble with fishing limits, and indeed with the conservation of our stocks. In this respect, Britain has always taken a lead in conservation and preservation; indeed,
  868
  when changes were made from the three-mile limit which was then in force, it was Britain who led the campaign to prevent limits becoming too wide. Let me put on record here that one of the countries from whom we received considerable support in this direction was Russia; and I think she was the last country to extend her three-mile limit against Great Britain, many years after it had become an accepted practice. But as a consequence of action taken elsewhere, and which is being repeated to-day—and, being forthright, I refer to Iceland—when Iceland decided to push her limit out to 12 miles the trouble which ensued as a result of that action spread all over the fishing grounds; and one watched, not with great pleasure, what happened in Iceland at that time. Eventually, an agreement was reached for a 12-mile limit, and there was what we thought was a satisfactory settlement—though to-day we are faced with a new position, and it has an effect on this particular Amendment.
  As a consequence of that action, Britain then decided to increase her fishing limits to 12 miles, but at the same time she also made provision for those nations who had over a long period fished in British waters to have certain fishing rights between the 6-mile and the 12-mile band; and eventually that would have been worked out, just as was happening through ourselves in other parts of the world. So we have had a fairly liberal policy and a fairly liberal record in this direction. Therefore let no one suggest that the Amendment which I am moving to-night is a selfish view on the part of Great Britain. We have to be realistic in this matter. We are now confronted with the situation with Iceland. More than half our total catch comes from these waters. Any closure or extension would have a considerable effect on our fishing grounds.
  What is going to happen is this. I do not think the Government would deny (and I am sure the noble Baroness would not deny) that where the fishing grounds are contracted for our use, we shall either have to push our fishing fleets into available waters or attempt to find new fishing grounds. A consequence of this Act will be even greater pressure on our own fishing grounds. If that is the case, and over-fishing takes place, we in this country shall find ourselves in considerable difficulty. If we are going to be asked to provide our fishing grounds for the rest of Europe we shall be in trouble, unless we can reach an agreement that will be fair to ourselves and reasonably fair, as we have always been, to those with whom we are in association in Europe. All we are suggesting in this Amendment is that there should be added the words of the Amendment:
  "unless there is in force on 31st December, 1982. a revised common fisheries policy for the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then on 1st January, 1983, the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December, 1971, shall immediately revive."
  Let me make it quite clear that even if we were driven to that length we should not be taking away from any country the rights they enjoy at this moment. We should be saying to them at that time, "Let us return to the status quo"—and that is what the status quo means: that they have rights within these waters. We
  870
  are being driven more and more by what is happening around the world to take this step. It is not one which would bring us into conflict with Europe but one which I am sure Europe would understand. It is one which the British fishing industry would gladly welcome, because it would give them some assurance, some stability, something to look forward to in the midst of their troubles at the present time. Above all, it would be the correct thing to do. I beg to move.
  8.43 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I can well understand the ideas behind the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. As we look at it, we see that it has two main parts. It attempts to provide in advance for a failure to reach a consensus before 1983, and it also assumes that the best outcome would be a return to the 1971 situation. I am afraid that I must recommend to the Committee that we should not accept either premise in this particular Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, spoke about the whole problem of Iceland. I agree with him that certainly if Iceland succeeds in extending her limits to 50 miles some of the boats will go to Greenland but others will go back on to the Faroes and further towards our shores. But I do not feel it is quite appropriate on this Amendment to speak in detail of the Iceland position, because the problem is before the International Court at The Hague, where we have asked for an interim arrangement until the main question can be settled either by The Hague Court, in two years' time, or possibly by the Law of the Sea Conference.
  I would remind the Committee that the Act of Accession, in Article 103, provides for a report to be made by the Commission to the Council before December 31, 1982. This report means that there will have to be a review of the economic and social development of the coastal areas of member States (which is of great importance to those who represented fishing ports in another place) and the state of their stocks. This review will apply to the whole of the coastline of member States and not just to special areas. As a result of this review, the Council will work out the future of the fishing limits to which this Amendment applies. This

  871
  will apply to the Community as a whole from 1983. I cannot help thinking that to speak of the 1980s at this moment, although it is a long way away, seems hopeful. The noble Lord is right to bring the subject before the Committee.
  The Amendment also suggests that if by any chance the Community did not come to a decision before 1982—and I will quote the Amendment:
  "then on 1st January 1983 the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December 1971 shall immediately revive."
  I would only say to the noble Lord that there is nothing in the existing Common Fisheries Policy or in the Treaty of Accession which affects the responsibility for fishery protection measures. United Kingdom jurisdiction, which means the power to make and enforce proper conservation and protection regulations, remains as now and will continue to extend the existing 12 miles fishery limits during the ten-year period following accession and also in all probability thereafter.
  I say "in all probability" because I think we must take into account that we may all need increased enforcement of fishery protection. Measures were announced on January 20 this year which will, in effect, increase by 50 per cent. the effort which we now give to fishery protection, and there is the agreement under Article No. 102 of the Accession Treaty which suggests that there should be common action to conserve the sea's biological resources. This in itself can only strengthen the existing protection for United Kingdom fisheries. Also I think one is bound to remark that we shall have the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. A great many new ideas may come up by then, and it may be necessary for us all to have greater conservation measures. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that this part of the Amendment, which suggests that if the Community fail to reach agreement exactly the same position should carry on in 1982 as exists in 1971, is really not applicable to the case in question. Because of these two points I would recommend to the Committee that we should not accept this Amendment, although I understand the reasons behind it.
  LORD HOY: May I say that I did not want to raise the question of Iceland as Iceland or of what we are faced with, or even the Court at The Hague. But in an industry of this kind to look ten years ahead is not to look too far. When one has a problem like this it cannot be ignored. It is there. Indeed, the noble Baroness looked at it and said that perhaps boats will have to go to the Faroes. Even that would not be a good argument. She knows that if any country is permitted to extend limits to this extent, its neighbours will do the same, or will attempt to do so. Whatever happens in one case there is bound to be reaction and repercussions from every other country in the area. In these circumstances we cannot ignore it and must take it into account. That is not to say they will not be exactly the same in 1982 and that we cannot put the 1971 case against it. I was seeking in my Amendment to prove to the Committee that we were not taking away—not even if we had to revert in 1982 to the present position—anything that we at present grant to the Germans, the French, the Belgians and the Dutch, and to others who fish in our waters. I wanted to make it clear that we took nothing from them and that we wanted to go back to the present position where we have already made these concessions.
  It is all right to say that we are to have a Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. I do not think it is any secret that the British Government, any Government—I am not speaking about Party politics—do not look forward with any great confidence to that Conference as a means of settling problems for us. Indeed I regret to say that it looks as if the position will be aggravated by the 1973 Conference. This is why, whatever part one looks at, one gets more and more perturbed. I am sorry that the noble Baroness could not go further than she did. I know her interest, which is very personal, in this industry and I am grateful for what she said. I regret that she could not go any way along the road at all, and in these circumstances I cannot withdraw the Amendment because I think that this will be a very important question for the fishermen of this country.
  8.50 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, decides what he is going to do may I say that I, too, have an interest in this business, not as directly as the noble Lord, but I have taken an interest in it for a long time. When I first saw this Amendment I wondered if I should be able to vote against it. Iceland has nothing to do with this question. I do not believe that if we cannot settle with Iceland we shall have the same problem with other countries. Long before ten years are up there will be a much more difficult question about fisheries in general, and conservation has got to go much further long before ten years. For that reason I believe that to try to say that something shall be the same in ten years as now is not a practical proposition. Within three or four years we shall have to have an international agreement or no one will have any fish. That is the position to-day, and, speaking from a purely practical point of view, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment; I do not believe that it would be effective.
  LORD SHINWELL: It may well be that the Icelandic position does not concern what is relevant to this Amendment but, as noble Lords are aware, there is a great deal of anxiety among the fishing interests about that position and the absence of definite assurances about the situation vis-à-vis the Economic Community. I am aware that negotiations took place, and the decision mentioned by the noble Baroness appears to have been accepted. But it may well be that something may crop up to lead to a violation of our fishing rights by one of the countries associated with the Six, and, as a result, an attempt may be made by the Commission, or those in authority at the time, to effect some kind of modification. I should therefore like to ask two questions.
  If there were such violation would a decision be left to the Commission or would the matter be dealt with in the normal fashion by, say, the arrest of a trawler violating the fishing rights? It is rather important that we should know about that. My other question is in reference to the continuation of fishery protection measures. I should like to know whether these measures will still remain in operation, because some assur-
  874
  ance has to be given to those in the fishing industry in order to remove any possibility of apprehension.
  It may be asked why I speak on these subjects. There was a time when I represented fishing interests, when I was the Member of Parliament for Seaham Harbour. But I have a further qualification; in fact, I have two. One is that I was appointed by the Labour Party when in Opposition, many years ago, to speak in the other place on the white fish industry. I think I made a very good speech on the subject; in fact, the only speech I have made which was regarded as good. My other qualification is that when I was the national organiser of the Amalgamated Society of Marine Workers I organised fishermen in Swansea, Hull and other fishing ports and achieved a great measure of success. So I know a great deal about fishing, and if I raise one or two questions on this Amendment it is not just for the purpose of making a speech—that is the last thing I want to do—but because I want information.
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I know that there is a great deal of anxiety about the future of fishing; I come from a part of the world where this is very pertinent. The world-wide reputation of the Torrey Research Station near Aberdeen regarding conservation matters is recognised. and I have no doubt that once we are a member of this club and not just outside sniping at it, the other members will be enthusiastic to benefit from our experience and knowledge which will prove to be to the advantage of all. Therefore I think that this Amendment is quite unnecessary.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who asked two questions, and to thank my noble friends for their support, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who paid a tribute to the Torrey Research Station which I know very well. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked whether a decision would be made by the Commission or whether we should still have the power to arrest trawlers. In my opening remarks I sought to explain that the power of enforcement of fishery protection will remain with the United Kingdom. On

  875
  the question of who makes the decision, it is made ultimately by the Council of Ministers on which we are represented. Where a matter is of vital national interest it is decided by unanimity.
  Already it has been laid down that quite soon the Commission and the Council—the Commission as a body which carries out the instructions of the Council of Ministers—will have to consider what kind of policy would be suitable for all member States after 1982; and in that connection, and in answer to the noble Lord's second question, I said that the fishery protection measures are still our responsibility. Indeed we have recently increased our capacity to carry them out. Therefore I think that in a Community of which we shall be part and to which we can bring so much experience on this subject we shall, in the very difficult times ahead, and particularly as the Law of the Sea Conference might not take place until 1974, get a suitable policy for us all.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  9.0 p.m.
  LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, unless there is in force in the Community on 1st January 1978 a longterm arrangement for the import of New Zealand agricultural produce into the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then the arrangements in force on 31st December 1977 shall continue in force unless and until a long-term Community arrangement which has been so approved is concluded.")
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should say that at appropriate stages later in our discussions I propose to raise the question of the effect of this Bill on the less developed countries of the Commonwealth, and also on Canada and Australia, which I believe to be damaged nearly as much as New Zealand. My mind goes back to-night to an occasion in 1962, almost on the eve of the Labour Party Conference, when I attended a dinner of Commonwealth Socialist leaders at which I remember Mr. Walter Nash telling Mr. Gaitskell that the Common Market could be the end of New Zealand's butter industry. I believe that the frank exchange of views we had on that occasion was largely the reason for
  876
  the powerful speech which Mr. Gaitskell made at the Labour Party Conference shortly afterwards.
  In the course of that speech, to which I referred on Second Reading, Mr. Gaitskell said:
  "I do not think, and I hope the British Government does not think, that it will be adequate to give New Zealand a seven years' dole and then cast them away …"
  On that occasion the Labour Party took a firm stand on the need, and indeed the duty, to defend the issues of our friends throughout the Commonwealth; and we have never deviated from that position. My right honourable friend Mr. Wilson on many occasions in the House of Commons, and again when he addressed the meeting of the Socialist International a few weeks ago, has stressed that before the Labour Government made the application to join the Community they insisted that:
  "A transitional period would not be enough unless it were for a generation, for example, arrangements that would need to be, if not permanent, at least equal in effect to a permanent change."
  Mr. Wilson added:
  "On that basis the Cabinet decided."
  And we have not for one moment deviated from that position.
  In the event, however, the arrangements that have been made for New Zealand are far from adequate: indeed, I believe that they are totally unsatisfactory. On Second Reading I referred to Mr. Dowling, President of the British Trade Association of New Zealand. Mr. Dowling has said that the widespread belief that the "Brussels deal" as he calls it, constitutes an adequate safeguard for New Zealand's economic future is a dangerous misconception. I am sure that it is. It is of course a temporary arrangement, and I suppose it is just conceivable that when it comes to be renegotiated it could be improved. But, quite seriously, I wonder what the prospects of that happening really are. I cannot help feeling that when the Community starts to reconsider this ludicrous, fantastic, wasteful Common Agricultural Policy, which was President de Gaulle's price for remaining in the Community. France will play a large part in determining what concessions are going to be made to New Zealand: and I have a shrewd suspicion that the interests of New Zealand will

  877
  come second to those of the farmers of France. Indeed, when M. Messmer as Minister for Overseas Territories was visiting the Pacific in May, he learned of the opposition of the Federation of Labour to the French nuclear tests, and there was a suggestion that there should be a ban on trade with France. I ask your Lordships to note the way that M. Messmer (now, if my memory is correct—and these things change so rapidly—I think still the Prime Minister of France, but then Minister for Overseas Territories) reacted. He reacted by saying:
  "We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market she"—
  that is, New Zealand—
  "came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports to Britain for a period of five years. If New Zealand now refuses to export to France, this limit of five years could be reconsidered and reduced and we could look at the application with disfavour."
  What an utterly intolerable situation we have got ourselves into when old and valued friends like New Zealand, without whom this country would not have survived, can be treated in this despicable way by a Minister in the French Government. That is the position into which we have allowed ourselves to drift.
  It may be that the proposals for New Zealand lamb could be a good deal worse. But I believe that we really should have insisted on New Zealand having access to European markets for acceptable quantities of her produce at acceptable price levels. The Pacific is certainly not going to provide the alternative opening for New Zealand's exports that supporters of the Common Market often claim. The extraordinary thing about all this of course is that we are paying a fantastically high price for the privilege of stabbing New Zealand in the back. It is not just the ludicrous, fantastic, extortionate cost of the Common Agricultural Policy; it is also the loss of our exports to New Zealand. Britain's exports to New Zealand at present, including invisible exports, are somewhere around £700 million dollars a year: in fact, on a per capita basis New Zealand is still our second largest market. Yet we are imperilling this magnificent outlet for the workers and the manufacturers of Britain in order to comply with the agricultural conditions
  878
  of entry into the Common Market. New Zealand will be in a position in which she will virtually have no alternative but to scrap the Commonwealth Preferences, which have done so much for New Zealand and so much for this country. Those Preferences will be phased out. But I do not want to put this just on the basis of our own material trade interest, because I believe that the very honour of this country is at stake on this issue. We are inflicting untold damage on a country that we regard very much as a member of the family. I wonder what has happened to all the pledges that the Conservative leaders have given from the 1950s onwards about how they would never go into the Common Market if it damaged the interests of the Commonwealth. I do not want to resort to the kind of "quoting gimmickry" that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack engaged in earlier this evening, but, you know, Hansard and the reports of Conservative Party Conferences are cluttered with pledges that members of the present Government have given to our friends in the Commonwealth. Now, in order to get into Europe (as it is euphemistically called) we are prepared to break those pledges and neglect those who I believe are our real friends. It is to me still almost unbelievable that even the present Government, with all their faults, should behave in this way towards New Zealand.
  "… the pity of it, Iago! O Iago, the pity of
  it, Iago!"
  I beg to move.
  LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has taken an unnecessarily gloomy view. He referred to the Labour Party Conference in 1962. Well, let me tell him that the Conservative Party has feelings equal to those of the Labour Party about New Zealand, and at that time, in 1962, there were mountains of butter in Denmark, Holland and France. Those have disappeared in the intervening years. If one thinks of the increasing population and the higher standard of living throughout the world, I think that in five years' time every bit of food which New Zealand can produce will be required. Why is it that the Prime Minister of New Zealand said during the negotiations that he was quite satisfied with what was going on?—and he was the political

  879
  leader of the country. When I was in the House of Commons, the Labour Party were trying to make capital out of this point, and I think it is a very unfair thing to do to the Government. The number of the British people—56 million of them here, with all the Asiatics who are coming to live here in the future—means that we have to raise our own requirements to keep those already here. I have a great affection for the two million New Zealanders but I have noticed over the years that when they could have bought British aircraft they did not do so, and neither did the Australians. Let us face up to some of these problems. I do not take the gloomy view that the noble Lord does and I believe that in five years' time New Zealand will be well able to look after its own affairs.
  BARONESS WHITE: I, on the contrary, should like very strongly to support my noble friend in this Amendment and in what he said, because I do not take such an optimistic view as the noble Lord who has just spoken. Those of us who have some connections with people in New Zealand, including those who are in public office, know that although it is quite true that the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time expressed himself as being reasonably satisfied, there were many other people in New Zealand who were far from satisfied and had considerable apprehensions as to what might happen in the longer term. Because, in spite of the most strenuous efforts—and I grant that they were strenuous efforts—on the part of the Government negotiators, what they have obtained is an interim arrangement; and we are concerned with what may happen in the longer run. Let us remember that 1977 is not all that far away, when one is thinking in terms of agricultural production.
  So far as the general trade of New Zealand is concerned, as we all know, the country has made strenuous efforts in the last few years, since it was clear that its main market (the United Kingdom) might be involved in the European Community, to diversify its trade. In fact it has met with a reasonable measure of success, but there are limits to what New Zealand is able to do. Australia is in a stronger position, but New Zealand is not so well placed. New Zealand is
  880
  in direct competition, for the greater part of its exports, with the temperate zone; in other words, with the European countries. Your Lordships will have seen in this morning's papers that in the Community they have just agreed that Europe has over-production of fruit and so they will be grubbing up orchards (at vast expense, I may say) because they are growing too many apples, among other things. This will be in direct competition with any production from New Zealand that we might wish to take. So far as dairy products are concerned, New Zealand can of course export to other parts of the world, but it is not so easy. I was frankly surprised some time ago, when I looked at this matter, to find that one of the fastest increases in production of dairy products in the world was in Japan, which is one of the natural outlets for New Zealand.
  As for the United States, it is quite true that New Zealand and Australia purchase from that direction and try to export in that direction. The United States have a very strong farm lobby and it is not easy for New Zealand to export to that country beyond a certain point. I should have thought that within the Commonwealth, whatever one's views may be about certain countries of the Commonwealth (and they may differ) we would all agree that if there is any country which has felt and expressed the most particularly close connection with the United Kingdom it is New Zealand. You may say that this is sentiment. But does sentiment count for nothing? Are we nothing but a nation of tradesmen? Sentiment should still count for something. If sentiment is to count anywhere at all in the Commonwealth, I should have thought that New Zealand would be the country in mind.
  New Zealand is in a particularly difficult position; it does not have the rich mineral resources that are found in parts of Australia, nor the manufacturing base which there may be in other parts of the Commonwealth. But, in any case, if it has the best grass in the world, and can produce some of the best food in the world more cheaply, why should we not enjoy it? Quite frankly, that is my attitude on this matter. Therefore we are absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider carefully whether, taking all the circumstances of New Zealand into

  881
  account, its historic relationships and matters of trade with the United Kingdom, we should ensure that where they are concerned we have something better than the short, interim arrangement which is all we have so far been able to come to.
  LORD TANLAW: Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she agree with me that in the past two years there has been an increase in beef prices, both from Australia and New Zealand, through exports to America and Japan? Would she also agree that this is due to the increased marketability of dairy and beef products from Australia and New Zealand?
  BARONESS WHITE: Dairy products are more difficult. There has been a general scarcity of beef throughout the world, and a general increase in beef prices. New Zealand, no doubt, has benefited from that, as have other producers of beef.
  LORD TANLAW: I quite agree. If the noble Baroness cares to look at the figures, the increase in the price of beef has been very considerable and has given new prosperity to areas producing beef and mutton products.
  9.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I do not feel that any special provision needs to be made for New Zealand in this Bill. May I draw your Lordships' attention to Part IV of the Treaty of Rome in which there are special provisions for the association of overseas countries and territories. France, Italy, Germany and Holland, like Britain, have extensive dominions and colonies spread over many parts of the world. They are provided for in the Treaty; there are special conditions for those areas. One of the important factors here is something which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said: you negotiate into a Treaty. This is the important point. We are negotiating into this Treaty, and our vote in the Community is going to be of far greater benefit to countries like Australia and New Zealand with us in the Common Market rather than out of it.
  I do not think that this Amendment is something we should wish to bring into an English Bill; it is something we need to introduce in our negotiations when we
  882
  are in the Common Market. Many years ago I travelled fairly extensively in New Zealand and Australia. They look to the Pacific, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea for the main outlet of trade today. Any cargo which leaves Australia or New Zealand by sea has not only to cross the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, but it also has to cross the Atlantic Ocean as well. This brings costs up a good deal higher. I know that it also means that it is more difficult for us to export to them; but more and more both New Zealand and Australia have looked to Japan, Malaya and North America for their maintrade outlets. Equally, those countries now are doing much more trade with Australia and New Zealand than is the whole of Europe. But if we go into Europe, then, with a strong Britain in a strong Europe, we shall be in a much better position to compete and will be able to export to Australia and New Zealand in spite of the fact that we have to cross two oceans to do it. This is why we must leave the Bill as it stands. I do not think this Amendment would be right, nor do I think that New Zealand, as one country, should be specified in the Bill. There are provisions in the Treaty and I am sure these things can be negotiated.
  9.20 p.m.
  LORD SHINWELL: There was a time when the Conservative Party believed in the Commonwealth. Now they are ready to throw it overboard and to deal only with New Zealand. It is impossible to comprehend this situation accurately except in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, which in effect is the French agricultural policy, and the situation in New Zealand. My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, referred to an impudent, aggressive and offensive declaration made by a French politician, a Minister I believe, in connection with the resentment of the New Zealand and the Australian Governments about the nuclear tests in the Pacific. That is not the first time that there have been very forthright and, in my judgment, offensive declarations by French politicians about New Zealand and the Commonwealth. For example, an ex-agricultural Minister of France, M. Pisani, said some considerable time ago when the subject of British entry into the Common Market was prominent in people's minds

  883
  here and in the Commonwealth, that for Britain to enter the E.E.C. meant the end of the Commonwealth. That was his declaration; it is on record.
  I do not understand the attitude of noble Lords opposite. Why can they not contrast the contribution made by France in the last war, in the effort in which we were fundamentally involved, alongside the contribution made by New Zealand? They should remember that France had a population of 50 million, had conscription, was adequately armed and was under agreement with us to resist aggression, and that New Zealand had but two million people. They should consider the contribution that was made by New Zealand in contrast to the contribution that was made by France. In the Second Reading debate I ventured to quote what Neville Chamberlain recorded in his diary before he died, about the attitude of France in the last war and about how France had acted in a treacherous fashion. Noble Lords should contrast the policies of the two countries—a Commonwealth country on the one hand and France on the other.
  New Zealand is apprehensive about what is to happen in the future despite what the noble Earl opposite has said. He spoke in a very optimistic fashion—everything will come right. How does he know? What evidence has he to support that contention? I would have thought that the Conservative Party would have held strongly, firmly and fundamentally to its belief that there is something in the Commonwealth worth retaining. There is no question about it. Why are we not realistic about it? Once we are in the Common Market the Commonwealth connection will languish and ultimately fade. Some members of the Conservative Party have expressed a view on this matter. Mr. Enoch Powell, for example, has expressed the view that the Commonwealth problem does not matter any more. One might say the same about the United Nations. Indeed, if I had to choose between the Commonwealth and the United Nations— I refer to what remains of it; I care less about the emergent nations than I do about the old Commonwealth—I would prefer the Commonwealth because I believe it is a greater moral force in the world than the United Nations, largely
  884
  because of the composition of the United Nations. That is how I feel about it.
  On several occasions I have spoken in the other place and have never at any time resiled from my belief that the Commonwealth is changing. I dislike intensely the idea that it should be treated in this deplorable fashion. I have experience of New Zealand; some members of my family live there. It is a lovely country with a lovely people. It is essentially English, apart from Dunedin which is essentially Scots. Now we are throwing them over, jettisoning them. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for acting in this fashion.
  I can remember, too, a few years ago when this subject of the E.E.C. was in the public mind, and also the concern of the other place that a large section of the Conservative Party supported the view that has been expressed by my noble friends here about the New Zealand connection and the need for retaining that connection. That seems to have vanished. What a transformation! What an amazing phenomenon! This has come from the Conservative Party. If it had come from the Labour Party it might have been said, "Well, what do they care about the Commonwealth, anyhow! They are concerned about internal matters only, domestic matters, and so on." But this has happened in the Conservative Party. Does the noble Viscount wish to interrupt?
  VISCOUNT AMORY: The noble Lord is not being quite fair to the view that has been expressed by one or two of my noble friends already in this debate on this side of the Committee. We are not willing or anxious to do damage to New Zealand at all. Our view is that by going into Europe we are going to be of more use to the Commonwealth. including New Zealand, than we should be if we remained outside. The noble Lord must not imply to us a willingness to throw the Commonwealth over in favour of Europe, because that is not our view. Our view is definitely that by going into Europe we are more likely to be of use to the Commonwealth and able to fulfil our responsibilities to it than if we remained outside Europe.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD SHINWELL: I suppose that that applause is intended to indicate support for what the noble Viscount said.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD SHINWELL: Precisely, I was right. Intelligent anticipation. I have the greatest respect for the noble Viscount opposite, as he knows. I had a great respect for him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—and that is saying something. But he reminds me of the old saying, "It's all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" You will understand what I mean.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
  LORD SHINWELL: This is what you have done. Oh yes, you have a lot of affection for New Zealand; but look what you are doing to her! I would say to the noble Viscount opposite that all you can say in extenuation is that you hope for the best it cannot be said that New Zealand will lose. The noble Earl on the Back Bench made an outrageous speech; it was one of the worst I have heard in the course of these debates. He dismissed New Zealand. He just threw it aside, like scraps of paper. All that is being said is, "It will come all right" Just imagine what we get from the Liberal Benches—and when I say "the Liberal Benches" your Lordships see what I mean!
  We are told that the price of New Zealand beef and mutton will go up in the United States of America, and therefore New Zealand will become more prosperous. Of course one can say nowadays that the price of beef has gone up everywhere. It has gone up in this country, but we are not any more prosperous, are we? I cannot understand these arguments—they are so fallacious. Anyway, they seem to be quite irrelevant, so I will merely make to noble Lords opposite one point in connection with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury; that the assurances given to the New Zealand Government are adequate; but what really happened? If ever there was a case of arm-twisting it was between Mr. Rippon and some of his colleagues and the Ministers who came over from New Zealand to take part in these difficult negotiations.
  LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that the Prime Minister of New Zealand was satisfied. While the noble Lord's arguments are quite convincing, and I do not disagree with many of them, about patriotism, I wish the noble Lord had applied the same thoughts to Rhodesia when we discussed that problem.
  BARONESS ELLES: I wish to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on his memory, perhaps of a few years ago, but he may not recall so clearly what happened only last year. At that time, the Government, with the full backing of the Party and in the person of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, practically broke off negotiations with the Communities because they were not giving New Zealand fair treatment; and it was only because the Government were fair in their plans for protecting New Zealand and demanding fair terms for New Zealand that negotiations were then resumed. This was also with the agreement of the Prime Minister and Government of New Zealand.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  BARONESS ELLES: I think the noble Lord will appreciate that New Zealand has never had such fair terms, either in the long term of being a guaranteed market and—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was in fact still speaking, and that it would be right for her to put a question to the noble Lord.
  LORD SHINWELL: I think the noble Baroness should be treated with the utmost courtesy. If she wanted to go on speaking I should be the last person to complain—not that what she said mattered very much. But I will come to that point in a moment. Of course there were negotiations, and I followed them very closely at the time. But there was a great deal of arm-twisting. As I said, New Zealand were told they had better be satisfied, and they did say that they were satisfied; but there were reservations. The noble Lord opposite

  887
  knows that there were such reservations; indeed, there are still reservations, and these have been referred to by my noble friends Lord Greenwood and Lady White. For the life of me I cannot understand why members of the Conservative Party should act in this fashion. At the least we ought to have more definite assurances than have yet been given in order to demonstrate to the people in New Zealand (if they get to know what we are talking about) that in your Lordships' House there are some noble Lords—if not a majority—who wish New Zealand well, who are apprehensive about the future of New Zealand and are anxious to impress upon the United Kingdom Government and all those associated with this subject that New Zealand should have a fair and square deal.
  LORD GLADWYN: Perhaps I may say just one word. Since last Thursday I have been waiting to discover an Amendment for which I could legitimately vote in accordance with the principles of the Liberal Party which I outlined at that time; namely, that it must not be a wrecking Amendment; that it must not he a legal nitpicking but must be something which on the face of it added substantially to the Bill and could be considered to be a real improvement. I am quite certain that this particular Amendment is not an improvement. I think there is a considerable tendency on the part of a number of noble Lords to pile on the agony, as it were, with regard to the New Zealand settlement, which most of us, quite independently, came to the conclusion was a reasonable settlement at the time it was negotiated by Mr. Rippon. We know that it is an interim measure and that everything depends on what happens in a few years' time. It is clear that New Zealand must diversify and find other markets. It cannot go on being a British farm, and preferences will probably disappear whatever policy we adopt. whether or not we enter the Common Market.
  What has been said about M. Messmer is not evidence. He was speaking in a moment of passion. Whether or not he remains the Prime Minister of France for long, he cannot speak for the Community as a whole. Whatever language he may use by way of threats is not
  888
  evidence of what will happen to New Zealand once we are in the Community. There is a considerable amount of misconception among noble Lords about what happens inside the Community and how the E.E.C. works. Let us assume the worst and that in 1977 or 1978 there is a bad mood among our colleagues, who will not renew the arrangements for New Zealand, even on moderately satisfactory terms. In that event there will be a row in the Community, feverish arguments behind the scenes with one set taking one view and another set taking a contrary attitude. There will be bargaining and eventually a satisfactory new solution will, I am sure, emerge for New Zealand after 1978.
  That being the case, I could not possibly vote for an Amendment which, it passed, would give the impression to our friends in the Community that we were joining them simply with the intention of pushing our own view forward irrespective of theirs and regardless of whether there was a possibility of reaching a reasonable bargain. I therefore urge all noble Lords to resist the Amendment.
  9.37 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put his finger on the whole question when he pointed out that we have fought hard to get good arrangements for New Zealand and that we must, by going into the Community, assume that our partners will work with us to try to overcome the many problems which will confront us all, and not only New Zealand. When the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaks he loves to make a lot of mischief. We know that and we take his remarks in that spirit. But when the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, speaks—I was careful to make a note of some of the words he used—it is a different matter, and I thought that he went much too far when he said that this Government were casting New Zealand away and stabbing that country in the back. Indeed, his comments made me wonder whether he had read properly and carefully the terms of the protocol on the arrangements for New Zealand. The sort of language the noble Lord used was unfortunate because the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in this House is read, in the same way as notice is taken of what is said in another place. It

  889
  would be bad if it went out that your Lordships had somehow agreed to some sort of arrangement which had not kept the interests of New Zealand at heart.
  The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that we must have some sentiment for and anxiety about New Zealand. I assure her that we all have anxieties and that many of us have connections; for example, my father was born in New Zealand and I have four cousins on sheep stations there. Many noble Lords can claim connections of that kind. The fact remains that what we are asked to approve in this Amendment is that the arrangements that go on to 1977 should be continued; otherwise there is a sort of feeling of distrust—that somehow or other things will be much worse.
  I did so very much agree, if I may say so, with my noble friend Lord Amory and with my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Harvey of Prestbury, who quite rightly said that this country has fought very hard in these negotiations to get fair terms, as indeed was said by my noble friend Lady Elles. If we look at Protocol 18—
  BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Baroness for one moment? Would she not agree that, after all, what we are saying in this Amendment is nothing derogatory to the arrangement reached up to December 31, 1977, nor is it laying down any specific terms or conditions for what should happen thereafter? All we are saying is that we recognise that we have a longer-term obligation to New Zealand which should be negotiated. If it has been negotiated by the end of 1977 well and good; the Amendment would be of no effect. But we recognise we have a longer-term obligation to New Zealand. That is what we meant.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think we are all agreed about that. But the terms in which this was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, seemed to suggest that the actual arrangements we have secured up to 1977 were not satisfactory, and also implied, absolutely clearly, that it was highly doubtful that we would get as good arrangements after 1977. Protocol 18 to the Treaty of Accession provides in relation to butter, which is much the most important agricultural product
  890
  referred to in this Amendment, that the Council of the enlarged Community
  "shall, during 1975, review the situation…"
  taking into account the changing conditions of the times. And, as has been said by several noble Lords, there will be changing conditions because NewZealand, like many other countries, has to diversify her economy. She does not wish to be dependent only on agricultural products.
  On top of that, this Protocol also makes it clear that we have to take into account any progress which is made towards a world agreement on milk products, which is very important. The Council after that will decide measures which will
  "…ensure the maintenance after 31 December, 1977, of exceptional arrangements in respect of imports of butter from New Zealand".
  These are points of great value for they do recognise the importance to New Zealand of continuing arrangements for butter after the five-year period for which detailed provision is already made in the Protocol. Of course, one can always quote authorities who are critical or not critical in any Government or any Opposition in any Parliament at any time, but I would only say that the Prime Minister in charge at the time, Sir Keith Holyoake, did say, and I quote:
  "it was a major concession to New Zealand and a result which was highly satisfactory".
  He, of course, would have to be responsible to his electorate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned particularly sheep products, and of course there is at the moment no sheep meat regulation in the Community. We will have a chance, when we are a member, of being able to influence policy on this, which equally will be of importance. If sheep meat is well advertised in the Community I believe that New Zealand will have a great opportunity to sell a product which is, on the whole, little known outside this country, and not nearly so well known as beef. The Treaty quite clearly says that measures to keep the exceptional arrangements for New Zealand butter after 1977 shall be decided by the Council. That provision does afford, I suggest to the Committee, the best possible safeguard for New Zealand's interests. Furthermore, because the Government of the day will

  891
  be answerable to the House for any agreement they make, it does seem to me that this Protocol gives us the best safeguard which we could, in very hard bargaining, achieve for New Zealand. I do really suggest to the Committee that the Amendment before your Lordships implies a measure of doubt not only about what we can all achieve after 1977 but about the achievements we have won to-day. Therefore I would ask the Committee to reject it.
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Baroness quoted from Article 5 of Protocol 18. Here again, as part of our education can she tell me what happens if the Council are not unanimous on a proposal from the Commission? Does the Commission's recommendation then override the lack of unanimity on the Council? Supposing, for one moment, Lord Gladwyn's gloomy expectations of M. Messmer's expectations of life in office are falsified, and there is a feeling that what the Commission has recommended in its objective way is not acceptable, what would happen then and what would then be the position of the British Government?
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If one looks at Article 5, paragraph 2, of this particular Protocol 18, it will be seen—and I expect Lord Shackleton was referring to this—that it is the Council which has to act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission; in other words, it is not the Commission but the Council which has to act unanimously, and if the Council were not unanimous one member of the Council, including ourselves if necessary, would be able to vote down a particular proposal. But what one has to look at is the practice of the Council so far in the life of the Community; and
  where there is a matter of great importance, such as this of New Zealand, it is perfectly clear that agreement is reached by consent—there is no voting procedure in the way there would be on a majority proposal. It is a decision which is reached by consent; and without it, of course, the Community could not operate.
  LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: We have had from the noble Baroness and from noble Lords on the opposite side of the House a number of hopes and expectations and aspirations about what is going to happen in respect of the New Zealand economy over the next few years, but we have had no positive certainty whatsoever, and the whole position really is clouded in un-certainty. We have not achieved what Mr. Gaitskell called the "seven years' dole"; we are very far short of getting the generation's guarantees for New Zealand that Mr. Wilson has called for, and we hear from the noble Baroness that one single member of the Council could veto proposals for helping New Zealand when the agreement comes up for review. If M. Messmer's behaviour and words in the Pacific are anything to go by, we cannot expect very much generosity of approach towards our old friends in New Zealand. I believe that the people of New Zealand should know that they are not without friends in this House. I believe that they should know that the Conservative Party want to make New Zealand stronger by buying less of her products and bring her nearer by making her more remote. For that reason I shall ask the Committee to divide.
  9.48 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 24; Not-Contents, 114.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Segal, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Hirshfield. L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Beswick, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Lindsay of Birker, L.

  Shinwell. L.

  Brockway, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Strabolgi. L. [Teller]

  Champion, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Watkins, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Phillips, Bs.

  White, Bs.

  Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

  Rusholme, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Northchurch, Bs.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Amory, V.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Pender, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Perth, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Poole, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Rankeillor, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Gage, V.

  Reay, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Reigate, L.

  Blake, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Remnant, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Bradford, E.

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

  Robbins, L.

  Brecon, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Brentford. V.

  Hanworth, V.

  St. Just, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hewlett, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hives, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Craigavon, V.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Latymer, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Thomas, L.

  Croft, L.

  Lothian, M.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Twcedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  de Clifford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller]

  Mountevans, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

  Wynford, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Newall, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  9.56 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions.")
  The noble Lord said: I listened with great interest to the figures of the Division, and as the numbers of "Not-Contents "were announced I noted on the faces of a number of noble Lords present a slight smirk, a grin. I see a grin there now. I was reminded, when I heard those voting figures, of some words spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a debate which we had on Thursday in which he dismissed entirely, and with contempt, the idea that we should submit this matter to a referendum of the British people.
  The noble and learned Lord, pointing out the superiority of our system as against what he described as the "alien practice of a referendum", said this:
  "But ours is a democracy through Parliamentary representation, based on an assembly popularly elected but presided over by a Government responsible to that Parliament and composed of members of that majority Party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/8/72, col. 602.]
  LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but which Amendment are we talking about?
  LORD BESWICK: I am talking about Amendment No. 28, which has a reference to Parliamentary authority.
  LORD DERWENT: Thank you so much.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord may not like it, but I could not easily reconcile the reference of the noble and learned Lord to a popularly elected assembly with the picture I saw of noble Lords going by in their great numbers.
  LORD GLADWYN: Why?
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asks me "Why?". I wonder what his majority was when he was popularly elected". I failed to notice the great support that he had from the people whom he now represents. I really feel sometimes, when we are discussing this matter, that we might have from the large number of people who tramp through that Division Lobby, a little less of the assertiveness (shall I say?) that we saw a few minutes ago. Now I come to the Amendment.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD BESWICK: The assertiveness which I saw a few minutes ago, and which I now see repeated again. I now come to the Amendment. I submit that the Amendment is straightforward, and I should have thought it is honourable. I think all will accept that. It would merely add:
  "that nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions"
  Although we shall all accept it as a straightforward and honourable Amendment, it may be said that it is not an essential Amendment. I want to suggest that it is essential. No one will pretend that there is not concern about this issue of sovereignty. There have already been many pronouncements. Most of them seek to give us assurance. But there are differences in the emphasis of these assurances, and I hope the Committee will agree that this is a matter about which there ought to be no doubt at all. I leave aside for the moment those authorities in Brussels who, on this issue of sovereignty, appear to believe in a doctrine of erosion. "Community law" they say,"is a living thing, a dynamic thing, and gradually it will assume complete superiority over municipal law"—a sort of legal Gresham's Law—bad law driving out good.
  But leaving aside that doctrine of erosion, there is the question of what will be the position with regard to sovereignty if this Bill is passed. On most occasions most authorities say that sovereignty remains. The noble and learned Lord, speaking earlier to a previous Amendment, said that, no matter
  896
  what doubts we had about Parliamentary control, at any rate sovereignty would remain unaffected. But it was not put as clearly as that in what the same noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading. On Second Reading he appeared to be saying something which was in conflict with what his learned colleague had said in another place. In another place the Solicitor General (and I quote from Hansard of July 5, 1972, column 629) said, quoting with approval the words of Lord Diplock:
  "'If The Queen in Parliament were to make laws which were in conflict with this country's obligations under the Treaty of Rome, those laws, and not the conflicting provisions of the Treaty, would be given effect to as the domestic law of the United Kingdom'."
  Now that was something quite certain. The Lord Chancellor, however, speaking on the Second Reading on July 25, 1972, said this at column 1230 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "This conflict"—
  the conflict between municipal law and the Community law—
  "exists and has been discussed, in France…in Germany…and…also in Italy. If it arises here—and I think it is doubtful whether it will arise—it will arise not because of conflict with our Written Constitution, because we have not a Written Constitution, but in relation to the doctrine which we do possess…"
  Later on he went on to refer to it as:
  "the doctrine of the priority of later Acts over previous Acts: that rule of construction whereby when two Acts conflict the later is construed as amending or repealing the earlier one."
  He then said:
  "It is to meet this difficulty that Clause 2(4) has been inserted as an express provision in the Bill in so far as it provides that obligations arising under Clause 2(1) (Community obligations) have precedence over subsequent enactments."
  The noble and learned Lord was saying, as I understand him, that if there is this possibility of later legislation upsetting earlier legislation, then subsection (4) would deal with it.
  Now I am simply saying that if there is a risk at all, if there are any doubts at all—and I am not here purporting to say, and it would of course be absurd of me to say, whether the noble and learned Lord was right or not—and if there is this difference of emphasis, then we should not take risks on this issue. Alternatively, I am saying that even if

  897
  there were no doubt, if there were no risk as between one lawyer and another, then, to satisfy the ordinary people in this country, there is no reason why we should not have this position expressly stated in terms in the Bill. I feel that it is particularly important for this country that we should have this protection, since we do not have the kind of protection which a Written Constitution affords to some of the other members of the Community
  I gather, as the noble and learned Lord himself said, that there are at the present time cases in certain other member States—in the Netherlands there is a case; in Germany there is a case, and it may be that the question of the importation of Algerian semolina is providing another case in France—where there is conflict as between the municipal court and the Community Court. In the cases of Germany, the Netherlands and France, it is possible to point to the Written Constitution which gives them some protection. Professor Wade, in the article to which I have already referred, made this comment:
  "Being the only member with no formal Constitution, Britain alone will have no sacrosanct preserves of fundamental Community-proof law."
  Therefore I am saying that it would be advisable to put this matter beyond doubt by writing it into the Bill.
  The noble and learned Lord said at the beginning of the afternoon's proceedings that he was anxious to be as constructive as possible; he wanted to get away from the general philosophical discussion which he thought was unconstructive; he wanted to be able to show his sympathy with Amendments which were, as he put it, meaningful and constructive. In this Amendment I am not asking him to throw any principles overboard; I am asking him to show sympathy, to accept a constructive effort to put into the Bill something which I believe the majority of people would like to see established beyond doubt. I beg to move.
  10.8 p.m.
  LORD BERNSTEIN: I support this Amendment absolutely. I speak with some degree of diffidence, since I am a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House. I am heartened because of the speech of the noble Earl,
  898
  Lord Lauderdale, in the Second Reading debate. It made me feel that there was some reason for being a Back Bencher in this House. Why am I saddened? Why am I disillusioned? It is rather by what happened last Thursday than by to-day's proceedings. I do not think that any Member of this House realises the damage that is being done to this House by its behaviour and the way these Amendments are being treated. It may be that in the view of some it does not matter what the people outside think. I believe it does. What was said in '98 or '57 by the Labour Party and by the Conservative Party is completely unimportant. I noticed that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answered the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, he talked about what the Labour Party said but made no comment on what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, had said and of how he went up and down the country supporting the Conservative Party's Election Manifesto.
  What the Government have to do is to do justice to this Bill on its merits. I have accepted that the Government of the day will carry this Bill through to its final conclusion and that we shall become members of the Community. I ask myself what a Back Bencher can do in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, also said that he accepted that this House rests on its role as a revising Chamber. I thought so, too. We had a number of important Bills before the House, in two of which I was involved. In both cases a great number of Amendments were made. Some were produced by the Government, some by the Liberal Party, some by the Cross-Benches and some by the Members of these Benches. Both Bills were improved. They were not necessarily made ideal Bills, but they were better than they were when they came to your Lordships' House. I had hoped that your Lordships' House would have the same opportunity with this Bill, but evidently that is not so. I know about the promises and the words said on Thursday night, that we are not "bloody-minded", but facts will speak louder than promises or words.
  Last week we had a debate on Clause 30 of the Criminal Justice Bill and we had the benefit of hearing the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice,

  899
  and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. Noble Lords of great legal standing and quality of mind offered their views on a humane problem. For me that was a most interesting debate which revealed your Lordships' House at its best. It was not a Party matter but an attempt to find a clause which would cover problems with which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had tried to deal. What interested me was that eminent legal Members of your Lordships' House all wanted a clause to cover a situation on which there was general agreement, but there was no question of agreement on the wording of the clause, as is usual among legal people. The matter was not resolved by a Division, but because the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, promised to reconsider the proposal in the light of the debate. The fight between one lawyer and another continues in respect of this Bill but why must it be so?
  I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I am repetitive, but I have tried on the few occasions on which your Lordships have been kind enough to listen to me to be brief and to speak quickly because I do not want to waste anyone's time, including my own. I recommend those waiting in the Library for the Division bell to ring to read the Report of that debate. It illustrates the difference of views on some of these clauses which are a much more important matter. I am not suggesting that humane problems are not important, but this Bill will affect the nations for all time, and therefore the interpretation of each clause, each line, requires the most careful consideration.
  There is not much to explain about the purpose of this Amendment; it is unusually clear. I am sure that most of your Lordships have enough worldly experience to realise its implication. It is that Parliament should remain sovereign. If we accept Parliament as the authority to carry out the wishes of the country—I would rather not become involved in Royal Prerogatives—there must be a limitation on the powers given outside the purview of Parliament. To me and to many others the Council of Ministers seems to supersede Parliament in many matters. The Government have
  900
  decided on the right to produce this Bill and the right to put it through Parliament. At least they should restrict themselves to what they originally said that they wanted to do, which was to produce legislation for our benefit with the agreement of other countries in the Community. As I understand it, once our Minister on the Council of Ministers agrees to something we are bound. What can Parliament do about it? I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about this last week. He answered that it could be that an Order in Council might be made by a Government which had a very narrow majority. Parliament might not like the Order in Council. He said that it was possible that the courts of the country could not be used, and the only person with an opportunity and a right to appear in this sort of case was somebody directly affected. Someone with only a hypothetical case was not given an audience by the court.
  Who could take an action to get an Order in Council changed? I know we have been told that all will be well on the night. But as someone who has been involved in what is called "show business "I would not bank on that. They say, "Just trust us and you will not be hurt." I think that we may all well be hurt. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke about the rules of the club. I am a member of a few clubs, and it is quite true that I joined accepting the rules of the day. If the rules are changed I have an opportunity to resign. If the rules are changed here, as I understand it, we cannot resign. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said:
  "The only proof of the pudding is in the eating."
  But it may be too late. The pudding might be backdated; it might be poisonous; it might be too late for us to receive medical attention. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
  "The Bill will not affect the sovereignty of Parliament."
  I really do not know what the noble Lord meant by that, and perhaps he will tell me. He added:
  "Parliament could bring in legislation."
  What does that mean? Does it mean that Parliament can bring in legislation which would override what has been done by the Community of Ministers? Why cannot we be told quite clearly whether

  901
  the Parliaments of Holland and Germany have powers that will not be available to us? What privileges have they got that we have not? We can all assume that there is enough power behind the Government to ensure that this Bill will be part of the legislation of this country. The question for your Lordships, and particularly the Back-benchers on both sides, is: how can we improve this Bill, carrying out the purposes intended, and still exercising the democratic rights and responsibilities of Parliament? This is our chance. For these reasons, I support the Amendment and hope that your Lordships on both sides will vote for it.
  10.17 p.m.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Surely we should be sensible. Sovereignty is a philosophical conception. It is none the less real, and it cannot be circumscribed or detailed and written into a Treaty. What "sovereignty "means is the consent of the people concerned to be governed in a certain way. It does not matter what Treaty has been signed by
  902
  any country; when the consent fails, that Treaty fails also. Sovereignty depends entirely on the consent and willingness of the people who are concerned in this Treaty. Therefore I see no point in writing this in in detail, because this is one of the facts of life. A look at history will bear out what I say. I think that as it stands the Bill is sufficient and there is no point in writing in sovereignty.
  LORD BERNSTEIN: If I may answer the noble Baroness, she may well be right. All I know is that in this country, if you ask most people, they will assume that Parliament has sovereign rights in this country. That is what it is all about. It may be possible to find legal words to prove that I am wrong, but the fact is that that is what people think.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: So long as Parliament consents, Parliament retains sovereignty: when Parliament no longer consents, it retains sovereignty over whatever it is being asked to do.
  10.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Without wishing to prolong this particular argument I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that if we say that sovereignty rests on the consent of the people we are on difficult ground in this particular context. I will not press that further. We have had slightly different emphases from Members of Her Majesty's Government on this matter of sovereignty. Those of us who have read the proceedings in another place will know that the Solicitor General has spoken of the whole thing as "a continuing act of sovereignty". We know also that the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke of the sovereignty involvement of this Treaty being "broadly similar to that of other Treaties." But we have yet to find any Member of the Front Bench, legal or otherwise, who will identify the similarities.
  Listening to these confusions of course has whetted the appetites of those who have curious rather than deep minds to learn what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will tell us. He told us on Second Reading that our sovereignty would be left unimpaired if by that was meant—and that is what he thought it meant—the right to do anything we liked, good or bad. Then to-day he told us a little more, which made me wonder whether I was a drunken man who said, "Am I or does it?" He told us that really the test of sovereignty lay in our right to denounce the Treaty and walk out. The Amendment has a certain beautiful simplicity. It embraces neatly and properly all that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been telling us. It embraces his assurances, which up till now are of course his opinions. It enshrines them in the golden letter of Statute and provides what I submit is a test of sincerity. Therefore I would support the Amendment.
  LORD GLADWYN: I oppose this Amendment but for reasons opposite to those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, whose argument was that it was a fundamental truth and, as such, did not need any repetition in the Act or anywhere else. I can understand that argument but I do not share it. I myself am frankly a supra-nationalist. I have said
  904
  repeatedly for many years—and indeed I repeat now—that this thing cannot work unless you accept certain supra-nationalist principles. You cannot possibly imagine a monetary union working without some authority of some kind which would be supra-national. I believe that the Government agreed with the Italian Government that the powers of the European Parliament should be increased fairly soon after our entry. Perhaps they still believe that; but if you give the European Parliament real power it means that in the last resort that Parliament could pass something over the heads of the British members, from whichever Party they are recruited, in our Parliament. Therefore, if you are in favour of increasing the powers of the European Parliament you are necessarily in favour in the last resort of some kind of supra-national solution.
  Of course you can play about with the word "sovereignty" and can make it mean almost anything you like for the purposes of the argument. But I would not be able to vote for an Amendment which says:
  "nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament…"
  I believe that the only hope in the long run of making this thing work is that the sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament shall be in some respects reduced, or limited at any rate, by general consent, including our own consent. Whether or not our own Parliament has the right to repeal the Act seems to me to be a quite different question. I would not myself dispute that the Parliament here has in the last resort the right to repeal the Act, to get out of the Community if it so desires and if that is the popular will. I have said before that I do not think it will arise in that way. Either the Community will work, in which case nobody will want to get out (and indeed they will not be able to) or it will break up, and in that case there will be no question of our repealing anything. It would not go on existing; it would have ceased to exist. Nevertheless, if it were really desired that we should put something into this Act, something to the effect that
  "nothing in the Act shall be held to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions"

  905
  I personally would be prepared to vote for that. I should in no circumstances vote for the first part of the Amendment to the effect that
  "nothing…shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament."
  I hope I have made my position clear.
  10.25 p.m.
  LORD STOW HILL: I should like to make just a short intervention. I am quite sure that many of your Lordships in all parts of the Committee would agree that my noble friend Lord Beswick has in his Amendment touched upon something which is of crucial importance. I should like, if I may, just once again to remind your Lordships of the exact purport of this Amendment. What he is seeking to do is to protect the "ultimate"—that is the word that appears in the Amendment—sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament. He wants to make certain that there is nothing which will prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal this Bill when it becomes an Act, or alter its provisions. I should have thought—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, just now stated this—that if Parliament wishes to repeal an Act which it has passed there is nothing in the wide world which can stop it. It has always
  an ultimate supremacy in that sense. We could repeal this Act, and we could, by so doing, breach the Treaty provisions. It may be that, as a result, we should find ourselves taken before the International Court at The Hague.
  The reason for my intervention is that I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be a most powerful analysis of what the actual position is. This is in a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls. Many of us remember with affection Mr. Raymond Blackburn in another place. Mr. Blackburn had brought an action asking for declarations against the Attorney General dealing specifically with this question of the supremacy of Parliament in an endeavour to prevent steps from being taken by the Government, which, in Mr. Blackburn's view, might prejudice that ultimate supremacy. The action was dismissed. It went to the Court of Appeal, and I should like to cite
  906
  relevant passages from the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I will quote selectively but, I hope, fairly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
  "Much of what Mr. Blackburn says Is quite correct. It does appear that if this country should go into the Common Market and sign the Treaty of Rome it means that we will have taken a step which is irreversible. The sovereignty of these Islands will thenceforward be limited. It will not be ours alone but will be shared with others."
  Then I think I may pass over a good deal and go to a passage somewhat later on in the judgment, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, used this language:
  "We have all been brought up to believe that, in legal theory, one Parliament cannot bind another, and that no Act is irreversible. But legal theory does not always march alongside political reality. Take the Statute of Westminster 1931, which takes away the power of Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse that Statute? Take the Acts which have granted independence to the Dominions and territories overseas. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse those laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom, once given, cannot be taken away. Legal theory must give way to practical politics. It is as well to remember the remark of Viscount Sankey, L.C., in British Coal Corporation v. The King:
  'The Imperial Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. But that is theory and has no relation to reality.'".
  That is the end of that quotation, and I go back to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He continued:
  "What are the realities here? If Her Majesty's Ministers sign this Treaty and Parliament enacts provisions to implement it, I do not envisage that Parliament would afterwards go back on it and try to withdraw from it. But if Parliament should do so, then I say we will consider that event when it happens. We will then say whether Parliament can lawfully do it or not."
  I summarise that judgment, I hope correctly, as follows. Of course, in theory you can always repeal an Act of Parliament. There is nothing whatsoever to stop our Parliament next year repealing this Bill if it has become an Act. But, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that does not correspond with reality. Test it by reference to the Statute of Westminster 1931 which pro-

  907
  vided that the legislation of a Dominion, as it was then called, should not be invalid merely by reason of the fact that it conflicted with a Statute of our own Parliament at Westminster. Lord Denning is saying that it would be utterly and absurdly unrealistic for us now at Westminster to pass a Statute which conflicts with Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. It would be meaningless. We could do it, but it would not in any sense correspond with reality. Lord Denning is saying that this is exactly the position.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Would the noble, Lord allow me? He is quoting a treaty which dealt with the renunciation of rule over other people. Of course on that you cannot go back because the other people would not let you. We are dealing with our personal sovereignty.
  LORD STOW HILL: I hope the noble Baroness will argue that point with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am simply quoting the reasoning of Lord Denning which seems to me extremely convincing. What he is saying is that there is a parallel between the two situations. It would be just as unrealistic to try to repeal the Statute of Westminster, particularly Section 4 which had the effect that I have indicated, as it would be to try to repeal this Bill when it becomes an Act. I thought it would be of assistance to the Committee to cite from that judgment because it seems to me to make so clear the situation against the background of which my noble friend Lord Beswick is making the proposal which he does in his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I should like to say one thing on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said. He quoted Lord Denning, I think, as saying that freedom, once given, cannot be taken away. In this case surely it is confidence in Europe which, once given cannot be taken away—unless we have no confidence in the first place, and then we should not be entering into this at all. But I am confident that we have got this confidence; that we should give them confidence by showing that we have confidence.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the
  908
  Lord Chancellor, but I cannot help the fact that he is a little irrascible about it. This is an issue of vital importance to many millions of people in Britain. Here is a typical example of making this place a Reichstag. I do not accept the analogy given by my noble friend. The point was made exactly by the noble Baroness. We were talking about people's freedom. Here we are talking about this esoteric thing—confidence. There is nothing esoteric about giving people freedom, but there is something esoteric about giving a confidence which has never been tested by the British public. All we are saying is that if it is agreed that Parliament is not losing its sovereignty—we have had many jesuitical speeches—why be afraid of putting the phraseology in the Bill? You cannot have it both ways. I am tired of legal gymnastics on the question of the justice of this operation. Ninety-nine per cent of the people marching through that Lobby know in their hearts that we are doing something wrong to Britain in the way we are moving here.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: That is my contention and I may therefore be wrong. That is all. I accept that; of course I may be wrong.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I presume I have the right to say it is my contention.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has every right to express his opinion, but he has no right whatever in this Committee to say that noble Lords who vote one way are acting against their conscience. That is what led my noble friends to say. "Order!" I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his contention.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I did not say it that way at all, and I cannot help the noble and learned Lord getting white in the face about this. The very fact that he is doing it shows he is losing control. If the argument that has been put by the Lord Chancellor and others, that we

  909
  are not losing any of our sovereignty or supremacy, be true, then why not express it at the end of this clause? The logic is as simple as that. But the truth is different. There is a certain fear if we put this in. We are buying a pig in a poke, and we have gone in on a chance, and consequently we are thrust into this terrible position tonight. I do not feel happy about this. I feel very sad indeed. I apologise to noble Lords on both sides of the Committee if my attitude upsets them a little, but I believe I am right in standing up and putting my point of view. I may not have put it with the scintillating jocularity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I put it with as much heartfelt feeling for the sovereignty of the British people as he has.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If—all right.
  BARONESS WHITE: We all have a right to speak.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that I have not had the advantage of listening to the entire debates on this Bill so far, and therefore I had not intended to intervene on an Amendment of this kind. But having listened to the speeches I felt I must say a word or two. I was much impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and it seemed to me that he put his finger on the spot. He was frank with us. He said, "I believe in a supra-national Government." There have always been Members of both Houses of Parliament who have been quite frank that that is what they were aiming at; that that is what they had intended from the start. Therefore they, of course, have no qualms about the situation because this is what they have always hoped for; this is what they have always worked for. But I do put it, if one can have some little rational consideration by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that the Administration of which he is a member has never put to the people of this country that that is what they were aiming at. This was not put in the last Election. It was not included in their Manifesto. They never used the word "supra-national, did they? This is where I think some of us feel that the people of this country are being misled.
  910
  If the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment, well and good. Then we should be satisfied. But if they are not, then they are really misleading the people of this country. If they are not prepared to accept this Amendment then they are going all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and his friends, who, as I said, from the very outset have made no bones about it: they do not want this Parliament to be sovereign; it is not part of their philosophy. They believe that the time for sovereign Parliaments of individual States has come to an end.
  LORD GLADWYN: If I might interrupt the noble Baroness for one second, I would say that our conception is that we ought to be prepared to lose a little sovereignty, and some of our sovereignty should be pooled.
  BARONESS WHITE: A little sover-eignty maybe, at the beginning, but it is quite plain that if that is the basic philosophy you go step by step. My real objection is not so much the philosophical argument as the fact that I do not think it has ever been put to the people of Britain. It has never been argued on public platforms by leading members of the present Administration that this is what they are wishing to do. If I am mistaken in saying that this is what they are wishing to do, they have a very easy way of proving it: by accepting this Amendment. if they are prepared to accept this Amendment, then I take back everything I have said. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to get up and say, I am prepared to accept this Amendment", very well then, my allegation of ill-faith—and it is an allegation of ill-faith; I make no bones about it—will most certainly be withdrawn. But if he is not prepared to do that then I think the Administration stand condemned. They are trying to put through Parliament something which the people of this country, I am quite certain have not considered in anything like these absolute terms; and I am equally certain they would reject it if they knew what we were doing.
  10.40 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was quite surprised at the brief moment of silence. I only want to say to the noble

  911
  Baroness who has just spoken that I dealt with every syllable that she has uttered in the speech I made on the Amendment about the referendum the last time we discussed this Bill, and I can only—
  BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I finish the sentence? I can only refer her to what I said then, because I have nothing to add to it and nothing to qualify it with. The second thing I wanted to say was—
  BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged if the noble and learned Lord would withdraw what he said about a referendum. I was not asking for a referendum. I do not hold with a referendum; I hold with a representative Government. But the issue was never put to the people at the last Election and there was no mandate for it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Baroness will only do me the courtesy of reading what I said—because I do not think she was there at the time—she will see that what I have just said is exactly true and that every argument she presented to the Committee a moment ago was fully dealt with in my speech on the referendum Amendment. I am perfectly well aware that her arguments were not directed to a referendum, but I dealt with the situation in full then and I have nothing to add or to qualify what I said then.
  May I get back to the Amendment which we are actually discussing? It is abundantly obvious, not merely that this Bill does nothing to qualify the sovereignty of Parliament but that it could not do so. I explained exactly why this was so in my two speeches last year and in my speech on Second Reading, and I think about four times during this Committee stage. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, who claimed that I had never explained it, I can only refer him to those speeches, to which at the moment I have nothing to add. Also there was absolutely nothing inconsistent, either by way of content or by way of emphasis, between what I said on those occasions and what the Solicitor General said in the House of Commons. Indeed,
  912
  the Solicitor General said, in the same speech from which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, quoted exactly what I have been trying to say, in words which I would not seek to improve and I will now quote. He said, on July 5th, which was the same occasion as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick referred:
  "If no Statute can establish the rule that the courts obey Acts of Parliament, similarly no Statute can alter or abolish that rule. The rule is above and beyond the reach of Statute …because it is itself the source of the authority of Statute. This puts it into a class by itself among rules of common law, and the apparent paradox that it is unalterable by Parliament turns out to be a truism…Legislation owes its authority to the rule; the rule does not owe its authority to legislation"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/8/72, col. 628.]
  I could not put it more authoritatively than that.
  May I turn for a moment to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who quoted at great length from a judgment of Lord Denning in a case in which he decided against Mr. Raymond Blackburn, whom I also remember, but without much affection, in the House of Commons. Lord Denning, in the passage to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred, said that in theory you can always repeal an Act of Parliament. Of course politically you may not want to do so; of course politically you may not want to face the consequences of doing so; of course politically outside the jurisdiction of this country other people may not recognise what you have done. But that only emphasises the fatuousness of this Amendment which seeks to achieve what Lord Denning, in that judgment, explained was politically impossible.
  I am supposed to be answering the legal side of the Bill, but several noble Lords have described their boredom, for which I do not blame them, with the legal niceties of the case. I will, therefore reply to the legal realties of the Amendment in terms of a parable which shows the undesirability as well as the fatuousness of what is proposed. There were once two lovers standing at the altar in front of the priest and they were about to be married. The bridegroom was asked by the priest to utter the tremendous words of the marriage service. He said, "I John take thee Mary to my lawful wedded wife,…for better for

  913
  worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,… till death us to part" He then added, "Provided of course that nothing in what I have said alters or derogates in any way from the Matrimonial Causes Act and prevents me from presenting a petition to bring this marriage to an end if it is irretrievably broken down". At that the bride tore off her veil, hitched up her skirts and ran from the church. And how right she was!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the bride in that case was not paying £500 million a year to the bridegroom's father, who was a farmer?
  LORD BESWICK: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor finished?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said everything I want to say.
  LORD BESWICK: Which only goes to prove to my satisfaction that when the noble Earl the Leader of the House said that each Amendment would be treated on its merits, he was saying something which fell rather short of the truth. Like my noble friend Lady White, I too respect the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I respect the view of the federalist or supra-nationalist, and I said on Second Reading that one of the great criticisms of the present arrangement was that we were handing over control of our economic affairs without having made any attempt to set up a political authority to which the economic controllers would be answerable. This is a serious matter which has not even been touched on by noble Lords opposite in seeking to counter our arguments.
  I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the advantages of a supra-national or federalist set-up; but the fact of the matter is that this arrangement purports to be something different, and if we were to have a federal set-up we should need to make provision for it and have a proper Constitution. But that is not what we are proposing to do. We are proposing instead to have something which retains sovereignty here, and despite the noble and learned Lord's funny story about a lady who hitched up her skirts, I can see absolutely no reason why we should not accept the form of words which I have submitted this evening. The Lord Chancellor said it was a fatuous Amendment—he repeated that phrase. I suggest that it is not fatuous. It simply provides:
  "…nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament…"
  If the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, cannot understand the concept of sovereignty, which I admit is at times a somewhat academic concept, I am referring to the sovereignty of Parliament. The Amendment goes on:
  "or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions."
  I see nothing fatuous in that. It is reasonable. It is suggested that it may not be essential because there are other provisions, but they are not entirely clear. I hope there will be some noble Lords on the Benches opposite who will be prepared to vote for what they must see are the facts of the situation.
  10.49 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 103.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Segal, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Bernstein, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Watkins, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

  White, Bs.

  de Clifford, L.

  Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Amory, V.

  Balerno, L.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Balfour, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Fortescue, E.

  Poole, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Blake. L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Reay, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Boyle of Handsworth, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Brecon. L.

  Hailsham of Saint Maryle-

  Rcigate, L.

  Brentford, V.

  bone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Remnant, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Carrington. L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Robbins, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hewlett, L.

  St. Just, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hives, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sandford; L.

  Cowley, E.

  Inchyra, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Tellicoe E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Kemsley, V.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Croft, L.

  I.atymer, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Daventry, V.

  Lothian, M.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Tanlaw. L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Thomas, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Mountcvans, L.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Trefgarne, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Eccles. V.

  Newall. L.

  Vivian, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Northchurch. Bs.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Pender, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Perth, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Fisher, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  10.57 p.m.
  LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any proposal by one of the Community institutions which if agreed upon would give rise to a right power liability obligation or restriction, whether enforceable or not in the United Kingdom, shall be laid before Parliament and published by Her Majesty's Government before the Council of Ministers of the Communities, or the Commission, as the case may be, takes a decision thereupon.")
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move an Amendment which, if any Amendment we have put down is acceptable to the Committee, ought to be accepted. I should like to say that I hope that noble Lords opposite, in describing those of us who seek genuinely to do the job of criticising legislation will not describe this Amendment as fatuous. That would not help our proceedings, and I think it would be unworthy of the way the House of Lords and Parliament ought to consider this Bill.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible to give effect to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said on Second Reading. If any noble Lords here have not got the Amendment I will state briefly what it is:
  916
  "Any proposal…which…would give rise to a right power…obligation or restriction …shall be laid before Parliament and published by Her Majesty's Government before the Council of Ministers of the Communities, or the Commission,…takes a decision thereupon."
  It is very late in the evening to discuss a major proposal, albeit a very simple one, and I think there is little doubt that we shall wish to return to it at a later stage. But your Lordships may have noticed that of the four sponsors three are known pro-Marketeers. It can in no sense be said to be a wrecking Amendment; indeed, if I may say so, there has been scarcely an Amendment that could be called wrecking. This is one which I believe is essential to enable Parliament to do what it is going to have to do anyway. It does not directly raise the question of sovereignty; it raises the question of the proper participation of our Parliament, whether it be the House of Commons or the House of Lords, in regard to decisions which are taken either by the Council or by one of the other authorities or by the Commission.
  I should like to draw attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said, He said:
  "'That is why I drew attention to the importance of the fact that the moment the Commission submits its proposal to the Council, the proposal is published in a form which all of us can see is available to us".

  917
  My Lords, this Amendment gives precise effect to that. It does not seek to establish in any way the type of institutional arrangements committees or anything else that a Parliament may wish to use, but it is a normal provision in any Act of Parliament that there shall be adequate reports to Parliament.
  It is a striking fact that the Parliaments of some of the countries in the Community have been concerned about the lack of consultation, but there is one Parliament which has taken proper steps to this end—the German Parliament. I indicated earlier that they have written into their law, which gives effect to their adhesion to the European Community, a specific provision that the Government have to keep the Bundestag and the Bundesrat; and the Bundesrat, furthermore, has another special privilege in that they have a permanent observer at the Council currently informed about the developments in the Community. This is the key, in so far as through the decision of one of these Councils internal German laws become necessary or immediately applicable law as set out in the subsection (1) of this particular Clause or is created in the Federal Republic of Germany, this information should be provided before the Council decision.
  There will be opportunities later, when we come to further Amendments to this effect at a more convenient time of day, to describe the details as to how this works in Germany. But if any noble Lord wishes to study this, it is set out very clearly in the authoritative study by Niblock, published by Chatham House, a copy is available in the Library, which describes how this procedure works. We assume that the Government are in sympathy with this proposal, that they did not dispute the desirability of achieving this end by one means or another. They may wish to argue that it is not necessary for this to be included in the legislation. It is our duty—and I say this very seriously to noble Lords opposite—to ensure that an obligation is laid upon the Government—and. I repeat, whatever Government it may be. For as a former member of a Government I know the pressures that all the time face Governments as they seek to carry on in a busy life. However democratic their inclination may be, and however willing in principle they are to inform Parliament and
  918
  the public, in practice it is much simpler not to do so. Therefore, I think we would be remiss if we were not to establish this principle in the Bill.
  I shall speak very briefly to-night because we still have a lot of business to get through, but I hope noble Lords will consider this Amendment seriously. It is the sort of Amendment that ought to be made. It is the Amendment which I would believe that the Government would be prepared to make were it not for the constraints that they feel have been upon them in another place. If those constraints are removed, if we pass this Amendment and it passes into law—and I beg the Government to give this serious consideration—all that will be necessary is for another place to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Any possible extension of it is likely to be severely restricted under the rules of order of another place.
  No one can suggest that by passing this Amendment we would be in any way weakening the decision or the resolve to enter the Community. It is a quite fundamental principle that Parliament should be informed of these proposals. To-day and yesterday we have discussed this complicated law, and I will not go back over it again. Clearly we ought to know. A time may come when the European Parliament is an effective body and it will no longer be necessary, as it is to-day, for the British Parliament to exercise this oversight, but from all the information we have the European Parliament is a long way yet from being an effective body.
  I therefore urge the Government to consider this Amendment as a real contribution, and one that, furthermore, will go some way to reducing the anxieties which have been felt because of the Government's refusal to accept other Amendments, some of which I believe they could have accepted. This is one that they can accept, and I hope that they will accept. I am very reluctant to divide on something on which I believe there should be unanimity in this House. I shall await with great interest the reply of the noble Earl, if he is to answer this. I bee to move.
  LORD GLADWYN: May I ask the noble Lord one question, on the reply to which may depend my vote on what appears. on the face of it, to be quite a

  919
  constructive and forward-looking Amendment. Was the German procedure whereby the Bundesrat and Bundestag are informed in advance of impending legislation, among other things, in Brussels, previously formulated as part of the German equivalent to a Statute, as the proposal is here, or was it rather a Governmental declaration art the time when the Treaty was adhered to by the German Government?
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord has asked an important question. It was in fact Article 2 of the law which provided for the adhesion of West Germany to the European Parliament. This was the law that authorised the ratification of the Rome Treaty, passed by the Bundestag in 1957. There was then a clause inserted, Article 2, requiring the Federal Government to inform the two Houses of Parliament of projected Community decisions which, if passed, would necessitate changes being made in German law, or which would become directly applicable in Germany. Subsequently, by decision of Parliament, committees were set up to provide the necessary supervision. It is a fundamental part of the law which I have described, and if the noble Lord wishes I can give him the reference in Niblock. He will find it described in full on page 38.
  11.10 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: I should like very briefly to support my noble Leader in this Amendment. I am one of those whom he may have had in mind when he said that some of those responsive to this Amendment are convinced proMarketeers, so it is in no way an attempt to impede our entry. Indeed it is a very genuine attempt to ensure that our entry is carried out in a way which does the minimum amount of harm to those institutions, particularly our Parliamentary institutions, which we all cherish. There have been expressions of doubt raised on both sides of the Committee, and in another place, too, as to what the function of Parliament will eventually be when we are part of the Community.
  There is no doubt in my mind that matters can be arranged so that the sovereignty of Parliament is not in any way impaired, but in order to do this we
  920
  must be assured that those Orders and those forms of legislation which we shall have to pass under the terms of the Treaty and under the terms of our accession are discussed in advance, before they become obligatory upon us, so that our representatives, our members of the Council of Ministers—and eventually, one hopes, our members of the European Parliament—will know how both Houses of Parliament feel, and how the people of the country feel, about any of the matters which are proposed.
  This is an Amendment which makes that possible. It will make our entry into the Community more effective, and it will reassure very many people who, while to-day are pro-Europeans, have their doubts about the effectiveness of Parliament when we are members. I add my voice to those of others to urge the Governmet at this stage to accept this Amendment, in the profound belief that it will make our entry far more effective and something very much closer to the real consensus which we all wish to have before we embark on this great adventure.
  LORD STOW HILL: I should like to support this Amendment, which I think is an important one. I do not want to traverse the arguments which have already been advanced, and I think I should like to add what perhaps can be regarded as a slightly new argument, although, indeed, it has been touched on previously. Of course, the proposals will be known to our representatives on the Commission and our representative in the Council. They will be fully aware of them. They, in a sense, in the public mind—and, indeed, in fact—are really part of the Executive, and at the moment there is nothing to ensure that the Executive, as a matter of routine and in every case, makes known to Parliament what is going on. That is the link which I should have thought was missing at the moment in the arrangements.
  At the risk of being tautological, I should just like to say that this is designed to make the actual working of the Community function better. It is designed to prevent the man in the street, the man on the Clapham omnibus, thinking to himself, "There is a great deal going on in Europe which we do not know of" He would know, if

  921
  he interests himself in these matters—and a very large number of citizens will and do—that there is a specific Parliamentary provision which ensures as a matter of absolute regularity that Members of Parliament in both Houses do know what is going on, do know what proposals are being put forward, and do know of them in time to make their influence felt and their views known. I submit that that is of very great importance.
  We were earlier considering proposals that Committees of either or both Houses should be set up to investigate Community legislation, and it was pointed out, I thought with some force, that it was hardly appropriate of a Statute to provide that Parliament should set up Committees, that being, as it were, a spontaneous function of each House, which would normally direct its mind to the circumstances in which it ought to examine things by Committees of its own Members, or by Joint Committees. Those considerations do not quite apply to this. Indeed, I would submit that they do not apply at all. This is a procedure which provides that as a matter of routine, without exception, there should be a mechanism for informing Members of both Houses in time of what is going on in Europe. Otherwise, not only Members of Parliament but perhaps even more so people outside Parliament may get the suspicion that they are not kept informed of what is going on, that there is a great mass of business that is transacted behind their backs. This Amendment, I submit, could stop all that and could insulate the danger of those periodical unfortunate happenings when something goes through, everybody is astonished to find that it has and nobody knew that it was going through.
  Perhaps in due course when the European Assembly becomes much more an active Assembly there may be a lesser need for this safeguard. I submit that it will always be more or less necessary for the citizen to feel that there is a guarantee that his representatives know in time what is going on. Therefore I hope—and I say this with great earnestness—that Ministers will feel that they can, at any rate, assent to this in principle and undertake that they will introduce something in the Bill which will ulti-
  922
  mately become part of the Act of Parliament providing for this automatic bringing to the notice of Members of Parliament proposals which are being made.
  LORD BALOGH: This Amendment merely brings into statutory form the sort of reassurance which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his insulting exuberance, claimed was already in the Bill. He said that the sovereignty of Parliament will be unimpaired and that we should look for a way in which control can be established. Therefore, in advance he gave this particular Amendment his blessing and I hope the Government will accordingly accept it. At the same time I should like to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to look again at the reply he made to my intervention; because he said that in all the countries of the Common Market an identical sort of legislation has been introduced in order to make directly applicable Bills automatically part of the law (or, rather, of the court exercise) in those countries. It is obvious that this is not the case. The Germans have this particular arrangement which, in my opinion, differs materially from the Bill which has been proposed in this country. Unless the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to apologise for saying what was not altogether in accordance with the facts.
  LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: May I raise one other point which inclines me at first sight to have some sympathy with this Amendment? Surely the line of policy which the British Commissioners will take in the Community must be affected not only by the views of Parliament but by the views taken in the Government Departments. It seems to me important not only that the opinion of Parliament should be heard in time but also that Parliament itself should have some opportunity of knowing what is the attitude likely to be taken by Government Departments. I would say that, with respect, whichever Government were in power. I cannot help feeling that this Amendment or something like it might be a useful means of ensuring some interplay, some discussion, between Members of Parliament and Ministers before any

  923
  irrevocable Departmental line was taken in the Community institutions.
  11.20 p.m.
  EARL JELLICOE: I do not believe that in our objectives there is much between the two sides of the Committee on this Amendment. I made clear on Second Reading, and again on the first day of our Committee stage, that it is my belief that the special circumstances of this Bill call urgently for the working out by us all of special measures of Parliamentary scrutiny of Community secondary legislation. This was the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, dealt with so effectively on Second Reading; and on this point I, as I believe do a great majority of your Lordships, find myself in entire agreement with the general tenor of the noble and learned Lord's remarks. The question which this Amendment poses is whether we should seek to write a special provision into the Bill providing in a special way for that scrutiny and control.
  Although the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has moved this Amendment in very acceptable terms and those who have supported it also have spoken in very acceptable terms, although our objectives are on all fours and although I have considered this matter very carefully, I cannot recommend it to the Committee as acceptable and I should like to say why. I believe that the course proposed is unnecessary, that it would have undesirable consequences and, in any event, the Amendment proposed by noble Lords opposite is, in at least two important respects, inappropriate and defective. Although it is getting rather late, because this is an important Amendment on a serious matter and because it has been moved in very acceptable terms, I should like to dwell on it at some length. It is my submission that the procedure is unnecessary since the existing procedures of the Community in this area are open and consultative. They ensure that national interests receive full consideration, and there is no doubt in my mind that Members of Parliament will be well aware in advance of any significant proposed change in Community law from the moment we accede. Community decisions will not therefore come upon us—
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but I
  924
  wish to put just one question. How will Members of Parliament know what is significant unless the Government bring material to Parliament to show us?
  EARL JELLICOE: I will come to that point in a few minutes' time. The Community decisions in this area will not creep up upon us by stealth and with little or no prior warning. I shall seek to explain why and I can do so only by reference to the mode of operation of the Community in this area on these matters at the present time. What happens in practice is that Commission proposals on general policy, before being finally laid before the Council, are thoroughly discussed with representatives of interested groups in the Governments concerned. This is not kept in a sort of closed executive group of the Commission and Council, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was suggesting that it might be. In almost every case the Treaties require that the Assembly or the Economic and Social Committee, or both, must be consulted before Instruments may be made on a wide range of subjects which affect the greater part of the Community's activity. The text of these Instruments is published in draft in the Official Journal of the Communities.
  As the Committee will know, the Assembly consists of delegates selected from national Parliaments by national procedures, so that Parliament is directly represented in cases where the Assembly must be consulted. The Economic and Social Committee, for its part, consists of representatives of a very wide range of interests and noble Lords may be sure that the United Kingdom representatives on that Committee will draw to the attention of Parliament any proposals under discussions which they think would be of interest. Other similar committees which must be consulted on matters relevant to them are the Monetary Committee, the short-term Economic Policy Committee and its Budgetary Committee, all of which have national representatives serving on them. There is therefore no danger that the United Kingdom interests will not be fully represented as draft legislation passes through its various stages, or that there will not be adequate publicity in this country about imminent Community decisions. That is the general reason why I believe that the proposal embodied in this Amendment is

  925
  unnecessary. I hold it to be undersirable, for the same reason as I argued, and as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor argued; namely, because it seeks to import procedural arrangements into this Bill.
  By your vote in Committee last Thursday, your Lordships acknowledged that there was an important distinction between what is appropriate for legislation and what Parliament should regulate as a matter of its own procedure. It is my contention that this Amendment deals with matters which fall squarely into this second category. The regulation of Parliament's own procedures has, in general, always been left to Parliament to settle itself by its own internal decisions on Standing Orders and on Resolutions, and it would not, I suggest, be in the interests of Parliament itself to depart from these accepted arrangements. This was the general contention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor last week, and it was massively endorsed by your Lordships.
  LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Earl, who, if I may say so, is being quite unfair on this point? It was the question of the setting up of Select Committees that the Committee rejected. It was not on the point of informing Parliament. This is a had argument, and it is unfair, because what the Committee rejected was an Amendment for referring it to Select Committees; and indeed in a later Amendment I have already removed the Select Committee proposal. I hope that the noble Earl will not continue to say that this is a procedural argument, because it is not.
  EARL JELLICOE: I believe that this whole thing is all one complex, because the point is to see how effective Parliamentary control can be made to bite on these instruments on their way up to the Council. It must be considered as one package. Moreover, it will be within your Lordships' recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock—and I do not think this is an unfair point—in drawing attention to the extreme desirability of our working out watertight arrangements for Parliament's scrutiny of Community secondary legislation, made it clear that in his view no Amendment was required to this Bill in order to en-
  926
  sure that particular point. Having said that, I should like to make it clear beyond peradventure—and I am weighing my words carefully here—that the Government are very ready, in principle, to make appropriate arrangements to provide Members of both Houses as a matter of absolute regularity, and reinforcing the open procedures which I have already mentioned to your Lordships, with information about draft instruments before the Council, whether they are formally published by the Communities or not. I wish to make it clear that this is a clear declaration of our intent in this matter. But we do require to retain flexibility here. The best arrangements will need to be devised, in the light of the detailed information about the procedures in Brussels and of the wishes of Parliament. That is what we had in mind in proposing as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster proposed on Second Reading in another place, the setting up of a special ad hoc committee to try to devise, with the co-operation of all the Parties, the best possible arrangement for ensuring the most effective scrutiny of Community secondary legislation.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can he say, in amplification of what he has just been saying, that he is quite confident in his own mind that it will be possible to table Questions in either House on these matters?—the experience in another place, whose interests we have to protect, has been that sometimes Questions are blocked on the ground that no Minister is responsible. Are we going to be told: "That Question cannot be asked in another place because no Minister is directly responsible"?
  EARL JELLICOE: I will take note of what my noble friend has said about another place. Not having been in another place, I always refrain from off-the-cult replies. All I can say is that I can see no reason whatsoever why it would not he possible to table Questions, Starred or Unstarred as the case may be, on information made available by the Government to Parliament or made available in other ways I have described in your Lordships' House. I would submit that we should proceded by way of an ad hoc committee, or such other device as commends itself to the Parties, rather than by anything written into Statute which it is not appropriate

  927
  to import into Statute. I have learned with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has accepted, so far as the Select Committee procedure is concerned, that that is the case. That being so, I hope very much that we can go ahead now with the establishment, with the agreement of the Parties, of an effective machinery; working it out together, including typing up the details of provision of information (and effective information) for Parliamentary scrutiny.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to provisions in the German law ratifying the E.E.C. and Euratom Treaties. I do not want to dodge that particular point. The noble Lord claimed that if the Germans had made a provision of this sort there was presumably no reason why we should not be able to do the same. I would suggest that our circumstances now are different from the German circumstances when they ratified many years ago. In the first place, I would say that this provision was incorporated in the German Act of Ratification at the very start of the Community. when none knew how the Community would work in practice. In my introductory remarks I have made it clear that in practice the Community's treatment of secondary legislation of this sort is open and consultative. Secondly, I should like to refer your Lordships to the first sentence of Article 2 of the German Act concerned, which reads as follows:
  "The Federal Government is obliged to keep the Bundestag and the Bundesrat constantly informed about developments within the framework of the Council of the E.E.C. and the Council of Euratom."
  I should like to point out that that is a broad declaration of intent, and one which would have been entirely alien to our Statute law. I have given very categorically a broad declaration of our desire and intent to keep Parliament informed of draft secondary legislation.
  Finally, if noble Lords seek to base their case on precedents, I would with diffidence point out that the precedents are against them in the case of all the other five Members of the existing Community. No special arrangements exist in France for bringing to the National Assembly proposals made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. No
  928
  such special arrangements exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Luxembourg or in Italy, although—and this is significant—Article 127 of the Regulations of the Italian Chamber of Deputies provides for reference of Community proposals to the competent committee of the Chamber for examination as soon as they are published in the Official Journal. If we are to follow Continental precedent here—a precedent which accords with our own traditions—I would suggest that the Italian precedent, namely, leaving this matter to Parliament, is in fact the more appropriate one. I would also submit, in view of the very clear assurance I have given to your Lordships that it is categorically the Government's intention to make appropriate arrangements to provide Parliament with the information it requires about the draft instruments, that this is the way for us to proceed.
  I have sought to argue that this Amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. I should like to state briefly why I also feel it to be inappropriate and, indeed, defective. I feel this for two reasons. In the first place, the Amendment merely requires the text of the proposal to be published before it is adopted by the Community. Such publication could therefore be left to the last moment before a Community decision, when there was no practical opportunity for Parliament's views to be expressed and communicated to our representatives in the Council of Ministers. I am sure that this is what noble Lords opposite do not desire. Secondly, the duty imposed by the Amendment would extend the proposals before the Commission, as well as proposals before the Council of Ministers. But instruments made by the Commission are in general—whether we like it or not this is the way the community works—generated within the Commission itself, and in its management and consultative committees. There is no draft stage at which it would be practicable to lay a concrete proposal for a Commission instrument before Parliament. If noble Lords opposite study Article 2 of the German Statute carefully, they will find it definitely excludes Commission instruments.
  If only for these two reasons, the Amendment is seriously defective as it stands. Certainly in the last respect which I have mentioned it goes far beyond the

  929
  provision in German law to which the noble Lords opposite have referred, and in a way contrary to both Commission theory and practice. But I do not wish, in suggesting that your Lordships should resist this Amendment, to base my arguments on matters of technical defectiveness which could possibly be remedied by re-drafting. I rest my case on the two main grounds to which I have already referred: that the Amendment is unnecessary, and that it is also undesirable. Therefore, in advising your Lordships, if noble Lords opposite decide to press this Amendment to a Division, to vote against it, I would say that while I believe this Amendment to be unacceptable, I have considerable sympathy for the objective; namely, of better Parliamentary scrutiny in this area, which lies behind the thought that has inspired it.
  11.38 p.m.
  LORD GARDINER: Nothing but a sense of duty would lead me to address your Lordships at nearly twenty minutes to twelve on August 7. But if that is the way the Government choose to carry out their legislation we have no alternative. I have not spoken on the Committee proceedings of this Bill before; I have not voted in any Division to-night; I have not spoken on the issue of the European Community in this Session, or in this Parliament. I am not in any way opposed to the Bill. I found the whole question an extremely difficult one because of the many possibilities, the differences in economic estimates, and so forth. Rightly or wrongly, I thought it would be to our advantage, and that of Europe, too, if we entered the Community. I have always envied those who passionately feel with great conviction that we ought to go in on any terms; those who feel with equal conviction that we should not go in on any terms; those who think we should, if the terms are right and these terms are right; those who think we should, if the terms are right, but that these terms are wrong. Believing myself that if we had continued in Office we should not have got any better terms than these, and thinking, rightly or wrongly, that probably we should have accepted them and gone in, in October I voted for the Motion.
  The Amendment which is now proposed is directed to a point made (and I
  930
  think it had been in the mind of many of us) by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, at an earlier stage of the Bill, when he pointed out, first of all, that there would have to be a good deal of delegated legislation by Statutory Instruments. He said that at
  "the stage when the Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament, there is very little that Parliament can do about it in either House. There is no power to amend, and very little real power in the circumstances to reject: because unless the Instrument is replaced, rejection is likely to lead to a breach of our Treaty obligations."
  He pointed out therefore how important it was. He said:
  "What is vitally important and what I would suggest to this House is that the committee's proposal is published when the draft of it is submitted to the Council for its consideration."
  I, too, believe that to be important. We are not here dealing at all with Parliamentary sovereignty. If I may repectfully say so, I thought that a certain amount of what was said on Parliamentary sovereignty was largely playing with words. This is not a question of Parliamentary sovereignty but a question of whether Parliament is to control or whether the Executive is to control. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, it is quite a narrow point. The question is: do we put into the Bill a properly worded provision—this one may not be properly worded—to ensure that Parliament is given the information at a stage when they can retain control, or shall we do what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested; that is, leave it to the Executive? He said that they—the Government, the Ministers—will make provision possibly after having a joint Committee of both Houses. I have felt—
  EARL JELLICOE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I was giving that assurance as a reinforcement to all the existing procedures by which this information would become available and which I explained, the Economic and Social Committee and so on.
  LORD GARDINER: The difference is this: should we put it in the Bill and thus ensure that Parliament has the requisite information, or shall we let the Bill become an Act without there being

  931
  any such control? I have once or twice before referred to this when we had issues before the House which affected Parliamentary control. I have watched this for twenty years, some outside Parliament, some in Government and some in Opposition, and all the time over the last twenty years Parliament has been losing power to the Executive. I do not believe that this is for the good of our country. In giving an example, I shall show that there is no Party issue about it. The Government of which I was a member refrained—I choose my words carefully—from appointing a Committee on the law of privacy until there was a Bill in the other place which might have got a Second Reading. It then did so only on terms that the Committee was not to be allowed to find out, much less make any recommendations about, the personal information about us which is on the computers and files of the Executive although, as the Committee itself pointed out, after taking a survey of public opinion they found public opinion was a good deal more concerned about the personal information on the files and computers of the Government Departments than they were about that in the hands of credit agencies and private offices.
  This continual increase in the powers of the Executive over Parliament is not right. Here Parliament can let this Bill go as it is, in which case no provision has been made in what will then have become an Act to ensure that Parliament has the necessary information before the Government produce, for passing, its Statutory Instrument. The other alternative is the one which is suggested and which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, calls, "leaving it to us to make the appropriate arrangements." It may or may not be after a Select Committee. It is quite true to say, as he did, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, would have been satisfied with this. But that is because he trusts the Executive. I have had a longer experience. And this Government are a particularly dogmatic Government, believing more in confrontation than conciliation. When they have a non-political Bill such as the Criminal Justice Bill, apart from drafting Amendments they do not allow Amendments of any kind to be made at all.
  932
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, "Well, every Government must get their legislation through." Of course that is quite right. I am not opposing this Bill. Nobody was opposing the Criminal Justice Bill. But there is this difference: when there is a Labour Government in power they have to attend very carefully to Amendments—and this is no bad thing—because they know that they cannot get anything through unless the Opposition agree. We have all had timetables and guillotines before, but never, I think, to the extent that has been seen in this Session and in particular in relation to this particular Bill. Therefore, if Parliament wants to retain its own control, this Bill ought not to be allowed to become an Act unless proper provision is made for the publication of the relevant materials, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Diplock, said was essential.
  It may very well he that this Amendment—I rather think so myself—is not properly drafted. Community legislation is very complicated. But I would hope very much that we shall return to this at Report stage of the Bill, by which time I hope that the Government will have given earnest consideration to this point and will seriously have applied themselves to the question. Is not Parliament entitled to insist that the fact that this information should be obtainable at the right time should be written into the Bill and that the Bill should not become an Act while there is no such provision in it?
  LORD DERWENT: I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not want anything he said not to be exact, and I think he made a slip of the tongue. He said that there had been no Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. That is not accurate.
  LORD GARDINER: Yes; an Amendment was accepted from the Government Back Benches; that is quite right. But so far as the Opposition are concerned I think there was only one small drafting Amendment.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: Three: and two are being considered.
  LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think we need to quarrel about how many Amendments were or were not

  933
  accepted. Having over many years in Opposition sought to carry Amendments, I know that a great deal depended on the standing of the Minister who was answering. Tonight we have the two leading Ministers in your Lordships' House present, and I am bound to say—and I shall be very brief now—that I am deeply disappointed not merely at the reception by the noble Earl but by the form of his argument. He rested his opposition on three main principles: first, that this Amendment was defective; secondly, that it was undesirable from a procedural point of view; and thirdly, that it was unnecessary. I freely grant that the Amendment probably is defective and I take the point that the noble Earl made about the article in the German law, although I shall have something to say about his remarks and his interpretation of that law. But I really must reject the argument that it is procedurally improper for Parliament to lay down in an Act of Parliament that certain information should be given to it. I have never heard this argument used in the past. It may have been used in a particular case, but every nationalisation Statute provided for it. The times I have heard Conservative Members of Parliament in another place, very properly, standing up against this natural instinct on the part of the Executive to say, "Leave it to us!".
  I have already conceded a point and have altered a subsequent Amendment, and I accept the noble and learned Lord's powerful argument that it is inappropriate for us in legislation to set up Select Committees. But this Amendment is not concerned with this. It is concerned with giving information to Parliament, and therefore I believe that the procedural argument is not a worthy one to use in this particular context.
  On the defectiveness of the Amendment, if the Government were prepared to accept in principle that some provision of this kind, however confined—whether it is confined to matters that come before the Council; proposals that go from the Commission to the Council—I would certainly withdraw my Amendment, but the fact is that the noble Earl frankly and honestly rested his case on the grounds that this was undesirable and, more especially, unnecessary. He referred in a
  934
  way that I can only regret to one part of the particular article from which he quoted. The noble Earl knows what respect I have for him, but I must say that I frankly regard this as a piece of sophistry—to have taken the first sentence of an article which is appropriate to a different legislature. The important point about the article—and as I have said I will give it to him in German or in English, but the meaning is perfectly clear—is that in regard to any decision of the Council or any immediately applicable law which is created affecting the Federal Republic of Germany, information on this is to be given before the Council take the decision.
  Here I want to strengthen the case I made by stressing the point that many of these decisions, and many of the decisions which the Bundestag and the Bundersrat have had to consider, have frequently been taken in something of a hurry. I have examples here which I can quote from Niblock, and, if I may say so, the argument that it was different in 1957 has not stopped the German Parliament being more and more active in this field. No doubt it has been embarrassing to the German Executive, and perhaps they have been advised by German Ministers to resist this. But the fact is that draft regulations have been made where only three or four days have been available before Parliament has had to come to a view.
  The important thing is that until such time as the European Parliament is working—and I know no one, either pro-Market or anti-Market who regards it as a satisfactory institution at the moment; one of the reasons in favour of our going in is that we may be able to contribute to this, but it is not so at the moment—we have to rely on our own Parliament, not to dictate to the Council or the Commission but to ensure that their own Executive knows what Parliament thinks. I am disappointed that this Amendment is being rejected on the grounds that have been given, and I would urge your Lordships that this is classically a matter for Parliament and one in which the House of Lords can seek to influence a decision, which in no way damages the progress of the Bill. Therefore, despite the lateness of the hour I shall take this to a Division.
  11.54 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
  12.3 a.m.
  EARL JELLICOE: It was our hope that we could perhaps get a little bit deeper into Part I, to Clause 37, but we have been working at this quite a long time today, and this seems to be a strategic hour. I would therefore suggest to noble Lords that we might draw stumps now and if that is agreeable I beg to move that the House now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
  LORD SHACKLETON: The Government majority is slumping to under 100
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 82.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Stow Hill, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Strabolgi. L. [Teller.]

  Boyle of Handsworth, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

  Walston, L.

  de Clifford, L. Gardiner, L.

  St. Just, L.

  White, Bs.

  Gardiner, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Pender, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Eccles, V.

  Perth, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Polwarth, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Poole, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Reay, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Blake, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redmayne, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Greenway, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Brecon, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Maryle- bone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Robbins, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hewlett, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hives, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Hood, V.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Thomas, L.

  Croft, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Latymer, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Limerick, E.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Davidson, V.

  Lothian, M.

  Vivian, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Denham, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbrav and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Northchurch, Bs.

  Young, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  while we are full of energy on this side. I am rather enjoying myself. If the noble Earl feels that we should stop, then I think he is probably wise. I had better not say anything more because he might change his mind.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES AND RECEIVERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RELIEF MEASURES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RELIEF MEASURES
  IMMIGRATION: U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS FROM EAST AFRICA
  IMMIGRATION: U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS FROM EAST AFRICA
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: THE CASE OF MR. SHRIKANT PATEL
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: THE CASE OF MR. SHRIKANT PATEL